IRN: 3844
PRIDENZ URL: https://www.pridenz.com/hansard_homosexual_law_reform_bill_first_reading_8_march_1985.html
TITLE: Homosexual Law Reform Bill - first reading (8 March 1985)
DATE: 8 March 1985
LOCATION: Parliament buildings, 1 Molesworth Street, Wellington, New Zealand.
TEXT: FRAN WILDE (Wellington Central): I move, That leave be given to introduce the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. At the outset, I wish to make it quite clear that the Bill is not a Government or party measure. It is a private member's Bill and, as such, I ask all members to listen to the debate and the issues carefully and to make their decision on the real information. The Bill is designed to eliminate legal sanctions on consenting homosexual activity between adults; to remove the legal sanctions on anal intercourse between consenting adults; to strengthen protection for boys under 16 years along the lines of protection already provided for girls, and to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. The Bill is in the form of an omnibus Bill to facilitate consideration and discussion during the various stages. It is intended to seek the leave of the House to break the Bill up into two component parts for final enactment as a Crimes Amendment Act and a Human Rights Commission Amendment Act. I shall briefly outline the main changes the Bill will bring about. The amendments to the Crimes Act 1961 are found in Part I. Clause 3 repeals section 140 of the principal Act and substitutes two new sections. The present section relates to indecent acts committed upon or with boys under the age of 16 years. The new substituted sections adopt the approach followed in section 133 and section 134 of the principal Act, which involve indecency with a girl under 12 years of age and sexual intercourse or indecency with a girl between the ages of 12 years and 16 years. The main features of the approach are parallel to the provisions and penalties at present provided for those sections dealing with girls. Clause 4 repeals section 141 and substitutes a new section. The present section prohibits indecency between males. The new section follows section 135 of the principal Act relating to indecent assault on a woman or girl of or over the age of 16 years. In line with that provision the maximum penalty for an offence against the proposed new section 141 is raised to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 7 years. Clause 5 repeals section 142, which relates to sodomy, and substitutes a new provision relating to anal intercourse. It is drafted on the assumption that the relevant provisions of the Rape Law Reform Bill, at present before the House, are enacted in broadly their present terms. In that event, non-consensual anal intercourse will constitute the new crime of sexual violation, and will be dealt with accordingly. For that reason the new section 142 is limited to consensual anal intercourse, and only when it is committed upon a person under the age of 16 years or severely subnormal. Clause 6 repeals section 146 of the principal Act, which relates to keeping a place of resort for homosexual acts, and consequentially amends section 147 to make it clear that premises where male or female prostitutes work may be a brothel for the purposes of the section. The amendments to the Human Rights Commission Act are contained in Part II. The amendments will render it unlawful to discriminate against a person on the grounds of that person's sexual orientation in circumstances in which it is at present unlawful to discriminate on grounds of sex. It has been 10 years since the House last had the opportunity to consider a Bill of this nature-a similar Bill was then introduced by the member for Waitotara. There is no doubt that in a decade our community has developed an awareness of the justice of such a Bill. People have steadily moved from a knee-jerk, hysterical opposition to a position of more informed and considered acknowledgment that there is no evidence in favour of the punitive criminal code that deals with the issue of consenting adult sexual activity. There was majority support for homosexual law reform even 5 years ago in a Heylen poll of 2000 people. Those who oppose the Bill advance arguments that, I am sure, are based on a genuine but misinformed concern about the nature of homosexuality and the effect on our community of legalising adult homosexual activity. In the past few days we have heard that homosexuality-in particular, sodomy - is a violation of Christian moral standards. In fact, modern biblical scholarship, with the assistance of the science of linguistics, does not support the long-held theory that the city of Sodom was destroyed as a punishment for sodomy. The Old Testament story was an illustration of the effect of continual violation of rigid hospitality customs, and the homosexual punishment interpretation appears to have gained currency about A. D. 200. Jesus said almost nothing about sexuality in the New Testament, and nothing about an age of consent. A rigid and complicated theology of sensuality that proscribed homosexuality began developing with Paul and proceeded down through the ages, ably assisted by a succession of Christian Roman emperors who were concerned as much with political and financial considerations as with the traditional opposition to Greek culture. It was strengthened during the Inquisition, when professional heresy hunters were employed to extinguish all forms of dissent, including sexual, religious, and political non-conformism, which were very often defined and perceived as the same thing. The treatment of homosexuality by the modern legal systems of most European countries has, until recent years, been largely a relic of that history. Contemporary Christian views are more diverse, and legislatures in many countries have also changed their opinions as a result of evidence gained from modern social and medical research and the more enlightened attitudes that have followed that information. Opponents often argue about the detrimental effect on the institution of the family or on young people should adult male homosexuality be legalised. Those arguments should be examined by the House. All homosexual people, like heterosexual people, are bought up in some kind of family. Most heterosexuals appreciate family life, as do most homosexuals. Homosexuals can and do produce children. Many are married, although not necessarily happily, because of the suppression of such an integral part of their personality. There are many New Zealanders who have a homosexual parent, either male or female. One of the major myths about homosexuality is that gay people are child molesters. All the statistical evidence collected contradicts that myth. Overwhelmingly, those who molest children are heterosexual men, who molest young girls and, less frequently, young boys if they cannot find a girl. They are overwhelmingly heterosexual in their basic sexual orientation. Our laws do not give young girls adequate protection from assault and rape, particularly when it occurs in their own homes, where it most often occurs, and the perpetrator is a relation or a friend. Children are not in more need of protection from adult homosexual man; they need protection from adult heterosexual men, most notably fathers, uncles, relations, and friends of the family. It was only a century ago that the idea of homosexuality and child molestation became intertwined, as they are now, and that was as a result of a change in the law, in which anti-homosexual provisions were slipped into legislation designed to curb the child prostitution that was rife at the time. The fact is that most adult gay men prefer other adults and are attracted to adults, just as most heterosexuals are attracted to other adults. Opponents of the Bill also claim that young people will be corrupted if it is passed. They imply that if young people are exposed to ideas or information about homosexuality, or to social or sexual contact with homosexuals, they will find it so attractive that they will themselves choose homosexuality. There is no evidence to back up that assumption. On the contrary, there is a vast body of research showing that even actual sexual experience in the mid teenage to late teenage years does not play a part in determining sexual orientation. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has publicly stated, and given evidence to the effect, that a person's primary sexual orientation is fixed early in life, and definitely before the age of 16 years. It is commonly accepted that at least one-third of males have some homosexual experience. However, the number in the population whose prime sexual orientation is homosexual remains much lower, whatever the state of the criminal law in any particular country. The same proportion of homosexual and heterosexual people will exist in any population before or after any law change, as has been proved in places that do not have anti-homosexual laws. I believe that protection from sexual exploitation - that is, protection of people of any age or any sex-is not achieved by a law that totally bans male homosexual activity, nor is it achieved by setting varying ages of consent. Homosexual people are to be found in all walks of life-amongst the educated, the uneducated, professionals, manual workers, policy makers, and administrators. I venture to suggest that if all gay people were publicly identified much surprise would be expressed. On learning that that nice Mr Brown, the grocer, or Mr Smith, the doctor, or Mr Jones, who works down at the factory, was gay, many people would be moved to comment: “What a surprise! He seems so normal!" There is another compelling argument for the introduction of the Bill, New Zealand, like other Western countries, is faced with having to deal with the AIDS syndrome. We are relatively lucky because, like most other things, whether desirable or undesirable, it has reached us last. We have had the opportunity to learn from the mistakes of others. AIDS is not, as some have described it, a homosexual disease. It is a sexually transmissible syndrome that can be caught by anyone who received the virus through a body fluid. It is not easy to catch. In some parts of Africa, where it is very common, heterosexual people are the main sufferers. However, in recent years it has entered America and Europe primarily through the homosexual community, and, therefore, it has largely been gay people who have been the victims. Big public education and health campaigns aimed at preventing the spread of AIDS are being organised in places where the gay community can live an open life and associate with other homosexuals without fear of reprisal. In New Zealand we have a problem in that respect. Homosexual acts are illegal. A very large proportion of homosexual men-no one knows exactly how many - are married, living as heterosexuals. Many of those men express their homosexual orientation only occasionally, through casual sexual contacts with strangers. They run the risk of acquiring AIDS and of passing it on to their wives. They are unlikely to come forward to identify themselves for diagnosis until it is too late - and AIDS is most infectious in its early stage or to take the necessary steps recommended for safe sex to prevent the spread of AIDS in the first place. If we are effectively to combat the spread of AIDS in New Zealand, we must remove the criminal label from the prime target group and ensure that those people feel secure enough to participate in a public education programme. The Bill is a serious attempt to reform the law in what I acknowledge can still be a contentious matter. It is a private member's Bill, and, as I have said, every member has a free choice about how to vote. The right to introduce a private member's Bill is a basic right of all members of Parliament as representatives of the people. It has become something of a convention in the House for members to vote for the introduction of such Bills to enable the House to examine the proposals in detail and the select committee to hear the evidence. It has been 10 years since Parliament has had the chance to scrutinise the issue in that way. I know that some members support the principle of homosexual law reform but disagree with me about the age of consent. Others question the Human Rights Commission proposal. I ask them to vote for the introduction of the Bill. They will have the chance at a later stage to move or vote on any amendment they think appropriate, and, of course, to vote on the two parts of the Bill separately. Members should not discard the whole Bill because they do not agree with part of it. The reform is long overdue, and I ask the House to vote to allow the introduction of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. ACTING SPEAKER: The Bill does not involve an appropriation. Hon. JIM MCLAY (Leader of the Opposition): Members of the National Opposition will have a conscience vote on the Bill. For reasons that are well understood, this is not a matter on which there is party policy. There is no party line. The Whips on this side will not be operating, and any member who seeks a division on any aspect of the Bill will therefore have to provide his or her own tellers. With the country reeling from crisis to crisis, many Opposition members would not have given high legislative priority to the Bill at this time. I shall deal briefly with the main issue of the Bill, because I know that many members want to speak on it. I have always said that, had I been in Parliament in 1974-75, I would have supported the Bill introduced then by my colleague the member for Waitotara. That remains my position. It was a cautious Bill. However, if there is to be a change in the law in this area Parliament, acting in the interests of the whole community, has a responsibility to move cautiously. I am particularly concerned at the age of consent provision contained in the measure. While any age limit is inevitably arbitrary, strong evidence in 1974–75 persuaded the majority of the select committee to agree to a higher age - 20. I will not support the third reading of the Bill if the 16-year-old provision remains. As has been my practice as a local member of Parliament, I intend to consult my electorate before exercising a final vote, although I do have previous expressions of opinion from my electorate that provide me with a guide to the attitudes of my constituents. But finally, as must be the position with all members, my vote must be in accordance with my conscience. I am well aware of differing religious points of view on the issue and know that many of the mainstream churches support some change to the law, but probably not as radical a change as that proposed by the member for Wellington Central. I regard the argument that the Bill should be passed to facilitate the treatment of AIDS as utterly fallacious. For millennia history has demonstrated that sexually transmitted diseases will be passed, on regardless of the law. As is the case with all such diseases, including those that result from legal heterosexual activity, many sufferers do not seek treatment, not because the law prohibits their behaviour, but because they fear the embarrassment arising from their predicament. The state of the law has nothing to do with those attitudes. Doctors do not sit in judgment on their patients. They do not report patients to the police because they have contracted a disease that might have resulted from illegal sexual activity. Doctors act in accordance with their ethics and their professional oaths, and they treat and care for their patients regardless of the source of the disease and certainly regardless of the law in that regard. The sponsor of the Bill does it a disservice by advancing that argument. TREVOR DE CLEENE (Palmerston North): I rise to support the member for Wellington Central and to compliment her on her courage in producing this private member's Bill. I speak in favour of its introduction, and echo her strong words that it is a tradition that a private member's Bill be given at least a first reading so that the evidence for and against it can be heard and determined in the rationale of a select committee. I am a member of Parliament, but I was and still am a practising barrister of the High Court. Like most of the males in the Chamber I was brought up under a system that regarded homosexuality with odium and contempt, and my biblical training included the famous Sodom and Gomorrah and Babylon and a great deal of the Old Testament. If we are to get into religious argument I also refer members to Matthew 7. 1: “Judge not, that ye be not judged.' During my career at the bar I have acted in many cases in which people have been tried and convicted and I have had to plead in mitigation of penalty. In making this submission I do not want people to think that I have got so far along the line of life that I condone that behaviour, but gradually, throughout my life, I have become sympathetic towards those people because of their tragedy. I have learnt from my career at the bar not to be judgmental of my fellow human beings in their morals or in other matters. Also, the law teaches a discipline of mind that enables one to look at some things with rationality rather than with emotion. I hope that members will conduct themselves in that way about this matter. I cannot help but feel sympathy for some of the people I have acted for, including the president of a rotary club who gave tremendous service to his club, and the chairman of a county council who locked the scrum in a provincial rugby team and who, when his wife became paralysed from the waist down in a tragic car accident, reverted to what was described in the open court as practices that were forced upon him in a boys' boarding school. Those were the worst cases, because those people interfered with young boys. That is not the position with the Bill. I ask the lawyers in the House to consider the Bill coldly and calmly and say that the law ought to be certain, fair, and equitable between male and female. One of my strongest arguments in supporting the Bill is that it is not an offence for females to perform such consenting acts of intercourse. Why therefore should it be an offence between males? If there is to be true equality, which I am sure is espoused by the women of the House, and many of the men, there must be equality before the bar of justice just as there must be before the bar of conscience. The very Act that made an offence of the homosexual laws we are now trying to reform was brought in only by accident. Late one night, in a Bill to protect young women from prostitution on the streets of London, Labouchère moved, without proper parliamentary scrutiny, an amendment that was thought to be an effort to stop the prostitution of young boys. Only a few members were present and the Bill was passed with that amendment. It did not have the intention - nor was that professed- of making consenting males guilty at the bar of criminal justice. The tragedy was that one of our greatest literary exponents, Oscar Wilde, was one of the first to feel the lash of that law that had not been intended. It was brought into our law in about 1857 when we adopted the English practices, and in 1908 it became enshrined in New Zealand law in the review and legislative enactment of the common law of felony. At that time it covered not just a homosexual act but an act offensive against women as well - and, as the member for Wellington Central has pointed out, the Legislature has already sent a Bill to a select committee, largely in the form in which Opposition members saw it before it went before the Statutes Revision Committee a second time. That will be dealt with when it comes back to the House with much of the nature of the heterosexual offence that was previously in other Bills that came before the House. The Bill being introduced deals with consenting acts between males considered to be of an adult age. Like the Leader of the Opposition I wish to reserve my view on the question of age, although, in logic, I am bound to say again that if 16 is the consenting age for heterosexual intercourse for women I must be in favour of my own sex and say that at 16 years of age we are no less mature than the females of this world in exercising judgment. My present disposition is that in logic and reason the age of 16 is the proper age, offensive though it must be to many members. I reserve that view to be dispelled upon evidence before the select committee if the overwhelming nature of such evidence is that there had to be a compromise on a later age. The Wolfenden report in Britain was not a result of anti-establishment forces or of people of licentious behaviour, but of a movement largely by the church leaders, who thought that, in the interpretation of the law of God, judgmental attitudes were not something the New Testament desired or that they were prepared to practise. It was the bishops who finally got the Wolfenden report before the British Parliament, and the law--not under a Conservative Government but under a vote of conscience-finally relaxed the criminal Acts that were then in vogue. In the old days it was even a capital offence for which one was burnt at the stake. I see the member for Invercargill scratching his head, and well he might, because we all burn in hell eventually, no matter what our judgment is. Homosexuality is no longer an offence in England, Denmark, or many of the states in the United States. The Chamber in which we are at present debating once took pride in the fact that it instituted laws that were followed all around the world. That happened with the vote for women and with much of our social welfare legislation. However, historically it has always lagged behind the mores of the community when it has come to the boldness of attacking this matter of conscience. I know that many men fear that if they say they believe the law should be remedied their constituents will automatically say, “He is one of those.” I have already warned my wife lest my telephone begin to ring, as I know it did when the member for Waitotara, in his courageous fashion, suffered at the bar of public opinion when he moved the same Bill 10 years ago. I ask all members to have the courage of reason, rationale, and conviction when they consider how they can support a criminal law that makes it an offence for a male but not for a female. I do not want to take up much more of the time of the House, because, I can see the member for Invercargill, Mr " Normal” Jones, champing at the bit. However, if this matter is to go before a select committee the evidence from people on both sides must be bold and fearless. I am sure that the matter will go before a select committee. I believe the member for Wellington Central has a majority on the Bill's introduction. I exhort people from all walks of life to come fearlessly before the committee to hear the evidence and make their decisions in the best rational, legal, and unemotional manner. The matter should not be clouded by emotion. NORMAN JONES (Invercargill): The member for Palmerston North was not being funny when he said that Mr “Normal” Jones was champing at the bit. When I look around the Chamber I begin to wonder whether I am normal or abnormal, because I am not " with it" with most members on some issues, and this is one of them. I do not go along with the attitude of the new vogue and subculture about being gay. To call people who are homosexuals " gay" would be the worst travesty of a decent word that was ever bastardised. It used to mean something significant. Now it connotes homosexuality. I am a perfectly normal person from a family of eight kids, and I have six of my own. The Bill is about abnormal sex between males. It is about sodomy. I will not quote the scriptures as the member for Wellington Central and the member for Palmerston North did. I am just a poor Presbyterian who goes to church only about once every 2 years. My wife is an elder in the church. I do not care about those things. I am not an atheist. All I know is that if the good Lord wanted us to procreate the race through the rear he would have put the womb down there. We are not animals. It is a moral issue for most people of this country. I have a list from the member for Wellington Central, who supplied it to the homosexual lobby; which shows where Opposition members stand. (Interruption.) Well, they have a copy of that list, and they did not get it from me. It categorises the views of all members of Parliament on the Bill. The Leader of the Opposition referred to this sickening matter. We know that private members' Bills cannot be introduced unless there is a consensus among the respective caucuses that they appear on the Order Paper. At a time when the country is facing crisis after crisis involving matters of grave concern such as defence, security, and God knows what else, the Labour caucus is preoccupied An Hon. Member: Hey! NORMAN JONES: Well, a good many of its members, and some of my own caucus, are agonising over whether homosexuality should be legalised. That is a moral issue. I am not quoting the scriptures. I have received dozens of telegrams of support, but none from church leaders. Where are all those church leaders who were so quick to jump on the nuclear issue as a moral issue? They spoke about it as a moral issue; I want to see those same church leaders speak up on this moral issue. It is all right to talk about a nuclear free New Zealand, but let them come out and say, " Give us an AIDS free New Zealand." We want an AIDS free New Zealand, The member for Palmerston North said that AIDS was no problem in countries where homosexuality had been legalised. The AIDS disease has sprung from communities in San Francisco and other such places. A vote to legalise homosexuality at 16 years of age would be a vote to legalise the spread of AIDS throughout New Zealand, I have no doubt about that. I do not believe the spurious argument put up by the proposer of the Bill that the Bill will help to contain the disease, and neither does anybody else. These people will come out into the open. They are in the open in gay communities now. It is sickening. Homosexuality will not stop at the age of 16 but will spread to 10-year-olds and 12-yearolds. I taught in schools for 27 years. I have seen it in the lower forms, and people practising it with kids. There has been case after case. Any country headmaster knows. Kids at my school were interfered with. It is anathema. I am afraid that there are enough members in Parliament, according to the list I have, to put the Bill through in keeping with the tradition that a private member's Bill ought to go to a select committee. I am no moraliser. We interfere through film censorship and censorship of literature. I do not go along with members of Parliament who say, “We'll give it a go. Let the public dissent.” Some members of Parliament will turn round like Pontius Pilate and wash their hands of it. They will say that it is not for M. P. s to interfere in what goes on in the bedroom. It is not going on in the bedroom but in the schools, in the streets, and in the community. It is spreading a disease to which there is no answer. I do not go along with those parliamentarians who say they will wash their hands of the matter. I believe that it is the duty of Parliament to make laws and set standards. This is one such opportunity. I intend to vote against the Bill, because all the euphemistic talk and rubbish will not stop the spread of homosexuality. The only thing that will stop the spread of homosexuality will be the view of most members of the public that it is anathema, and they will express their concern about it to the select committee. Somewhere along the line Parliament will have to face up to whether it will legalise homosexuality. All I can say in mitigation of anything in the Bill is that we are all concerned. People talk about sexual orientation in the community, and we know that these acts take place, but legalising the practice for people of any age - be it 16, 20, or whatever - will bring it into the open and make it so acceptable that it will be apparent everywhere. It is difficult enough now in schools and in homes to try to teach children standards. It can be done only by example. Parents look to the House and to the legislators not to wash their hands of the matter. I know it is a moral issue and a conscience issue. I ask everybody to search their consciences. They can do it. There are a number of issues on which we must search our consciences. We must ask what is best for the country, I do not have to quote the scriptures or to moralise; I have a gut feeling that homosexuality is wrong for the human race. Sodomy and homosexuality are moral issues. Way-out sexual orientation, in spite of the spurious talk about human rights and the quoting of Christian scriptures, and similar rubbish, is anathema to most human beings. Civilisations that have allowed it - the Greeks, the Romans, and others - have gone down the tube, and they have done so because of this so-called need to keep up with the subculture. People must stand up and be counted one way or the other on this issue. There is no halfway house. People are either for or against it. The logic can be argued intellectually; that is not valid for me. This is a bigger moral issue. If the Bill is passed it is likely that more New Zealanders will die of AIDS in the next 10 years than would die of a nuclear explosion. I am as sure of that as I am sure of anything. ACTING SPEAKER: I draw to the attention of those people occupying the public gallery that they are not part of the debate that is taking place. Although they may feel strongly and wish to register the strength of their feelings one way or the other, they must restrain themselves from doing so. EDWARD ISBEY (Papatoetoe): I disagree entirely that this is the greatest moral issue of our time. To me the greatest immoralities and obscenities are nuclear weapons and those who favour them. On the morality of recognising that homosexuality is practised, and the attitude of Parliament to it, I support the Bill that has been introduced by my colleague the member for Wellington Central. I do so fully conscious that we are debating behaviour that is considered by most people to be undesirable but perfectly understandable. We know also that there are heterosexual aspects of human activity that are considered undesirable by many people, although they are considered to be quite acceptable by the manuals. People would be out of their minds to try to have that behaviour regarded as criminal activity. My speech will not be long. I believe that the House must have progressed, in that in 1985 it is able to consider whether it will still hound - with the police, the courts, the prison cells, the public shame, and everything else that goes with the law as it stands today-people who have a different sexual orientation; or will it progress to the viewpoint once stated by Pierre Trudeau in the same context - that politics should be kept outside the bedrooms of nations? A heterosexual relationship that is based on one human being relating in a warm human way to another human being is generally applauded. The point of the issue is one of relating. In a homosexual relationship between parties over the age of consent it is also possible for one human being to relate in a warm human way to another human being. Should that be considered a criminal activity? That is the crux of the argument and of the Bill. What the Bill endeavours to do - and I support it - is stop that from being a crime. Murder, rape, burglary, and the peddling of drugs are accepted as crimes, but should a human relationship between people over a certain age be considered to be a form of outrageous criminal activity? People of our age and period should think about that matter, and consider whether it should be a form of criminal activity. What human torment has been experienced in many homes throughout the nation because of this issue? What torture has been suffered on this issue by many people in all walks of life? Will the House perpetuate that human torment, or will members take an attitude of human compassion and understanding about what is possibly a different form of sexual orientation from their own? My view is that New Zealand has come of age on this matter. I totally support my colleague, with a sense of fairness, justice, and human compassion for my fellow human beings. I do not want to hound people; I do not want to use the thumbscrew, the rack, and the whip on people who have a form of human relationship that in no way damages my person or my property. I believe that is what the law is about, and I think the law must change. We must decide on an age of consent and allow people to have a form of human relationship that is acceptable to themselves, that is in many ways understandable, and that in no way hurts other people. I support the Bill. Hon. VENN YOUNG (Waitotara): It is 11 years since the Crimes Amendment Bill was introduced to the House and referred to a select committee. The committee sat for almost 1 year before the Bill was reported back. It was again considered in the House, and defeated at that stage. It is appropriate that the House should again consider the vexed question of how far the law is required to intervene in the private morality of adults in our society. There is always great difficulty in deciding between the role of the criminal law and the determinations that result from the moral codes that develop in our community. As she handles the Bill the member for Wellington Central will be exposed to having to argue her proposal. The law, or any changes to it, do not make a great deal of difference to the amount of homosexual behaviour in New Zealand. Whatever the law might be, there will always be a strong social attitude in opposition to homosexual behaviour: that is the burden and the lot of the homosexual in society, and the law cannot change it. Throughout our nation's history there has been a strong tradition that the law shall not punish simply because behaviour offends a moral that is accepted by society. Conduct that warrants punishment should be conduct that is harmful to individuals, that offends their liberty, or that makes people in our community-particularly the young-vulnerable. The law must intervene firmly when those conditions apply. Therefore, I am concerned about the 16-year-old age of consent in the Bill. When it considered the matter about 10 years ago Parliament determined that the age of consent should be 20, and I expect many submissions will be made to the select committee on that aspect of the legislation. Parliament cannot be asked to pass judgment on the rights or wrongs of sexual behaviour between consenting adults in private. We are being asked to consider whether a criminal sanction is an inappropriate way to deal with the matter in this day and age. When the Bill returns from the select committee it will be different. Time will tell whether that is so. However, we must recognise that the problem has been considered by Parliaments around the world. In most Western nations the law has been changed in line with the measures contained in the 1974 Crimes Amendment Bill, The Bill goes much further than its predecessor. I echo the words of the Leader of the Opposition: if we proceed with a change in the law on this matter we should proceed with caution. It is appropriate that Parliament should again consider the measure. If the Bill is introduced and referred to a select committee, upon its return to the House members can decide whether it is in an acceptable form to meet our responsibilities towards the criminal law. In particular, we can then determine whether it meets our responsibility as legislators towards the rights of individuals and the protection of the young and vulnerable. GEOFF BRAYBROOKE (Napier): I opposed the introduction of the Bill, which seeks to legalise sodomy and indecent acts between males 16 years and over. I acknowledge the strong compassionate feelings of the member for Wellington Central. Notwithstanding that, I view homosexual activities as unnatural and perverted acts. Changing the law to legalise those acts will not make them natural. The Bill seeks to cloak homosexual activities with respectability. I have a grave fear that, if it becomes known that adults view homosexual acts as normal, young and immature people will tend to be influenced. Indulgence in homosexual activity is a threat to society and to family life, and in my view it should not be encouraged in any way. I do not shun homosexuals as people. They need both medical and psychological treatment: they do not need a change in the law. I am convinced that most New Zealanders want a decent society that is based on sound experience, tolerance, and Christian principles. Unfortunately, the Bill fails to meet those criteria. The House has a responsibility to protect and promote family life. I am concerned that if the Bill succeeds the next step by the militant gay rights movement will be to press for an acknowledgment of so-called “gay” marriages between consenting adults, and following from that, the adoption of children. That has happened overseas, and I find it absolutely repugnant. Like other members, I have been lobbied by gay rights homosexuals. They have attempted to present a bold and sometimes defiant front. In spite of their endeavours to create an atmosphere of happy comradeship, I strongly suspect that that is not the reality. I am convinced that if members are perfectly honest with themselves they know in their heart of hearts that the actions of homosexuals are both evil and perverted. I acknowledge that the militants in the gay rights movement are a minority. However, this morning my wife and daughter have been subjected to insulting, abusive, and threatening telephone calls, which I find repugnant. I am also concerned about what will happen in the armed forces if the Bill becomes law. I spent 10 years in the armed forces and I know that the actions of homosexuals cause grave crises in attempts to maintain discipline. We are opening a Pandora's box with the Bill. We are attempting to apply what I call academic debating logic to a moral issue; some people are pressing that kind of view on the introduction of the Bill. Setting the age at 16 is merely using a sprat to catch a mackerel. I learnt many years ago that if I really wanted something I should ask for double and accept half. I do not condone consenting acts of sodomy between consenting adults at any age. Although I sympathise with their medical problem, I will not condone their perversion and sodomy. I give notice that, should the House decide in its wisdom and against my better judgment to enact the Bill, when the rules of the House permit it I shall introduce a private member's Bill to facilitate a referendum throughout the nation, because the condoning of homosexuality affects every citizen. It affects the very basis of a Christian nation, which New Zealand purports to be. I oppose the Bill, and urge all decent members to oppose it. GRAEME LEE (Hauraki): The Bill is repugnant. It offends against God and man, and should not be introduced to the House. I do not condemn the homosexual person. There are people in the homosexual community whom I count as genuine friends; I have counselled such people with weaknesses and strengths just like any of us. I condemn homosexual behaviour, not the person. There is a big difference. Some speeches, in what I would class as debating phraseology, have referred to compassion. The House is concerned about people, and my contribution to the debate does not ignore that. The Bill seeks to change the existing law on what is classed in section 141 of the Crimes Act 1961 as an indecency between males. We are asked today to agree as legislators that what is now called an indecency should be called a decent act; what is now defined in the law as an abnormality is to become normal. The dictionary defines indecency as an offensive standard of sexual behaviour and an abnormal means of obtaining sexual satisfaction. I believe therefore that age has no real relevance to the debate. The basis of the matter is whether we are to agree that behaviour that is classed as indecent has suddenly become decent. Several speakers have commented that the Bill would not help to spread the homosexual community. There has been no scientific evidence over a long period to suggest that homosexuals are born. There is no such genetic, hormonal, or biological evidence. Indeed, considerable weighty evidence shows that homosexuality is a learnt behaviour. The promoter of the Bill is asking the House to accept her arguments as adequate for a change of law. Apart from the absurd inadequacy of her argument, surely we should not be moved as legislators on such an important issue until we are overwhelmingly convinced that it is the right thing to do. Argument should not just stand up to scrutiny or be an argument of the day-I think “a coming of age” were the words used-but we should move in the context of this important issue only when there is overwhelming evidence. That evidence is just not present. The argument about AIDS being overcome or ostensibly controlled by the measure is totally fallacious. We need only consider California and other states where such a law has been introduced to find that AIDS has increased commensurately with the explosion of homosexuality resulting from decriminalisation. In California 8132 people suffer from that dread, evil scourge, and we are all deeply concerned about that terrible disease that destroys the leucocytes in the body and makes even a common cold fatal. The fact that it has exploded in California, and that about 500 women are now infected, should be a point to ponder. Throughout the world, AIDS has not been controlled after decriminalisation, but quite the reverse has happened. I shall refer to the point made by the promoter of the Bill in terms of removing the relevance of religious teaching in the matter, and referring to the words of the Lord Jesus to say that He did not directly condemn homosexuality. The member was right in that context, but she must accept that the whole canon of the Scriptures - both the Old Testament and the New Testament are very explicit-is about the abomination of such behaviour. The New Testament states clearly in many passages that those people without natural affection have no place in the standards set by God, If we believe that that is irrelevant to the present age in which he we legislate, let us consider that we subscribe to the Westminster system, which is founded on the Judaeo-Christian ethic. If we want to be consistent in anything we must say that the ethic governs the House, and therefore we must recognise the biblical teaching on the matter now before the House. I have received letters asking how I can speak on the issue when I hold strong religious beliefs. It would be absurd not to do so. The question is, what do New Zealanders want? There is no evidence that the public wants a change of law. Who can stand up here and say that the public wants the law changed? I raised the issue with the news media in the middle of last week because I sensed that the Bill might be introduced as quickly as it has been. Why was it brought in with such rapidity? Why was it not possible for the public to have the chance to say something? Had the public been afforded that chance I do not believe there would have been a response other than to confirm that there is no reason for a change. Only 4 percent or 5 percent some claim 10 percent-of the population is within the homosexual community. I have received scores of telegrams stating that people want the House to stay firm on the issue. I am concerned about where the Bill will lead to. I do not know whether I understand fully the context of the Bill as it relates to the matter of a brothel, but I do understand the extreme moral laxity it seeks to proliferate. Whether they are introduced by a member of the Government or by the Government as a whole, moral matters seem to be increasingly occupying the Legislature these days. Consider how many other Acts with strong humanist overtones have been passed in recent times. When will a move be made to the next lower moral benchmark? JOHN BANKS: Abortion on demand. GRAEME LEE: It could be that, and I expect that move could come from a Government member. ACTING SPEAKER (TREVOR YOUNG): Order! Although it is a free debate, members are still restricted by the Standing Orders. The Bill relates only to homosexuality and I will not allow any member to throw accusations across the floor about some other member introducing a Bill on another moral issue. GRAEME LEE: I am sorry, but I feel angry about the matter. In conclusion, I shall consider the scenario as it affects families and homes. How can members be party to the passing of the Bill and believe any longer that the family unit is a fundamental cornerstone of society? It is a mockery and a lie. What about the families of those members here today who are parents of teenagers? Are they satisfied with the knowledge that their son, at the age of 16 years, could be approached and recruited by the homosexual community? Is that what members want? Can they say that they can face up to that and be comfortable with it? Are they satisfied that increasing influence-proved overseas, particularly in California, will not occur in the classroom? Are parents happy about that? The answer can only be in the negative. GERRY WALL (Porirua): It is difficult, on a subject so highly charged as sexual relations, to achieve a logical approach. Parliament will serve the country best if it attempts to do some hard thinking about the Bill. Little has been done in the past 20 years, and almost nothing in the past 10 years, to consider why people who have been involved in homosexual acts are put into jail amongst their own sex, and held there in an environment in which homosexuality is one of the greatest problems. There has been homosexual activity in prisons for as long as prisons have existed. The logic of trying to stamp out a particular kind of behaviour by putting people in an environment in which they are most prone to be involved in that behaviour absolutely defeats me. For that reason I strongly support the introduction of the Bill. I cannot go along with the supposition which is not biologically or socially well based - that there should be an equality of chronological age between males and females in connection with judging whether they are emotionally secure enough, and old enough, to make a free, adult decision about their sexual acts. Everyone who has brought up a family of mixed sex has been taught by the children themselves that chronological age is almost as irrelevant in the development of the security and maturity of those children as is their height. By and large, boys tend to be about 2 years to 3 years slower than girls in achieving such maturity in their teens. I am at a total loss to understand the logic of placing the cut-off point at a simple chronological level for both sexes. That does not face reality, any more than does the decision to put people in jail for homosexual acts. Both attitudes are illogical. The House should be concerned about the provision in the Bill for the Human Rights Act to be invoked to prevent discrimination on the grounds of a person's homosexuality. No doubt the subject will be explored at length in the Committee stage and at the second reading, and quite rightly so. The implications of that are of more social concern than the other two implications in the Bill. In the present environment it is impossible to divorce consideration of the Bill from the great public concern that we in the House share about the spread of the disease, AIDS. Optimistic noises have been made from medical administrative circles about steps being taken to control the disorder. The more informed the people whom I have consulted have been, the less they confirm that optimism. A programme to help control AIDS has been announced and instituted in the community most likely to be affected, but the simplicity of that programme has not been made public. I understand that it is a three-pronged programme. The points should be well considered by members. The first and most effective method of control is to abolish or restrict promiscuity amongst homosexuals. That is the main thrust and, were that achievable, the threat of AIDS would be greatly diminished. Second, if that result is unachievable, the use of a sheath is recommended to act as a physical barrier to prevent the transference of infected cells. The third approach is towards the other large group at risk - those illegally and improperly using drugs injected intravenously. It is agreed that all of those groups are notoriously resistant to advice and guidance from those whom they see as outside their peer group and as appearing to be preaching at them. The prospect of control appears to be remote at present. The authorities are hoping--and their belief can be no stronger than that - that with the passage of the Bill and the decriminalisation of the act more people will make themselves available for counselling. It is the only hope felt, and I doubt if overseas experience bears it out. The prospect of the development of a cure or a prophylactic vaccine to AIDS seems remote at present. One cannot say in any field of medical endeavour-and particularly in this abstruse scientific field - that a breakthrough will occur. It is one of the wide group of retroviruses that, because of the very nature of the virus and its infestation in the body, makes this technically difficult, so that an early positive result is not to be expected with the present state of knowledge. It is with that background that we are considering the measure. It does not make it easier, it makes the prospect of a strictly logical approach more difficult than it would otherwise be on this most contentious matter. I support the introduction of the Bill. I hope the House will examine it carefully at all stages, because while some of the matters in it are undoubtedly an improvement on our present laws, others are fraught with great dangers. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON (Papakura): I listened to the member for Porirua with great interest because I respect his views on these matters and others associated with it. However, on this occasion I cannot agree with his proposition that the Bill be introduced. Many of the reasons why some of us oppose the measure have been well canvassed, and, in some instances, eloquently so. An elected assembly of this kind needs to ask of such a measure what good it will do, how the community will benefit, and how the well-being and good of the community will be enhanced. I agree with some earlier speakers who noted that there is no recent compelling, novel, or dramatic evidence to suggest that the customs, norms, and conventions that have served us so well for so long in this and other areas should be changed. It is common and natural to allude to the experiences in other countries. However, this is New Zealand; we are New Zealanders, and I believe that we should trust our own judgment in these matters. The second point, and it is an obvious one, is that, because there is a free vote on such an issue, a member's own attitude bears heavily on his or her reaction. My opinion on the matter is largely governed by my having served for many years as a secondary school teacher. Indeed, at the age of 12 I went to a boarding school, at which I remained for 5 years, and, as the House knows, I served as Minister of Education for nearly 6 years. I say to the member for Wellington Central, who has introduced the Bill, that I believe - as a result of my experience and knowledge through a close association with the teaching and training of young people for a long time - that the Bill she has brought to the House this morning would bring untold misery, dissatisfaction, dissension, and discord into the schools, particularly the secondary schools. I come back to where I started: given all that, what good does it do? How is the climate of the nation enhanced, and how are the training platforms of our young people bettered by this sort of proposition? Finally - and I ask the member for Wellington Central to bear this in mind I believe that the member for Invercargill was right when he said that the people outside this assembly would be surprised that, at a time of difficulty for New Zealand in so many ways, we are devoting attention to this matter at this time of the year. I also throw into the debate, with no animosity intended, that the author of the Bill - and I take the word of her colleagues that her motives are genuine-is, nevertheless, a Government Whip. Is this an attempt to divert Parliament and the country from the weighty measures that are and should be properly before it at this time? Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I raise a point of order, sir. I make it clear that the Bill is not a Government measure. It is a private member's Bill, and the Government caucus was notified of it as a matter of courtesy. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: Speaking to the point of order, I did not suggest that it was a Government measure. I have been in the House long enough to understand what is a private member's Bill and what is not. I just said, and I repeat, that I throw into the discussion that the measure is being introduced by a Government Whip. ACTING SPEAKER (TREVOR YOUNG): There is nothing for me to rule on. A question was asked, and it has been adequately answered. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: Thank you, sir. In conclusion, I believe that two questions need to be asked on an issue of this kind: is it essential, is it desirable, or is it neither; or, is it right, or is it wrong? The measure is neither essential nor desirable, and it is certainly not right. HELEN CLARK (Mt Albert): I begin by commending the member for Wellington Central for her courage in bringing the measure forward. It is always easier not to take a position on issues of this kind, and it is always easier to leave this matter firmly swept under the carpet. It is easier to ignore the very real human rights issue involved in denying a minority of the population its civil rights. It is to the credit of the member for Wellington Central that she has not ducked the issue, but has been prepared to stand up for the human and civil rights of a minority of the people of this country. I consider the Bill to be very much a human rights issue. The one question it poses to us as members is whether consenting adult males should be regarded as criminals in the eyes of the law because of their sexual preferences and practices. The Bill challenges us to put aside our prejudices and predispositions, and appeals to the rational side of each of us for some tolerance and acceptance of the sexual orientation and practices of others. I take the view that what consenting adults do in private is none of my business, and it is not the business of the law of the land. Accordingly, I support the introduction of the Bill. I agree with the member for Wellington Central, who said that basic social justice demands that we now pass the Bill. It is unjust and unjustifiable to continue to oppress a large section of the population because of their sexual preferences. When considering whether or not to decriminalise we should bear in mind that among Western countries with which we generally compare ourselves New Zealand and Ireland share the rather dubious distinction of being the only countries to apply blanket criminal sanctions to homosexuality. A book called The World Human Rights Guide gives New Zealand the top rating of any country in the world on human rights issues. Together with Denmark and Finland we score 96 percent in terms of compliance with generally recognised human rights matters. The only blot that the authors of that guide could find on New Zealand's human rights record was its denial of civil rights to male homosexuals. New Zealand could be proud of having a human rights record close to 100 percent if the Bill were passed. A reading of the Bill shows that it does not promote homosexuality but removes the criminal sanctions against it. It removes criminal sanctions on homosexual contact between consenting adults. The Bill ensures that the same protection from homosexual activity will be given to adolescent men and boys as is given to adolescent women and girls from heterosexual activity. Sexual assault on a 12-year-old, whether a boy or a girl, will attract a term of imprisonment of up to 10 years. Sexual assaults on a boy-as against a girl elsewhere in the law-aged between 12 years and 16 years will attract a term of imprisonment of up to 7 years. In my view that constitutes adequate legal protection for male and female children and adolescents from predatory adults-and, unfortunately, they are about. Practical protection from predatory adults depends on greater public awareness of the problem of sexual abuse. An unfortunate myth is sometimes propounded that homosexuality and child molestation are connected. Research evidence suggests that it is overwhelmingly adult heterosexuals who offend in child molestation. It is no argument against the Bill to link child molestation to homosexuality. That is an unfair link. The Bill provides for equality in other areas. Men who indecently assault other men will be treated with the same severity as men who indecently assault women, and such an offence will be punishable with a term of up to 7 years' imprisonment. The offence of keeping a brothel for either male or female prostitution will be treated with equal severity. Some unfortunate myths are propounded in the community that may have prevented some people from rationally considering the decriminalisation of homosexuality. One myth is that homosexuality is an abnormal practice. Nothing could be further from the truth. Homosexuality is part of the normal range of human sexual responses, as Kinsey's research in the United States 40 years ago bears out. I remind members that that research found that 37 percent of white males have some overt homosexual experience between the ages of 16 years and 55 years; 25 percent have more than incidental homosexual experience for at least 3 years during that age-span; 18 percent have at least as much homosexual experience as heterosexual experience for at least 3 years of their lives; 13 percent have more homosexual than heterosexual experience for at least 3 years; 10 percent are more or less exclusively homosexual for at least 3 years; 8 percent are exclusively homosexual for at least 3 years between the ages of 16 years and 55 years; and 4 percent are exclusively homosexual throughout their lives after adolescence. I find nothing threatening about those findings or about the incidence of homosexuality in the community. I believe that research shows that there has been widespread homosexual practice for many years in the international community, and there always has been, which is evidence of its normality as one of a range of human experiences. In the end, exclusive homosexual preference is a minority taste, but that is not a reason for the minority who prefer that taste to be persecuted. Our society, and others that suppress homosexual expression, do great psychological damage to those individual human beings who are orientated to homosexuality. One can imagine the trauma inflicted on people who are told throughout their lives that their behaviour is disgusting and filthy. It is important that we remove that stigma. Another myth is that homosexuality equates with promiscuity. A law such as ours tends to promote promiscuity. Our law works against the formation of stable relationships, because stable homosexual relationships attract more attention from snooping neighbours who might alert the authorities. It is hoped that, with decriminalisation, homosexuals will be able to form stable relationships with the sanction of the law. One does not promote homosexuality in saying that, but recognises that it exists in the community, and that it should not be an unlawful activity. The Bill calls for a conscience vote. It is not a Government Bill. Individual members must make up their minds on how to vote without direction from their Whips. I ask all members to think carefully before exercising their consciences, because the human and civil rights of other people are in their hands. Are members prepared to allow their consciences to stand in the way of human rights fulfilment for others? I ask those whose initial predisposition is not to support the Bill to allow it to be introduced so that the evidence can be considered at a later stage. PAUL EAST (Rotorua): Many parliamentary observers would consider that the best debates that take place in the House are those that concern difficult conscience issues. Although I disagree with many of the members who have spoken, I would not question their sincerity or compassion. It is difficult for members to try to resolve these problems when we do not have the comfort of our caucuses. We have to grapple with our own consciences before finally deciding how we will vote. I disagree with the member for Mount Albert, because I believe that homosexual behaviour is unnatural, that it is something most of us find abhorrent, and that it should in no way be encouraged. If it is made lawful there is a risk that it will be more visible and more open, and perhaps younger people will accept it as a normal way of life. That should not happen. On the other hand, little is achieved by persecuting those who have taken up the homosexual way of life, particularly if they pursue it privately without offending the moral standards of most people. As a practising lawyer, I share the thoughts of the member for Palmerston North. I have also seen something of the agony caused by our existing legislation. Given that position, I will vote for the introduction of the Bill. I do so with considerable reluctance, because it has many defects. I must say that I am unlikely to support it in its present form beyond the first reading. I believe that those sentiments are shared by many of my colleagues with whom I have discussed the matter informally, and who will also be voting for the first reading. It is a serious matter that Parliament should study. It is a serious matter that a select committee should investigate, hear evidence upon, and then report back to the House upon. I wish to make my position clear, although I will vote for its first reading, I will not support the Bill in its present form beyond that. I cannot countenance the legislation of homosexuality for those under the age of 20 years. We all know that teenagers are impressionable; they pass through a period of emotional transition. I believe the age limit in the Bill should be 20. Similarly, I am concerned about the human rights amendments, because that part of the Bill attempts to establish the idea that a homosexual life-style is no different from a heterosexual one. At that point I depart from the thinking of the author of the Bill. The argument about AIDS that has been put forward by the proponents of the Bill is specious. No doctor or any authority would discourage a homosexual person from seeking help. I do not believe that the present law can be shown to have discouraged homosexuals who believe they may suffer from AIDS from seeking such assistance. I repeat-while I will vote for the first reading there is much that I oppose. I believe I speak for many members who will vote for the first reading but who hold similar reservations. ALLAN WALLBANK (Gisborne): My words are few and my message is abundantly clear. I have a deep and sincere belief that what is written in the Bible is the right and proper way to conduct and discipline one's life, irrespective of whether or not one has religious inclinations. Christian teaching is explicit on the matter of sodomy and personal behaviour. Verse 16 of the general epistle of Jude in the New Testament states, on false teachers: " These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.” Homosexuality is not only an unnatural act but also a very dangerous one. With the epidemic spread of AIDS almost upon us, I will not be responsible for passing legislation that will place my fellow New Zealanders at greater risk to this deadly disease. The people of Gisborne did not elect me to this office to be irresponsible. What I believe to be important right now are the fundamental concerns of our people - the right to a home, a job, and a decent standard of living. Those are our priorities. I will not vote for the Bill. NEIL MORRISON (Pakuranga): As several other members want to speak, I shall be brief. Very few members could have come from the kind of closeted, fervent Christian environment that I come from. However, many Christians would now consider me to be a total backslider, probably not without foundation. I have been able to consider the Bill from many angles. I have many homosexual friends whom I hold in the highest esteem. I seek no retribution or repression for anybody who has a different preference. People will always be different. I do not seek to put any people in a position that compromises their civil rights. It is a complicated matter. The first question I must ask is whether it is the purpose of the House to be concerned with the nation's morals. The answer must be yes. Parliament does not allow me to go home and have intercourse with my daughter, for the very good reason that the product of that connection would be a mutation. It is the job of the House to consider the morals of the nation when it comes to censorship. The House is concerned with morals, moral standards, and moral guidelines. The next question is whether I represent my electorate. I have been asked whether I have carried out a referendum in my electorate. It is hardly my fault that we have the crudest form of democracy in the world. I do not expect to make the democratic system of this country work at my expense by holding a referendum, and I have not held one. It is important on an issue such as this that as the representative of my electorate I make my views clear and unquestionable. The next question I must ask is whether civilisation is without beginning or end. Is it just a mutant that evolves, or is it the ordering of men and women in a destiny that we control, which demands a purpose? I believe we are here for a purpose: the purpose of human life and betterment. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us as legislators to provide reasonable guidelines about how society should evolve. If we are here without purpose, with no beginning or end, why do we dissipate so much time talking about nuclear war? We might as well evolve into dust, because nothing would have been lost or gained from our being here. It is the purpose of man to decide his destiny, and for that reason I am speaking on the Bill, and for that reason I oppose the nuclear arms race. Quotations have been pulled from the Bible. It is a grand book, and the quotation that has always impressed me is, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Perhaps that is why we do not see many broken windows. I have seen the list of those who are good supporters and those who are not. I notice I am on the list of bad people. I do not consider myself to be bad, and I do not consider others to be bad. However, I do consider that it is the job of the House to set some guideline that the nation should follow. In conclusion, I ask three simple questions. Is homosexuality in the natural order of things? I think not. Does it have a purpose for an ongoing civilisation? I think not. Is it productive for the future of our civilisation? I think not. For those reasons I shall vote against the introduction of the Bill. RICHARD NORTHEY (Eden): I strongly support the Bill and congratulate the member for Wellington Central on introducing it. My commitment to the change goes back a long time. I have been a member of the Homosexual Law Reform Society since the mid 1960s, and in my first speech as a candidate for election to Parliament I stated my commitment to that reform. I also committed myself to it in my first speech in the House. As the member for Eden it is important for me to say that the issue of homosexuality was raised in the previous election campaign in that electorate. It is important that it should not be an issue in the future, and that this change will allow all persons equal access to power and responsibility. The Bill will help to bring that about. I do not agree with those who say we should not be considering the matter at this time-that there are other more urgent matters. I consider it to be a vital and urgent matter, for there is a significant group in the community who are denied their rights to equality, human decency, and compassion under the present law. It is fundamentally a question of human rights, both individually and collectively; equality of treatment in relation to activities that are clearly consenting is the right of all. This is a private member's Bill; it is not in any sense a Government Bill. Therefore, it is important for each of us as individuals to determine our views on it. I reject the idea - and the evidence is clear--that homosexual, or, for that matter heterosexual, preference is developed because of corruption by others, through word or deed. That is nonsense, and even the sexual act itself could not create and determine sexual orientation and identity through oppression. People's sexual identity is largely determined before the age of 16 years and cannot be created in that oppressive manner. In that sense, women who are just above the age of 16 must be considered to be in just as much danger from older men as young men are. It should be considered in an equal sense. With the present law operating as it is, when those acts are illegal it is hard for people in their late teens and early 20s who have difficulties in discovering their sexual identity and dealing with their sexual problems to obtain the counselling and advice they need. The lack of access to knowledge and information on this matter intensifies feelings of sexual oppression and inadequacy and must be changed within the schools and elsewhere. The matter of sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS has been raised before. It is vital that people should be able to seek the information they need and that it should be openly available to them. It is not just a matter of being able to go to a doctor or to a clinic if they feel they have a disease; the issue should be out in the open and the information should be available in a clear and determined manner within the community at large. I reject utterly the view that homosexuals are predominantly child molesters. As others have said in the debate, that problem arises with both homosexual and heterosexual activity predominantly in the case of heterosexual men with young women. The problem must be dealt with equally. In the Bill it is clear that the present levels of penalty, and of social and other action against those who have sexual activity with minors or with people of inferior intellectual ability, remain in the law. That is not an issue. It has been said that homosexual acts cannot be procreative. Yet surely, for all of us in the House and outside it who seek physical affection, the sexual activity involved is rarely carried out for that purpose. It is ludicrous to deny the expression of physical affection to a significant section of the community because of that. Some members asked where the church leaders were and why were they not sending telegrams asking us to make this change. Most of the church leaders in the country support the change. Conferences of most of the major churches have endorsed the need for change on many occasions - the Methodists, the Presbyterians, and others come readily to mind, as well as the Roman Catholic Church. People whose work involves sexual matters psychiatrists, social workers, and others - have spoken of the need for change on this matter. I respect the fact that people find it abhorrent to contemplate acts that are contrary to their own sexual identity. It is crucial to one's own development to set clear boundaries for oneself so that other kinds of activity, therefore, might seem particularly abhorrent and unpleasant. But that should not mean that Parliament should legislate so that our particular standards of sexual behaviour and orientation will be forced on others for whom heterosexual activities may seem just as unnatural and abhorrent. The idea that homosexuality is unnatural when it has been a consistent activity of a substantial minority of the community in all societies and at all ages, whatever the law in those societies, clearly shows that it is as natural as left-handedness or any other form of activity or personal characteristic that is in a minority. As the Kinsey report stated, more than one-third of males have had homosexual activity to the point of orgasm at some stage in their life. It is normal, and it is a matter of removing the myths and restoring basic human rights, basic decency, and equality. I support the change that is required in the Human Rights Commission Act to protect the rights of homosexuals in employment. The referendum idea has effectively been carried out and the issue debated in public, as every recent public opinion poll clearly shows that a majority of people now support the change. I am sure that it is what the people in my electorate and in others want. I have committed myself to it, and the messages of support have been overwhelmingly in favour. I have received only two messages against. Members should take courage so that we can get rid of this oppression and give people their long-overdue rights as human beings. WINSTON PETERS (Tauranga): The right to introduce a private member's Bill is the right of all members of Parliament, but there has been a longstanding convention that Cabinet members, Under-Secretaries, or Whips will give such a Bill to a back-bench member. That convention has stood for decades. The mover of the Bill harms her colleagues, because the public will perceive the Bill as a Labour Party Bill. This is the second time that the member introducing the Bill has done that. I say to her that if she wants this so-called reform to be put before Parliament she should do her colleagues the service of handing it to a back-bench member to introduce, within the constraints of past convention. ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but the time has come for me to call the member for Wellington Central in reply. FRAN WILDE (Wellington Central): I thank all members of the House who have contributed to the debate. On the whole it has been a serious and constructive one. It is perhaps a pity that we cannot, as one member suggested, have more debates that are taken as seriously. I thank in particular those who spoke in favour of the Bill. The issue will not necessarily always earn them votes in their electorates, and I appreciate that apart from voting on it they have been prepared to speak their minds. I have a couple of comments to make on some of the opinions expressed. Some people have expressed what they said was concern and compassion for homosexuals, but said that they nevertheless thought homosexual activity itself was wrong. I suggest to them that they should consider voting for the Bill at least at this stage, because the second part of the Bill concerning the Human Rights Commission deals with discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation--that is nothing to do with homosexual activity-and if they are to transfer to reality the concern and compassion they say they have they should at least support that part of the Bill. I should like to comment on some of the other remarks that were made. The member for Hauraki was not correct when he said that there was no evidence to support the introduction of the Bill. All reputable social and medical research shows that sexual orientation is established at an early age, and is not changed by a law banning homosexual activity between adults. The Bill has not been introduced with rapidity, as suggested by the member for Hauraki. I did not feel it necessary to send information about my intentions to people who, I knew, were about to organise a campaign against the Bill. There has been much public discussion about the matter, and much discussion among members, and I am sure that nobody was under any illusion that the Bill would not be introduced at some point. The member for Hauraki also talked about moral laxity, and in the next breath he wondered aloud about the direction of the Government's policy. The Bill is not a Government Bill, and it is no use for the member for Pakuranga, the member for Hauraki, and the member for Invercargill to try to make it one. It is correct that space must be made on the Order Paper by the Government, and I thank my colleagues for allowing me space to introduce private business. Yesterday I did my caucus colleagues the courtesy of telling them that I intended to seek leave to introduce the Bill, and they did me the courtesy of saying that they would allow space on the Order Paper. The Bill has not been discussed in the Government caucus. The member for Invercargill mentioned a list. I have not issued a list of M. P. s to anyone. If the member for Invercargill gives that list to the Sunday News he cannot say that it was compiled by the member for Wellington Central, because it was not. The Leader of the Opposition said that the law would not affect the treatment of AIDS. That is not the issue. I have great faith that New Zealand doctors will treat people whenever they need treatment. However, I am not concerned about the treatment; I am concerned about the prevention. A public education campaign requires co-operation from the groups at risk. At present the prime group at risk is homosexuals, who are defined as criminals under the law. That is one of the compelling reasons for change. The member for Palmerston North pointed out that the present law on the statute book is almost a historical accident, and is no longer relevant to the people in our society and how they think. The law is wrong, and it should be repealed. That is why I have introduced the Bill. I believe that children must be strongly protected. I said that the age of 16 should be the age of consent, because I used the rational approach that that is the age for heterosexual activity. If the Bill is introduced it will be referred to a select committee where all the arguments can be examined. I thank the House for allowing me the time to introduce the Bill. The House divided on the question, That leave be given to introduce the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. Ayes, 51 Batchelor; Boorman; Burdon; Burke; Butcher, Caygill; Clark; Colman; Cox; Cullen; de Cleene; Dillon; Dunne; East; Elder; Fraser; Gair; Gerard; Gerbic; Goff; Hercus; Hunt; Isbey; Jeffries; Keall; King; McKinnon; McLay; Marshall, C. R.; Matthewson; Maxwell, R. K.; Northey; Palmer, Prebble; Richardson; Rodger, Scott; Shields; Shirley; Sutton, J. R.; Sutton, W. D.; Tizard; Upton; Wall; Wetere; Wilde; Woollaston; Young, T. J., Young, V. S. Tellers: Mallard; O'Regan. Noes, 24 Angus, Austin, H. N.; Banks; Birch; Cooper, Falloon; Friedlander, Gray; Knapp; Lee; Luxton; McClay; McLean; Maxwell, R. F. H.; Morrison; Peters; Storey; Talbot; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Townshend; Wallbank; Wellington. Tellers. Braybrooke; Jones. Majority for: 27 Motion agreed to. Bill introduced and read a first time. FRAN WILDE: I move, That the Homosexual Law Reform Bill be referred to the Statutes Revision Committee for consideration, and that the proceedings of the committee during the hearing of evidence be open to accredited representatives of the news media. Motion agreed to.

IRN: 3845
PRIDENZ URL: https://www.pridenz.com/hansard_homosexual_law_reform_bill_second_reading_9_october_1985.html
TITLE: Homosexual Law Reform Bill - second reading (9 October 1985)
DATE: 9 October 1985
LOCATION: Parliament buildings, 1 Molesworth Street, Wellington, New Zealand.
TEXT: FRAN WILDE (Wellington Central): I move, That this Bill be now read a second time. When I introduced the Bill I was anxious that the public debate should be maintained at a rational level, because I believed that the process of learning about the issue, and of subsequent change of attitude-which I have undergone over some years - would be able to occur in the community only if the facts were presented clearly and stripped of the emotional claptrap that usually accompanies discussions on homosexuality. In retrospect, it was a forlorn hope. When the ingrained prejudices of the community are examined, and when the conventional methodology is challenged, it is an unsettling experience for any society. Confronting one's own ignorance, misconceptions, and prejudice is no less difficult for a group than it is for an individual. The debate has been emotional, and from many quarters it has been a vicious attack on the very beings of 10 percent of our citizens and on the families and friends who give those citizens their love and support. After being the object of a bitter hate campaign myself, and experiencing some of the hot breath of hatred that is breathed on gays and lesbians from the extreme “homophobes” in our midst, I have come to accept that there is a minority of people in our community who do not want to discuss the facts. They are not interested in seeking social justice through truth. They have a personal and political agenda that deliberately plays on the genuine concerns expressed by many New Zealanders who deserve better than to be used as pawns and kept in ignorance of information that would allay their fears. I hope that during the second reading debate members of Parliament and the public will take advantage of the opportunity they will have to listen to factual information. I mentioned challenging the mythology on homosexuality, and tonight I shall consider some of the more destructive of those myths, particularly those on which the select committee was given evidence by credible and qualified witnesses. There has been much discussion about the possible effects of the decriminalisation measure that I am proposing. Without exception, those who opposed the Bill, either publicly or at the select committee, used as their ominous example of social decay the city of San Francisco. I do not want to dwell on the arguments they put forward, but I must say that if some of the most vociferous opponents of the Bill would take the trouble to visit that city and speak with the senators, congressional representatives, public health officials, and doctors, as I did recently, they might speak a little more sense and a little less garbage. I am curious to know why we do not hear such talk about other places where decriminalisation has occurred. New Zealand is one of the few countries in the Western World where men who engage in consenting homosexual activity in private are liable to imprisonment. Why do we not hear cries of outrage and horrific examples from Scotland, Spain, Italy, Germany, and other states of America, such as Alaska and West Virginia, where the change has occurred and the sky has not fallen in? I know that many members accept the need for reform and decriminalisation but are concerned that the age of consent of 16 is too low. I understand their concern, because a long time ago when I first started looking at the possibility of initiating legal reform I had many questions to be answered on that issue. One of the first issues that members should examine is that of the formation of sexual orientation. The select committee heard evidence from several professionals in the medical and psychiatric field who said quite categorically that international opinion no longer views homosexuality as a disease but as a psychosexual variant - one of several possible sexual orientations. The New Zealand Department of Health has drawn attention to the frequent observations made in clinical practice that the major causes of mental stress found among persons of homosexual orientation derive not from the orientation itself but from the attitudes of the wider society and the laws that give them expression. None of the reputable professional groups who have any interest in the issue, either here or overseas, accept that there is a cure for homosexuality People can be persuaded to modify their behaviour and choose celibacy, or perhaps heterosexual activity; and others who are bisexual or basically heterosexual can give up homosexual activity; but basic sexual orientation is as much a part of us as is being lefthanded or right-handed, or, in some cases, ambidextrous. Opponents of the Bill have made much of a so-called " ex-gay” movement in the United States. When I was there a few weeks ago I discovered that a number of prime examples still touted as success stories by the “ex-gay” movement have found it too difficult to maintain the self-delusion and are now gay rights activists in the United States. A booklet was recently published purporting to describe the social effects of homosexuality in New Zealand. No doubt some members will have a copy of this little grey book. It draws heavily on sources such as Enrique Rueda - a priest who is so rabidly homophobic that most major Catholic book stores in the United States refuse to stock his work - and an organisation called ISIS, the brain child of an American called Paul Cameron, who was expelled from the American Psychiatric Association for his excessive campaign against homosexuals. He manufactured cases and used lies and misinformation to back up his extravagant claims. The book also cites Masters and Johnson, whose highly questionable methodology involved claims of cures amongst a group of married bisexuals who had marital problems and were seeking to repress their homosexual tendencies. Some of them had managed to remain celibate or solely heterosexual for about 6 months. I was interested to see that the book begins with the testimony of a so-called former homosexual, Mr Gavin Johnstone of Christchurch. Members may like to know that Mr Johnstone appeared before the committee in Christchurch-I presume it was the same person - and in response to questioning from committee members said he thought homosexual behaviour should be decriminalised, but he was uncertain whether the age of consent should be 18 years of age or 19 years of age. It is clear that basic sexual orientation is formed in the early years of life. Usually by 12 or 13 years of age a gay young person has realised that he or she is different from the peer group. In many cases those feelings are not explicitly identified until much later because of a lack of access to any points of reference. When they are identified they are almost invariably suppressed, because youngsters know that our society is aggressively heterosexual and they fear being the victims of so-called “queer baiting", which is evidently not uncommon amongst teenagers in their desperate desire to conform. Many teenagers and older people do have homosexual experiences, but that does not affect their basic heterosexual orientation. Social research has indicated that as many as 25 percent of all men have significant homosexual experiences over 3 years. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. An important debate has just been terminated as a result of Government pressure. People are tired of such garbage under the guise of a private member's Bill. I suggest that the House get on with the important business of the country. Mr SPEAKER: There will undoubtedly be repercussions if the member abuses the point of order system in that manner. Would the member for Wellington Central continue. FRAN WILDE: As I was saying, social research has indicated that as many as 25 percent of all men have had significant homosexual experience over 3 years between the ages of 16 and 55, but not all of those men are homosexually orientated, nor do they wish to be so, nor are they pushed into a homosexual orientation through that activity. I shall quote verbatim what Dr Hall and Dr Dobson from the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists said when questioned by the committee: “Evidence is strong that the direction of sexuality in almost all people is determined pre-school. The suggestion that the seduction of adolescents is likely to be a major factor in determining subsequent sexuality is not supported by evidence. It is one of the common popular myths and does not fit in with other information on the determining of sexuality. We do not see any medical reason for having a different age of consent.” Members will realise that a legal age of consent is an arbitrary thing. In Catholic Spain it is 12 years of age, whereas in other countries it ranges up to 20 years of age. In New Zealand it was originally 12 years of age. It was raised to 14, and is now 16 years of age. Most countries have an age of consent to protect young people during what is considered to be a vulnerable age of physical and emotional development. In New Zealand there is at present technically no age of consent for males. We accept that by 16 years of age females are old enough to determine whether or not they wish to engage in sexual activity, and that both men and women can decide whether they wish to undertake the responsibilities of marriage and parenthood by the age of 16. I must admit that over the past few years as my own children have grown into teenagers I have realised that the more removed one becomes from the age of 16 the younger it appears to be. However, I have to say, as one who was married at 19 years of age, that I can hardly have cause to say it is too young. The question we have to decide is whether or not a community has a right to say that although some people can make those kinds of decisions at 16 others cannot, with the deciding factor being not the psychological maturity of the individual but his or her sexual orientation. Some people have suggested that girls are more mature than boys at that age, but the law allows young men to engage in heterosexual activity. Once again I quote from the statement by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists: “There is no significant evidence that at age 16 young women have more ability to distinguish the consequences of their behaviour than do young men. At a younger age females may advance more rapidly, but this is more in terms of social competence rather than cognitive ability." There is simply no argument for a discriminatory age of consent. I ask members to look beyond their own vague anxieties, conditioned over many years, to scrutinise carefully the anecdotal and undocumented stories presented as evidence against an equal age of consent. I ask members to listen to the social research, to the clinical experience and knowledge of professionals, and, most particularly, to the voices of thousands of gay men and lesbian women who lived in misery and fear throughout their early adulthood. Members who are uncertain about that critical issue would be well advised to read some of the excellent submissions made on the Bill. The Department of Justice summed it up thus: “The weight of current medical opinion, as indicated in the submissions, is that sexual behaviour in the younger adolescent years, much less at 16 years of age or older, does not result in heterosexual boys developing a homosexual orientation or vice versa. It is generally agreed that by the age of 16 years sexual experiences tend to confirm an existing sexual orientation. Evidence given to the committee by many homosexual men, both young and older, almost without exception confirmed that medical and academic opinion.” As for the supposed connection between homosexuality and paedophilia-an implied threat to younger boys if homosexual activity is decriminalised for adult males-no evidence was supplied to the committee to support that assertion. However, there is plenty of evidence to show that paedophilia and homosexuality are distinctly different phenomena with no provable link. The other major issue I wish to deal with tonight is the proposed amendment to the Human Rights Commission in Part II of the Bill. Some extravagant statements have been made about that proposal. I have heard people say that clergy will no longer be able to preach that homosexuality is wrong, that parents will be prohibited by law from passing on their own moral values to children, and that teachers will be obliged to promote homosexuality to youngsters. None of that is true. Many opponents of the Bill have also claimed that although they love homosexuals they simply hate what homosexuals do. Such generosity of spirit is catered for by the Bill. First, the Human Rights Commission Act, unlike the Race Relations Act, does not intervene in the matter of speech. People will still be able to say what they like. It is concerned with actions such as the provision of jobs, housing, or goods and services. Secondly, it is important to note that the proposed addition to the Act would forbid discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Members should read the definition clause carefully. They will find no reference in it to behaviour. It talks of a person's affectional preference, whether it be homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual, and it includes any characteristic imputed to a particular sexual orientation. The Department of Justice summed it up thus: “The weight of current medical information as indicated in the submissions is that sexual behaviour in the younger adolescent years"-I am sorry, I have reverted to a previous part of the speech. (Interruption.) If Opposition members were quiet they might hear something instead of trying deliberately to provoke me, as they have been doing throughout the Bill's debate. The best exposition of the probable effect of the Human Rights Commission amendment is in the submission presented by the law faculty of Victoria University. The submission was signed by all but 5 of the 30 or more lecturers and professors at the law school. It gave unqualified support to the Bill and explained carefully the legal ramifications of Part II. A supplementary submission requested by the committee went into more detail. It compared the proposal with human rights legislation of this nature that has been enacted in other countries. It said: “The law, if amended, will not coerce people into accepting behaviour or activities of which they disapprove.” The law faculty members went on to say that clause 9 was much less far reaching in its potential impact than corresponding provisions in legislation they had studied from elsewhere. I strongly recommend that members read that particular submission if they are having difficulties with Part I of the Bill. I believe that this provision will serve as a trigger to start a major change of attitude in the community. For example, employers will no longer be able to say: " I'm not employing you because you are a lesbian, and I don't like lesbians.” Even if that individual employer manages to find another excuse for not employing a person-and we have seen with other provisions in the Human Rights Commission Act that it is not too difficult to do that-he or she will none the less be forced to face up to that prejudice, to have to make an excuse about that attitude to other human beings. In the end, it is attitudes towards one another that count in making a plural society work. Legislation can go only a certain way towards making our social system work properly. I believe that current opinion in New Zealand is more sensitive to discrimination against gays and lesbians than it has ever been. Certainly the opinion polls bear this out. Heylen polls taken over the past 6 months have shown a steady and consistent increase in support for the legislation, now running at around 62 percent of the population. Members should not be misled by a vociferous minority who claim that the people of New Zealand are opposed to the measure, or that the claimed 800,000 signatures to a petition against the Bill represent an informed, considered, and freely offered expression of support from the adult community. Many New Zealanders living quiet and productive lives in the towns and cities of our nation are relying on Parliament to vote to give them their basic rights in law. Members who are considering voting against these people-amongst whom may well be family members, friends, and workmates, perhaps unknown as homosexuals - should consider very carefully the impact on our community and on those friends and family members if the Bill should fail. Hon. VENN YOUNG (Waitotara): I have little enthusiasm for the manner in which the mover of the Bill has put her arguments before the House. She knows that the matter being considered is sharply divisive. She talked about the entrenched opposition to her point of view, and derided unnecessarily the opinions of those who opposed. She considers a petition with 800,000 signatures presented to the House to be of little account. I believe that she goes too far with her proposals. I say at the outset that Opposition members will speak and vote on the measure according to their consciences. The matter has not been considered by the Opposition caucus as a caucus, other than to consider and to criticise the manner in which the select committee was cut off at the knees and not allowed to complete its task and report to Parliament in what would normally be the proper way. That being so, the measure is now before us, and as individuals we have to determine, according to our consciences, whether we will support or oppose the member's proposals. The reform of laws pertaining to homosexual acts in private relates to the criminal code and not to morality, or public principles or attitudes. Parliament can no more legislate for private morality than it can for public acceptance of conduct that the public in general finds unacceptable. The present law in the Crimes Act is criticised because it is seen to do the former, while I believe that the proposal of the member for Wellington Central to change the law attempts to do the latter. The member and those who support her are wrong in seeking to equate the law on homosexual acts with heterosexual acts. In addition, Part II of the Bill obviously seeks public acquiescence for the argument that homosexual life-styles and heterosexual lifestyles are equally acceptable except for the sexual orientation of the people involved. I do not believe that that is so, and members are foolish if they do not recognise the sharp division of opinion in the community on that matter. I do not accept that many of the so called " gay community” live in that state of mind. The word " gay" is a far cry from the problem that many people have with sexual orientation. Those people need our understanding, and we should not place upon those adults the additional burden of the fear of conviction and criminality. I limit my support for the decriminalisation contained in the measure as it applies to the adult homosexual. I shall only support legislation that provides for an age of consent of 20, and no lower. I am not a prejudiced person, but I cannot accept Part II. In presenting a measure that is so wide in its implications, the member for Wellington Central has made more difficult her task of bringing homosexual law reform to Parliament in a way that is acceptable to Parliament. I reiterate that all Opposition members will speak individually according to their consciences, and will vote similarly. I have indicated my attitude to the Bill. GEOFF BRAYBROOKE (Napier): I rise with some reluctance to speak on the Bill, which, without a doubt, has divided the Chamber and the nation. It has divided all churches, some of which have made formal statements that have met with anger and dismay from some of their parishioners. It has divided communities; it has even divided families. Nobody would deny that it is a very divisive Bill . It was launched suddenly upon the House. No one before the previous election sought a mandate to introduce it. I cannot recall any member of the House saying as a candidate that he or she would introduce the Bill. I certainly had no knowledge of it if any did. I am certain that members of the voting public, when they cast their votes, did not think of homosexual law reform as one of the reasons they should or should not vote for a particular candidate. I listened carefully to the member for Waitotara. The Bill he introduced a few years ago, or a similar Bill, would have been far more acceptable had it been introduced today. The “live and let live" attitude of the average New Zealander is well known. I believe that citizens overwhelmingly are prepared to live and let live, but the Bill goes far beyond that. My own research has shown that most of the constituents I represent bitterly resent the cloak of respectability that the Bill attempts to give to homosexual activities. They also resent Part II, which I consider to be the worst and most ominous part of the Bill. It is unacceptable to suggest to average New Zealanders-not all of whom profess to be practising Christians - that homosexual attitudes and values are equal to the attitudes and values of heterosexuals. I do not care if the Bill is passed; I believe that public attitudes will not change in my lifetime, because many people - and they are not religious bigots - find the actions of homosexuals repugnant, and they do not want to know them. It is unacceptable to claim that homosexual values are equal to heterosexual values. I know that obviously the gay community does not agree with that, but my own electorate has shown clearly how it feels. My electorate reflects my own opinion. A random poll of more than 500 people was conducted - not by me, but by a reputable person and organisation-and more than 72 percent of those people rejected the Bill. I realise that provincial New Zealand is probably more conservative than the four main centres. JOHN BANKS: Thank God for that. GEOFF BRAYBROOKE: I agree. The mere fact that something is done by consenting adults in private does not remove the matter from public morality. If that argument is used, and taken to its logical conclusion, it might as well be said that consenting adults over a certain age can practise incest in private because that is their sexual orientation. That is totally unacceptable. I have attended several public meetings since the Bill was first introduced. When the Bill was introduced my conduct was possibly not the best. I am a human being. I felt intense anger and disgust for the Bill. I realise now that that is not the attitude of responsible politicians; we must listen to all sides of an argument and not allow our prejudice to blind us. I went to those public meetings hoping to learn something, but they were an utter shambles. The hatred displayed on both sides had to be seen to be believed. Anybody who genuinely believes that the gay community is passive, quiet, and gentle should have been at those public meetings. I was disgusted to see Salvation Army officers called fascist pigs when they stood up to lead a meeting in prayer. They were insulted, and blasphemies were thrown around freely. Chanting and insulting calls were the order of the day. Speakers whom they obviously did not want to hear were not given the courtesy of a hearing. They may have thought they were being hard done by. Well, so be it. At two of those meetings we allowed representatives of the gay community to come up to speak. The incredible thing was they were heard in absolute silence, but when speakers against their activities tried to give their point of view they were drowned out time and time again by filthy abuse. Putting aside the rights and wrongs of the argument, the gay community has shown that it is out to get its own way come hell or high water. It did not do its cause any good whatsoever. There has been a great deal of discussion about the petition. I was involved in its launching. Attempts have been made to discredit it. I do not know whether the 800,000 people who signed it were over 16, of sound mind and limb, and knew what they were doing. How could I? But even supposing, for the sake of argument, that half of the signatures are invalid--and I do not believe they are - the petition is still the largest ever to be presented to the House. For the first time in living memory, in my own electorate, members of the National Party, the Democratic Party, and the Labour Party joined forces to go out and seek genuine signatures on that petition. I am certain that the signatures collected in the Napier electorate were genuine. The Bill reaches across party affiliations. That is enough criticism. I shall now say what is wrong with the Bill and why it should not be allowed to proceed. There are many moral reasons that Christian folk far better than I could put forward. I do not in any way pretend to be a paragon of virtue; I will leave that to others. I notice that some members are smirking. I am serious when I say that if the Bill is passed it must not in any way be allowed to be applied to the armed forces--that is, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force. It would have a detrimental effect upon the discipline of the armed forces. As a member who has had military experience - and I think this applies also to the Minister of Energy, the member for Tamaki, and the member for Invercargill - I say that strict discipline in the armed forces is necessary if they are to be effective. Soldiers, sailors, and airmen accept a superior authority without question. Discipline is a fragile thing, and it could be disastrous if discipline were affected as a result of people entering into gay relationships in the armed forces. Also there is a lack of privacy in the armed forces. All of us have been in large barracks where about 30 people are packed in, or on a ship where they are slung hammock to hammock. Rightly or wrongly, many people in the armed forces despise gays, and a serious breakdown in discipline could occur. I have seen many a fight in barrack-room because a person wanted to commit a homosexual act with someone who resented the advances. Another reason why the Bill must not apply to the armed forces is that in combat every soldier is a walking blood bank. The Falkland Islands war proved that beyond any doubt. Medical services are at the front line. Every soldier knows his blood group - he wears a tag stating it. The effect on morale would be devastating if soldiers, sailors, or airmen refused an instant blood transfusion on the battlefield because of their fear of contracting AIDS. There is no time to check the blood for AIDS. It is essential that the Bill does not apply to the armed forces. Also, it should not apply to members of the police, for similar reasons, if disciplined law enforcement is to be maintained. Nor should it apply to prison officers. It could be disastrous if it did. If it is applied to the armed forces “Kiss Me Goodnight, Sergeant-Major” could well become a reality. The Bill has highlighted the urgent need for extended research into all aspects of homosexuality, and the member for Wellington Central only touched on that subject in her address. If the Bill becomes law, any chance of conducting proper scientific medical research into the causes, effects, or needs of homosexuality will be brushed aside. We need to do what other countries have done before changing the law. In the United Kingdom a royal commission of inquiry was appointed that produced the Wolfenden report. It is essential that there be a royal commission of inquiry into all aspects of homosexuality before the Bill becomes law. It is not beyond our wit to select men and women to sit upon that royal commission. They can be drawn from a wide section of the community. They should be given the broadest terms of reference, and, if necessary, be allowed to travel overseas to see what has happened in other countries that have changed the law. When the royal commission has deliberated it should then publish its report. We can all learn. No member knows enough to cast a valid vote in favour of the Bill. After the commission has published its findings for the betterment and education of us all, there should then be a general referendum. No one has a mandate to introduce the Bill or pass it into law. The referendum should be held at the next election. We have about 2 years to organise it. That should be enough. Let the public decide after reading the royal commission's report. I say that the referendum should be held at the time of the next election, not to scare the hell out of every member who may feel a cold draught around his majority, but because it is much simpler to hold a referendum at a general election. We already hold one every 3 years on the liquor issue. Homosexuality is a topic for New Zealand to decide on. I know that people will say that we come here to govern and that a referendum cannot he held on everything. However, no Bill has divided the nation as this one has. There will be a backlash from the community if we do not hold a referendum. The Bill will not go away; the matter will be overcome only if a referendum is held. Let me enlighten the House about something many people do not realise. In the United Kingdom homosexual activities in private between two consenting male adults are not an offence, but members may be surprised to know that they are an offence if three are involved. I wonder if we will amend the Bill later. The Bill will allow three, four, or five people to commit homosexual acts together. The British law does not allow that, and the provision should be the same here. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Bill has divided us. I freely admit that many people on both sides of the argument have been extreme, but one of the fears that has surfaced is that the Bill is the thin end of the wedge. I have a cutting from the Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune of 4 June, which states that a gay church pastor is waiting for the Bill to be passed so that he can apply for the right to perform gay marriages. I know that many people reject that idea and say it will not happen, but who knows? I find the idea repugnant. I do not want any Bill that provides that men may marry one another to be passed into law. It is unnatural and immoral. In closing, I appeal to the House for reason; I appeal to the House not to show hostility and not to have a shouting-match. That would achieve nothing. There is already too much heat and not enough light on the subject. I am as much to blame as anybody. I appeal to the House not to pass the Bill. A royal commission should be set up. Let us all learn the facts, then let New Zealand decide the issue by a referendum. Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT MULDOON (Tamaki): I rise to speak not at great length, but to put a point of view that is slightly different from that of those who find themselves strongly on one side or the other on the issue. I am one of those who supported the Bill introduced by the member for Waitotara in the early 1970s. I do not support this Bill, but it would give me no great cause for concern if these acts were decriminalised. That was the attitude I took at the time in supporting a much simpler Bill, and one that was not nearly so far reaching. However, I find myself slightly on the side of the member for Napier, although I perhaps would not use precisely the same expression in opposition to the suggestions and, indeed, the effect of Part II, which makes what I believe to be abnormal behaviour normal. There would be many thousands of New Zealanders who would take the same view that I take-namely, that it may well be unfair and, indeed, unreasonable in today's world to put a jail penalty on those acts. However, to regard them as normal goes far beyond what New Zealand society is ready for at present. I shall vote against the whole Bill, because a curious phenomenon has developed in the time since the earlier Bill was introduced - that of the homosexual and lesbian communities deliberately creating for themselves a high profile in this society. It is unnecessary and even damaging to our society. They have damaged their own cause by this activity. Certainly they have done so as far as my vote is concerned. We have seen outside this building, not once but many times, and, indeed, quite recently, behaviour that would alienate the sympathy of many New Zealanders who otherwise would have been objective in their approach to the issue. I have one word of criticism for the member for Wellington Central. I do not object to her taking a great deal of time tonight to put forward her analysis of the evidence given to the select committee and the material put into the hands of members, but I have to say to her that I do object to the comment she made when a considerable number of people came to Parliament Buildings to present a petition. They sang hymns and prayed on the steps. Regardless of whether one agrees with them, they came in the name of Christ and they were not, as she called them, obscene. She did her cause harm when, on that and other occasions, she criticised people. I must refer to the Salvation Army. I could not do what the Salvation Army does every day in caring for those at the bottom of our society. I do not want to go any further into that matter, except to say that I hope that in this debate we have respect for the opinions of those who behave respectably. I come back to the essence of the matter and I ask myself whether New Zealand society is yet ready for this Bill, and I say to myself I think not. New Zealand society would perhaps accept the first part of it-decriminalisation - but I do not think it would accept the second part. My own attitude to the Bill is one that I have taken on issues such as this, certainly ever since I came into the House, and one that I have preached to new members in recent years when, as leader of the party on this side, I have talked to new members about parliamentary representation. I go back to the words of someone whose wisdom I am fond of–Edmund Burke - who said: “You do not come here to do the bidding of your electorate, you come here to exercise your judgment. They have selected you because they believe you have that judgment." I am not considering 800,000 signatures, and I am certainly not considering the kind of threats that were dealt with earlier today. I simply say that for the reasons I have given I will vote against the Bill. Hon. MARGARET SHIELDS (Minister of Customs): I have listened very carefully to the many arguments that have been presented, and I must say that I am disappointed and hope that the member for Tamaki will reconsider his position, because one of the great dangers in this debate has been that one might succumb to the negative influence of people who have become so frustrated in the debate that their voices have perhaps become a little shrill. We must understand how those voices became shrill, and understand even more that there are many thousands of New Zealanders behind them who are relying on the House to exercise the judgment that the member for Tamaki himself referred to. The topic has indeed created enormous concern from the moment that the Bill was brought to the House - the same kind of concern that arose on the two other occasions when Bills were considered. I, like many members of the House, have read as widely as possible on the topic before making up my mind, and it is my view that no good purpose is to be served by the retention of criminal sanctions against a significant group of the population who are gay. The reasons I have come to that conclusion are several. First, having looked very carefully through all the reliable literature there is, I find no evidence to suggest that homosexuality is a choice or even a life-style into which one can be seduced. Secondly, as was suggested by the member for Wellington Central, there is much evidence to suggest that sexual preferences are established very early in life. Thirdly, although the determining factors are very poorly understood as yet and there is need for more research, there is no evidence to suggest that the process is reversible. The best that can be achieved is the suppression of homosexual behaviour. Fourthly, we know from all kinds of other literature that there is much evidence to show that most human beings need stable, caring, loving relationships, and to deny that is to encourage the kind of promiscuity of which homosexuals are too often accused. Of course, promiscuity is not restricted to homosexuals. Any person who is denied the opportunity for stable relationships is at risk from that. Before the last election I pledged to my electorate that I would consult it by means of a referendum should a contentious moral issue arise during this term of Parliament. I therefore arranged for the Kapiti electoral roll to be updated at my expense, and I conducted a postal referendum with the help, I must acknowledge, of a small army of volunteers. I did not believe it would be honest to conceal my own opinion from the electorate, and therefore at all times I have made my own position quite clear. At the time of the referendum, and when I sent out the letter that accompanied the ballot papers, I urged those who disagreed with me to take particular care to fill out their ballot papers and return them. In fact, the results show that 30 percent of those polled in my electorate opposed the legislation of homosexual behaviour - that is, a minority of less than one third. The result is completely consistent with the numbers who signed the petition validly - that is the petition of Keith Hay and others - because although the petitioners claimed 10,649 signatures for Kapiti, when they were carefully checked against the roll and the habitation index for the Kapiti electorate the result verified only 2,442 signatures. However, I am prepared to accept that the petitioners would not have reached all those people who would have supported their case, and I also must acknowledge that there must be some Kapiti signatories on other electorate lists, so I am prepared to accept a threefold increase in that number, which would take it back to 30 percent. Similarly, at about the time the referendum was run, the Heylen organisation polled the Kapiti electorate, and the results from that poll showed at that time that just over 33 percent of my voters were opposed to decriminalisation. The coincidence of that Heylen poll result and the referendum make me very confident in asserting that when I come to vote I shall be representing not only my own view but, as important, the view of the majority of the voters in my electorate. The other matter covered in the Kapiti referendum was the age of consent. Unfortunately, 17 percent of the people responding chose to give no age at all. They forfeited the right to determine the outcome. Of those stating an age, by far the greatest number preferred 16. In fact, the number of those who preferred 16 was far greater than the number who stated no age. I did not ask a question on the human rights aspect of the Bill. I now turn my attention to some of the arguments advanced by the opponents of change. I refer members to the booklet put out by the Coalition of Concerned Citizens, to which the member for Wellington Central has already referred. The booklet was recently circulated to all members of Parliament. It is the source of the points I shall consider, although not, I hasten to add, the source of my conclusions. The first point argued in the book is that the typical homosexual life-style is harmful to the individual and to society, and, as such, should not be encouraged. In support of the argument it is further suggested: “Homosexual behaviour is different from being single and celibate, because it is an active force against marriage and family life.” I believe there can be few people in the House who do not know of at least one tragic marriage that has been the consequence of a homosexual's trying to go straight, to play out the heterosexual role. JOHN BANKS: I don't know of any of those. Hon. MARGARET SHIELDS: The results of those unions are commonly devastating for all. I remind the member for Whangarei that I know of one of his constituents who is in just that position. JOHN BANKS: No friend of mine! Hon. MARGARET SHIELDS: Perhaps they feel unable to tell him about it. The non-homosexual partner, the homosexual partner, and most of all the children, are traumatised by such an event. The experience is quite shattering for all concerned, and I feel that that is a travesty of the kind of family life we all say we believe in. The second point raised in the booklet is this: “If homosexual behaviour is declared by law to be legal and valid it will result in a growth of homosexuality in this country." This is a wonderful example of double-think. On the one hand, opponents of decriminalisation have railed against what they call the repulsive and unnatural character of homosexuality, and, on the other hand, they would have us believe that if it is made legal we will all be doing it. The truth of the matter is - as I have already suggested - that sexual preferences are laid down very early in life, before we are consciously aware of them. They are not a matter of choice. To outlaw homosexuality is simply to cause immense human misery for some. The effect of removing potential legal sanctions will not result in any change in any individual sexual preference, but it will remove the source of misery and potential persecution. Again, I suggest that the acceptance of homosexuality as a reality will reduce the incidence of some of the aspects of homosexuality that people criticise-in particular, the forced promiscuity of those who must conceal that part of their life from their family, their friends, and their workmates. Of course, again, promiscuity is not confined to homosexuals. Thirdly, opponents suggest that the Bill will “Allow for homosexual acts upon young boys who are at an impressionable age and it will compel acceptance of declared homosexuals under all circumstances, despite a broad level of public agreement to the contrary.” That is simply not true. First, the law in the Bill relating to consent is brought into line with the law relating to heterosexual acts; secondly, there will be no change in the laws relating to indecency, and, thirdly-according to all the research we have been able to undertake - the broad level of public opinion is in favour of the Bill. The fourth point that has been raised by the Coalition of Concerned Citizens is that homosexuals are typically unhappy people who often hate themselves and society, so that if homosexuality is accepted as valid and of no concern to the rest of society it will tend to eliminate hope and motivation for those homosexuals who would really like to become normal. That is the most damaging and confused proposition of all. First, a condition that is present in 10 percent of the population can be classed as abnormal only in the strictest statistical sense. It is much more sound to suggest that it is a normal variant of human development-like left-handedness, and just as immutable. To suggest that hope of normality keeps homosexuals with the prospect of happiness is nonsense. Acceptance and self-knowledge are necessary prerequisites for happiness, and I ask the House most seriously whether we have the right to deny legal acceptance to all our brothers who are different from ourselves only in this respect. I should like to share with the House a personal story. It is the story of a family who were neighbours of ours some years ago. The mother of the family is still a very close friend of mine. She had a son of whom I was very fond. We got to know him when he was still at primary school and we started to worry when, as a young teenager, he started to worry. From his early teenage years it was quite clear that something had gone wrong for him. He had inexplicable accidents. First of all he went away and tried to starve himself, then he had a shooting accident, which nobody quite understood; then he had an accident on his motorbike; then he overdosed. He could not tell his parents what the problem was, because he tried once, and his mother-who is one of the wisest and most sensitive people, and certainly the most honest person I know - will tell you that herself. When the young lad tried to talk to her about homosexuality, of course he did not come out and say, “Hey mum, I'm homosexual.” He asked her what she thought about it and what she thought about homosexual law reform. She replied that she knew nothing about it and did not really understand it, and went on to say-even more painfully - that she really did not think it was all that important. He just managed to say that he thought it was, and she thought it was another of his causes. But he never brought that subject up again-or not for a good number of years. He tried desperately to change. He went to Ashburn Hall, sought psychiatric help, and even tried to get married. However, being the kind of fellow he was by then, and understanding the dangers he was placing others in, he called it off a week before the marriage. With the attitude of society at that stage to somebody who had been brought up as a Catholic, who had been brought up to feel that not only the Church-not all the Church-but certainly the law was against him, things got worse. To cut a rather agonising story short, in his suicide note he said: “I have come to the end of keeping on with keeping on. I have wished myself somewhere else for a very long time. I don't want to hurt the people who care about me, but I have decided at last that I have the right to do what I want to do.” There was no priest at the funeral. We buried him at Makara. I should like to give the last word on this subject to his mother. She said: “The first thing people think of when they suspect someone of being homosexual is that he must be doing it; it's an obsession. I myself don't like the idea of anal sex, but to force homosexuals by law to be celibate because we don't like to think of what they are doing is very wrong and very unwise. They have a right to express their affection and to have an emotional life. It is barbarous to persecute people for what I now know is an involuntary orientation. Those who say homosexuals are flouting God's law should surely leave God to deal with that, rather than taking the opportunity to persecute people they happen to find offensive. My son and the other young homosexuals I have met were people with ambition, just mild ambition: they wanted to be respected and accepted." I ask the House to grant that acceptance to many thousands of people in our community today. (Interruption.] DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There will be no applause or other demonstrations from the gallery, or the gallery will be cleared. JOHN BANKS (Whangarei): I have listened to the participants in the debate with a great deal of concentration and interest. It is sad that Parliament is discussing this matter tonight when the country is on the brink of economic collapse, and is, to all intents and purposes, defenceless. Be that as it may, I want to record from the outset that the Bill has been promoted with obscene resolve by its sponsor and other Government members. If it is passed it will have an evil and insidious consequence for future generations of New Zealanders. I voted against the introduction of the Bill and against its reporting back, and I intend to oppose it through its remaining stages. My opposition is based on a range of arguments that are compelling when brought together. All relate to the need for decent societies to set and maintain the standards by which they live. The great moral laws of the Christian world have their foundations in teachings that have come down to us over thousands of years. They have set standards that are not severe, bigoted, or censorious, but are basically and fundamentally decent. Those teachings are even more valid today than they have ever been. When we deliberately allow those laws or standards of behaviour to be compromised or diminished the fundamental fabric of society is weakened and undermined. No doubt some of those laws are broken by all of us from time to time, but that does not mean that the laws are wrong or unsoundly based. The fact that laws are broken is certainly no argument for society as a whole to lower its moral standards or to repeal those laws. Society must set standards of behaviour for itself. It is society's responsibility to set such standards for itself. Just as it cannot allow general lawlessness and crimes of dishonesty amongst its citizens, it cannot condone the activities of people who would seek to damage or destroy themselves. Laws to achieve that are for the protection of society itself. For that reason we have laws against drug abuse, offensive language, prostitution, self-mutilation, suicide, and other acts of self-denigration. Society legislates against the so-called victimless crimes-not only for the protection of the individuals, but also for its own well-being. The resultant laws are not designed to punish; they simply seek to ensure that our community is a safe, decent, and healthy place in which to live and bring up a family. If we shy away from taking such a stand it becomes impossible for society to set any standards at all. If we give in to the pressure for a change in the law that will allow homosexual acts between consenting males aged 16 years or over we will eventually face similar demands to legalise incest between consenting adults, prostitution, euthanasia, and many other totally unacceptable practices. Society must take a stand somewhere. As the member of Parliament representing the people of Whangarei, this is the time for me to take such a stand. In taking the stand I am not suggesting that the present laws are perfect, but I do claim that they have benefited society more than their critics have acknowledged. The law is not being used to harass or persecute homosexuals, as is claimed by some supporters of the Bill. It serves to discourage people from promoting homosexual behaviour as being right, proper, and an acceptable way of life. It has suppressed homosexuals from soliciting and flaunting homosexual behaviour in public places, and the law has been a source of support for parents of young families who are concerned about the level of depravity confronting children in our society today. Above all, the present law contains a clear statement made by society at large about the wish to maintain normal and acceptable standards of behaviour and decency. I could use many arguments to show why I oppose the Homosexual Law Reform Bill, and they would all relate back to the need for us all to set and maintain acceptable standards. My position is not taken in disregard of the real difficulties facing homosexual people. I do not lack compassion for their predicament, nor have I ever suggested that I am a paragon of virtue. However, the answer to the problem does not lie in society's weakening or lowering its standards of acceptable behaviour and morality by passing laws such as the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. JIM ANDERTON (Sydenham): The member for Whangarei may or may not be pleased to know that his opposition to the Bill and to the decriminalisation of homosexual activity is shared by people in countries such as the Soviet Union, Chile, and South Africa. If he can credibly suggest that those societies are the better for their prosecution of homosexuals as criminals I should be more amazed than I usually am by what he says. The Homosexual Law Reform Bill is intended to foster equality before the law for all New Zealanders, regardless of their sexual orientation, but in other instances it could be their race, religion, or political belief. The principles of equality embodied in the Bill are of concern to me. I am not concerned with moral judgments on the behaviour of others. Approving legislation to bring about equal treatment in a legal sense does not necessarily imply support for the behaviour of individual people. It is my belief that goodness cannot be enshrined in legislation; all that political representatives can do is ensure that there is a legal framework within which the common good is protected and individual rights are exercised. The present law, which the Bill seeks to amend, is contained in the Human Rights Commission Act 1977, and sections 140, 141, 142, and 146 of the Crimes Act 1961. The two main elements of the Bill remove criminal sanctions against consensual homosexual acts by males, by way of amendment to the Crimes Act, and outlaw discrimination against persons on the grounds of their sexual orientation, by way of amendment to the Human Rights Commission Act. All consenting sexual activity in private between males both of whom are over 16 years of age will be legal; all sexual activity between males to which one party does not consent will be a crime. The penalty for sexual activity with boys under 16 years of age-regardless of whether consent was obtained - will be imprisonment ranging from 7 years to 14 years. Such provisions are precisely the same as those included in the Crimes Act in relation to heterosexual carnal knowledge of girls under 16 years of age. Boys are to be given that protection, which they have not had previously. Anal intercourse for consenting adult heterosexual couples will be legal. It will be a crime to run a male brothel, as it is to run a female brothel; and it will be illegal to discriminate against people in paid employment, housing, goods, or services, on the grounds of their sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation. Those are the provisions contained in the Bill. Broadly speaking, New Zealand's criminal code is concerned with restraining conduct that causes harm to others, protecting public decency, and maintaining public order. There are few offences in the Crimes Act of which it could be said that their principal purpose was to enforce moral standards. That approach is not really surprising in a secular State; there are few moral issues about which society is capable of reaching substantial agreement. On the argument that criminal law is an appropriate instrument for enforcing one particular code of behaviour, the question becomes which code of behaviour it should enforce. It would be inappropriate to expect the State to make such a choice. If public debate on the Bill illustrates nothing else, I believe it illustrates that there is no consensus in the community about the morality of sexual conduct and the prosecution of such conduct by criminal means. Martin Luther King once gave his views about the basis on which individuals, including politicians, could be best judged: he said that the ultimate measure of a man or woman is not where he or she stands in moments of comfort or convenience, but where he or she stands in times of challenge or controversy. It seems to me that the debate on the Homosexual Law Reform Bill will be one of those occasions. The Bill is claimed to be a conscience issue. That implies that most other matters that come before Parliament are not conscience issues. It is an interesting reflection on parliamentary priorities and values that whether or how people are housed and the standard of living and health care of people, and nuclear weapons and their use-surely the ultimate in immorality and inhumanity-are not considered to be matters of conscience. However, anything to do with sex or liquor appears to be automatically defined as a suitable matter for a parliamentarian's conscience. An important question, therefore, is how a parliamentarian determines what his or her conscience is on any issue. Is it the conscience of those in the electorate who signed the petition against the Homosexual Law Reform Bill - 4000 in my electorate; is it the conscience of the majority of the electors who did not sign the petition or who are in favour of reform - 24,000 in my electorate; or is it the conscience of the member of Parliament? What is a conscience, anyway? It is defined as a moral sense of right or wrong, especially as felt by a person and affecting his or her behaviour. If that is so, it can be only the conscience of the individual that matters in making any final decision. It is no use to hide behind the conscience of others, whether that be done by accepting the result of some referendum or the number of signatures on a petition. What happens if one's own conscience tells one that what the majority of electors believe in is wrong? Would a member be justified in ignoring his own conscience? In my view the answer must, of course, be “No”. I want to make one or two comments about the petition opposing homosexual law reform that is before the House. I believe that some fundamental issues for parliamentarians are involved in such a petition. Petitioning Parliament is an important and historic right for citizens in a parliamentary democracy. By petitioning Parliament New Zealanders bring to the attention of their elected representatives, and of all elected representatives, their views on matters of concern, and do so in a public way. Parliamentary petitions are therefore valuable examples of participatory democracy, and should be given due regard when parliamentarians are considering their decisions on the issues dealt with by petitions. Having said that, however, I feel it is necessary to add in unequivocal terms that petitions are and can be no more than expressions of opinion-sometimes they are well informed and sometimes they are not. The petition has been criticised-apparently justifiably - on the grounds that children as young as 6 years of age have signed it; that some moral pressures have been put on certain individuals in the work-place to sign it; and that many people who did sign it had little idea of what it was they were putting their signatures to. However, at the end of it all there is a large number of valid signatures opposing homosexual law reform, which means opposing the decriminalisation of homosexual activity between consenting male adults. The point for parliamentarians to determine is the weight that should be given to such a petition. Parliament is the highest court in the land, and I suggest to members that if attempts were made to influence judges in our courts we in Parliament and those in the wider community would quite properly be outraged. Yet the organisers of the homosexual law reform petition have quite clearly aimed at influencing the way members of Parliament vote on the Bill by threatening members, particularly those in marginal seats, with the loss of those seats because of organised voting against them on that particular issue at the next election. Citizens in a democracy are entitled to vote for or against anyone they choose, and they can organise their votes against whoever they please, but to use a parliamentary petition as a weapon of electoral influence is surely a bizarre act by those behind the petition who proclaim to be Christian citizens. If they thought about it for a moment they would find that their threats, if successful, would mean that the consciences or votes of parliamentarians were for sale to the best petition organiser, regardless of the merits of the evidence to be considered in each case. Surely Parliament and parliamentarians should be worthy of a higher level of respect than that. I remind the House that the largest petition for many years in New Zealand's history was presented in 1918. It had 250,000 signatures on it, out of a population at the time of 1,250,000. That was one-fifth of the total population and probably nearer to between one third and one half of the voting population. It sought the prohibition of the sale of liquor. If that petition had been as successful as one in the United States of America, where prohibition led to gangsterism, public corruption, and violence, I wonder if we would say that the number of signatures on a petition always means that the numbers and the weight of those numbers are right. I do not believe that either the might or the numbers are necessarily right. The consciences of parliamentarians are their own; there can be no hiding behind referenda, valid or invalid. The buck stops here, and should not be for sale at any price. Morality is a very human thing and does not depend upon religion, the church, or even God. The morality that we call conscience makes us aware of the peculiar psychological phenomenon that gives us all a sense of obligation to do what is right rather than what is wrong, and in my view the best reason for doing that is that we are all human beings, whether we have any religious or other views. The issues at stake in the homosexual law reform debate are clear: those in favour of reform want no criminal sanctions to be retained for use against persons over 16 years of age who engage in sexual activity in private and by mutual consent, whether they be homosexuals or heterosexuals; those who oppose reform want all sexual activity between males of whatever age, whether or not by mutual consent, to be a criminal offence. Much heat has been generated in the debate by many who profess strong Christian beliefs and are outraged by the morality or immorality of male homosexual behaviour. The fact that no criminal sanctions exist for female sexual behaviour is a point on which most are silent. Is it the job of politicians to pass laws that deliver moral judgments on members of our society? Some Christians quote the Bible as the source of saying “Yes”, but the Bible is a dangerous document from which to quote-it may be quoted back. Christ 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.” For those amongst us who are anxious to rush forward to judge the behaviour of others He made the mob of his day an offer that it refused. He said “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." In 1956, before 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 on homosexual law reform. The report that was submitted to the British Government came to the following conclusions, among others: “Attempts by the State to enlarge its authority and invade the conscience of the individual, however high-minded, always fail and frequently do positive harm. It should accordingly be clearly stated that penal sanctions are not justified for the purpose of attempting to restrain sins against sexual morality committed in private by responsible adults. They” - criminal sanctions - “should be discontinued, because, (1) they are ineffectual; (2) they are inadequate in their application; (3) they involve punishments disproportionate to the offence committed; and (4) they undoubtedly give scope for blackmail and other forms of corruption.” No one in his right mind could accuse the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster of leading any kind of radical reform to hasten the demise of Western civilisation. The truth is that people are not made either good or bad by laws, but by the set of ethics they acquire and by the moral formation that is gained on a personal basis and not through legislation. I intended to quote to the House several well-informed and sympathetic views in terms of the empathy the writers had-many other members will have received such letters. However, I conclude by quoting from a letter from a former London policeman, who wrote to me in favour of reform: “In the matter 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 Anderton, or a religious group, or a vigilante squad, or will it be the police? Before the English law change I was a young policeman ordered into the dark streets and the private recesses of London to hunt for 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 morality turns us off the steep path to civilisation." The House should pay good heed 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 the House will vote on the matter. I urge the House to take the liberal, sane, and compassionate road to reform - that is, the road that leads to a better society and an improvement on what we have. That is the option before the House. GRAEME LEE (Hauraki): I want to explain to the House and to those listening tonight how the promoter of the Bill has been using her office as Junior Government Whip to rush the Bill through the House. Tonight the House should be debating the reporting back. Instead, it is debating the second reading of the Bill. By doing that the House has failed to observe the normal convention of having a lapse of 7 days between the reporting back and the second reading of a Bill. TREVOR MALLARD: I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I reported the Bill back to the House, and I make it clear that that was not done because of a Government decision to stop hearing submissions. WINSTON PETERS: That's not a point of order. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: The member for Tauranga summed it up when he said that the member had raised a matter that is debating material. It is not a point of order in accordance with the Standing Orders. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I rule that way. The matter has been dealt with in the select committee report and it is not appropriate to cover that ground again. This is a second reading debate. GRAEME LEE: The debate is of tremendous interest to the people of New Zealand. It is also of tremendous importance to the worldwide homosexual network, because the Bill has been prepared over a long time on a highly organised basis. It has been said, in the words of those people, that they have chosen this time and this socialist Government. It should concern people that some Government members have made declarations of liberal attitudes and do not accept the traditional morals of society. The Bill is of intense interest to homosexuals everywhere, first because it is the most progressive legislation of its kind ever offered in the world and, second, because it is a reflection of the intense commitment of homosexual people to obtain at any cost the rights they believe in. Therefore they have gone to significant lengths to ensure that the Bill is not amended. I agree with them on that one point only. The Bill cannot be amended; it can only be thrown out. That is the clear direction from the people of this country. It is not sufficient simply to eliminate Part II of the Bill or to raise the age benchmark to 18 or 20 years. That will not in any way eliminate the threat that the Bill represents to the family life of the nation or to the public health of the country. The clear reason that the Bill cannot proceed is that people have spoken through the petition. The total signatures announced to the House were 817,549. I can say tonight that the unofficial figure is more than 830,000. That is more than the number of people who elected the Labour Government into office in July 1984. We have listened to some amazing verbal semantics tonight about why the petition is not valid. It is understandable that the proponents of the Bill have gone to inordinate lengths to discredit the petition, and that action will continue. Those people will continue making those snide and worthless attempts, but the petition finally stands alone. It is a historic petition of immense proportions, and the only way members can fail to accept it is by denying the petitioners a democratic tool of Parliament and of Government. The petition is so large that in comparative terms with the population of the United States of America a petition there would have more than 80,000,000 signatures. It states clearly, unequivocally, and plainly that the people of New Zealand do not want the Bill to be made law. I accept that there are errors in the petition. Errors will still be found in spite of the attempts of the most honest and purposeful volunteers to check the petition. Whether those errors number 5,000, 10,000, or even half the number of signatures, it is still a voice of incredible proportions. It is a voice that tells every member of Parliament here tonight that it is irresponsible to pass the Bill. It has been of great concern to me, as one of the organisers of the petition, that I have been repeatedly assailed by the comments of right-wing fundamentalist bigots. I repudiate and renounce those allegations as totally incorrect. I am delighted tonight to associate myself with Sir Peter Tait and Keith Hay, and all of those other workers who have gone out believing that the people of this country wanted an opportunity to show in a visible form that they do not want the Bill. They have done that. Their faith was more than justified and the people have spoken. It is right and proper that the petition should be aligned with the motive that has been strongly spoken against: “For God, for country, and for family”, which is a proper expression of all that the compilation of the petition has meant. It is important to every one of us as members of Parliament, and to the country, that the petition prevails. Homosexuality is not something that cannot be changed. A number of comments have been made tonight about that. It is fundamental to the argument that the homosexual is born that way. Homosexuality has been likened to being left-handed or right-handed. After decades of assessment around the world there is no biological, hormonal, or genetic evidence that homosexuals are born that way. If they are not born that way, and accepting that many people face real difficulties because of parental imbalances, and that it will take some a long time to adjust, homosexuality is therefore still acquired or learnt behaviour. Therefore, it can be unlearnt. Homosexuals are responsible for their actions; it is a matter of choice. In spite of the unfortunate allegations that have already been made in the debate tonight, I am delighted that investment has been made in the lives of people to allow the formation of internationally acclaimed bodies such as Homosexuals Anonymous and the Exodus Organisation that will help the homosexuals of this country. People are against the Bill because they have come to understand the practices of homosexuality. I do not believe that I fully understood it, and I believe that many people in this nation understood little at the start of the campaign, but they do understand now. I have no pleasure in talking briefly about the practices of homosexuality, but it is important once again that the House and the country understand the exact nature of the practice. I repeat that I am not speaking against the homosexual as a person, but against the practice. I am reading from a pamphlet called “AIDS - New Rules for Safe Sex” that has been put out by the AIDS Foundation, which seems to have been given the blessing of the Department of Health. It is the AIDS network support group of the past and it is being funded with taxpayers' money. The pamphlet states that the practices of homosexuality anal intercourse - fucking; oral sex-sucking to the point that the semen is swallowed, or stopping before the semen is actually swallowed; indulging in water sports - that is, urinating on each other; rimming-tonguing the anal area, which brings the mouth into contact with faeces - or, indeed, even seeking to enter the anal opening; the sharing of sex toys, fisting, which is to use the fist and arm to enter into the rectum and right up the body of the partner, or to use other devices that we do not need to hear about. That is abnormal; it is unnatural; it is against every normal property and habit of the body. It shouts out as being something that the country surely cannot accept. The Bill calls for the abnormal to be made normal, for the people who believe normality is what life is about to be seen as abnormal in the context of the Bill and its passage. The question has been raised about whether homosexuality will increase if the Bill is passed. It will increase, and I will again quote the book that the member for Kapiti quoted from-a book written by Mr Bacon. The first point made was that, when it was declared legal, homosexuality would be seen as being legally acceptable. It goes on to state that a boy would be more likely to have his first sexual encounter with a practising homosexual, and that the homosexual life-style would encourage unrestrained propaganda that will certainly start in the classrooms and will continue throughout society. It further stated that homosexual groups would be able to demand funding from the taxpayers' purse, and that legalised homosexual behaviour would be a magnet to other homosexual communities around the world. I believe that logic supports that. Common sense suggests that there will be an increase in homosexuality if the Bill is passed. Research in Britain has shown that public acts had increased by 300 percent after 10 years. In San Francisco there has been a 2,400 percent increase in sexually transmitted diseases, and in Los Angeles toilets and parks have had to be closed because of the increased activity of homosexuals since homosexuality decriminalised. Homosexuality will increase because of the decriminalisation provided for in the Bill, so are: was the AIDS problem will be much greater. AIDS has not been mentioned in the comments made so far tonight. In the light of those comments and the increase in homosexuality that will occur because of the passing of the Bill, should it be said that there will be no difficulty when AIDS, the greatest killer disease confronting New Zealand and the world, is at the country's back door? Could we imagine such a Bill being introduced in 2 years' time, when AIDS will be a much worse threat in this country? I think not. If the reason for decriminalisation was to halt AIDS, as it was in many states in the United States, why has AIDS become almost an epidemic there? . The incidence of AIDS doubles every 6 months. It is irresponsible, illogical, and insane to pursue legislation that will give rise to an increase in AIDS. Judging from his assessment, Dr Barker of the Department of Health is obviously confused about what will happen. One thing he is clear about is that promiscuity is the issue to avoid. He is backed up by the World Health Organization. AIDS victims in the United States have, on average, at least 100 partners in the year preceding their death. That is promiscuity on a large scale. It cannot be laughed away by the homosexual community, which is a promiscuous community. Many facts were given to the select committee to indicate that a homosexual has more than 1000 partners in his lifetime. The public health threat of AIDS alone is a reason that the Bill should not be passed. I am concerned for the family unit. I have told the 21,000 people I have had the privilege of addressing on the subject that the family unit will be at risk because of the passage of the Bill. Wives will be at risk, and the heterosexual community is at risk because, on their own admission, 70 percent of the homosexuals in New Zealand are bisexual. It is not sufficient to talk about the risks to those people in their marriages, as another member did. The risk is surely to the wives and, through them, to the nation as a whole. The children of any family unit must be at risk. They will be at risk in the classroom, where it will be quite in order to speak about homosexuality and to expect it to be promoted actively by some teachers. The children will ask their parents why they should not be involved when they have been openly taught about the advantages of that kind of alternative life-style. The family is at risk because it faces the challenge of a legal, lawful, so-called viable alternative life-style. We must not pass the Bill if we have any concern for the family unit, its integrity, its future importance, and its role as a cornerstone of society. The passage of the Bill poses the greatest single threat to the family unit. All my arguments make it very clear that, as parliamentarians, we must not allow the Bill to proceed. Hon. GEORGE GAIR (North Shore): It is obvious that the arguments can be felt very keenly both ways. It is also important that we appreciate that most, if not all, members will have agonised over the subject at some length before they take part in the voting, during the next week or so, that will determine the fate of the Bill. I suggest that the excess of zealousness on the part of the advocates of the extreme positions has not helped the logical debate of the subject that is necessary before we can come to our conclusions. One of the reasons the Bill is before us, and for the arguments about it, is that the present law is clearly seen to be deficient. It is not sufficient to say that because the present law is deficient we must bring about the changes contained in the Bill. The time has long since passed when change should have been achieved. I was present in the House when my colleague the member for Waitotara proposed his private member's Bill 11 or 12 years ago. The Bill came to within six votes of being passed. Had that Bill been passed there would have been no need for the Bill before us tonight. This is a difficult subject to debate, to explore, and to discuss, because feelings are often very keen and the diversity of opinion is so wide. I have sought-as, I am sure, has every other member-by making myself available to listen, to be talked to, and to be jawed at, to glean the views of my electorate, which has its share of prejudice just as each one of us in the House has his or her measure of prejudice. But we must try as best we can to put our personal prejudices aside and to do what we judge to be right. Because the community is so divided on the subject I am not at all sure that polls or petitions help greatly. They do underscore the fact that the community is divided-in some instances very bitterly. Parliament must not only try to solve this problem; it also has an additional task, which no one has yet mentioned in the debate, to try to remove or reduce the polarisation society is suffering at present because of this issue. I have found, in the course of discussing the general subject with many people, that the evidence that has come from the mothers, the wives, and the former wives of homosexuals is particularly sensitive and revealing. I thank the many constituents who have come to see me to tell me their personal stories, so helping me to build my picture of how I should respond in the debate. The Bill has three key elements. The first concerns the age of consent. Whatever age we choose will be an arbitrary age. The second matter concerns decriminalisation. The third concerns the provisions of Part II of the Bill, which amends the Human Rights Commission 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 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 to decide on 16 years as the age of consent is asking the country to move too far too fast. My personal preference is the age of 18, although I accept willingly that there is no particular logic in regard to the age of 18 any more than any other age. The passage of the decriminalisation provisions is essential. I supported such a measure 11 or 12 years ago. I took the time and the trouble at that time to try to become conversant with the general thrust of the Wolfenden report in Britain, which was a very thorough study. There was a ton of useful precedent in that report. I am much less happy with Part II of the Bill, and I will vote against it. Fortunately it will be presented to the House as a separate Bill at the third stage of the procedure. Therefore, it will be possible for a person to support decriminalisation but to vote against Part II of the Bill. I know there is a certain logic in the arguments in favour of Part II, but much of it is asking the law to do the impossible. Part II of the Bill asks Parliament to legislate for public attitudes, and such legislation has never been very successful. There are many examples to support that view. Decriminalisation is the essential ingredient. I will support the Bill through its second reading to make sure that we have the opportunity to achieve decriminalisation at the end of the day. The Bill is described as a conscience measure. Those who are not familiar with the ways of Parliament could, perhaps, be a little misled by the reference to conscience. No doubt many members will view the vote they make on this Bill in conscience terms. However, I feel that something more important than conscience is involved - although perhaps indirectly it involves conscience - and that is to decide where we, as members of Parliament, feel the overriding public good must lie. So I will not vote according to any doctrine that I happen to support. I will not vote according to any matter of mighty principle or any matter of biblical study - and one can find support for or against the Bill in the Bible. I believe that the greater good lies in removing the chief mischief-in other words, to achieve the measure for decriminalisation. If that is achieved, most else will in time fall into sensible place. Our society is deeply divided, and the House and the way in which it handles the Bill should not aggravate the division but should do its best to begin the process of healing the division. In that sense it is my submission that neither side-neither those opposed to the Bill nor 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 that the Bill will be rejected at the second reading stage. That would be a serious blow to this gesture towards social progress. But if we succeed in passing the second reading, and in sorting out our views on what is an acceptable but arbitrary age at which decriminalisation should commence, we will have the opportunity of considering what is a much less important consideration-whether we should adopt Part II of the Bill. For myself, I would be disposed to vote against it. I should like to thank the hundreds of people who have written to me and the hundreds who have taken the time to talk to me. Those people have given me not only their views but often their personal experiences. The experience has taught me that there is a problem to be resolved - a problem that we cannot dust under the rug; a problem that we cannot ignore by rejecting the Bill in total. It has taught me also that many people in society do not understand the problems of the homosexual; they are fortunate not to have that problem in their own families. That does not mean that the problem is not there, and it does not mean that the problem will just go away. So I commend to the House that we pass the Bill at the second reading stage and that we sort out the details of age during the Committee stage. In that regard, I hope that the sponsors of the Bill will make provision for the House to tackle the matter of age in an orderly fashion, because if it becomes a matter of 16 or nothing it may very well prove to be nothing. If the Bill is passed at the second reading stage, provided we find a procedural way for tackling the matter the age decided on will be the one that meets a general consensus. With those thoughts, I wish the Bill all the best in its passage through the House. EDWARD ISBEY (Papatoetoe): As did the member for North Shore some 10 years ago, I voted for the Bill on homosexual law reform introduced by the member for Waitotara. A decade has passed since 1975, and society has moved along with it. I do not have the same difficulties as the member for North Shore about Part I, Part II, and the schedule. I thought about Part I of the Bill; I thought about the age question, and I wondered about the age of 16. Then I examined the total picture. If the age of consent for females is 16, why vary it for males? Is some sort of male chauvinism attached to setting the age of consent for females at 16 and having some other age of consent for males? Is it just a matter of easy pickings? My view is that there is a common ground to have the age of consent at 16. I do not think that the sponsor of the Bill or people such as myself would be hard and fast about pushing the age all the way. The essential feature of the Bill is Part I-the decriminalisation of homosexuality. I have no problem with that. The member for Tamaki said this evening that he would support the decriminalisation of homosexuality yet would vote against the total Bill. I cannot understand that kind of logic. All the Bill is asking is whether we, as citizens in a democracy, want to jail people because they have a form of sexual orientation and a consenting age with which we might disagree. The member for Napier said that he finds homosexuality repugnant. O. K.; that is his right. Does that mean that because someone finds a person's behaviour repugnant that person should be sent to jail? Should someone call the police and have that person brought into court and then put into a prison cell merely because his personal behaviour is found to be repugnant? The member for Hauraki read out a list of activities from a book he had. I say to the member for Hauraki that activities of that kind are not restricted to homosexuals. They are spread throughout the heterosexual world. Are members saying that because they find a form of heterosexual activity unpleasant it should be made a criminal offence? That is what the member for Hauraki is saying. Many people who are not homosexual find many forms of heterosexual behaviour unpleasant and repugnant, but they would be out of their minds to suggest that the people who practise that behaviour should be sent to jail. Some of the best manuals on the subject recommend some of those activities. Where does one go? The member for Whangarei made a political comment and said that we are defenceless in New Zealand today. What kind of morality and obscenity is that? He used the word “obscenity”. In my view those who want to plant nuclear bombs on New Zealand soil or bring nuclear ships into New Zealand harbours are more immoral and obscene than is sexual behaviour between consenting adults. Does the member for Whangarei want to send people to jail if they behave in a particular way because he does not agree with their behaviour? The hallmark of a great democracy is the ability to embody all forms of human behaviour as long as they do not in any way harm life, limb, or property. I have no difficulty with the Bill. Society has moved since 1975 when the member for Waitotara introduced his legislation. New Zealand has gone a long way, as has the rest of the world. The member for Hauraki said that the Bill was being watched with great interest by the worldwide community of gays. I have not seen that group active in New Zealand. I did see another group come in. I saw its representatives on television and heard them on radio, and they appeared before the select committee. That group is known as the moral majority. It has certainly moved into New Zealand in an attempt to condition New Zealanders' attitude to a Bill that, in my view, is long overdue. The member for Hauraki said that the member for Wellington Central - whose private member's Bill this is - was trying to ram the legislation through the House. I cannot see any evidence of that whatsoever. Every member is allowed to get up and have a say on the Bill. No one is going to stop anyone. Members should get up and give their viewpoint, because their constituents want to know where they stand. Everyone should be able to say where he or she stands. I respect people's consciences on this issue; they should respect my conscience on this issue. This is a conscience issue. I feel strongly about the issue, and believe that homosexuality should be decriminalised. For me a crime is an act like murder, rape, burglary, or theft, but not a form of human behaviour that I might disagree with--as long as that behaviour is not doing me any harm. I hope that members will speak and will vote on the legislation. If they disagree with the age limit they should move an amendment to raise it. I am sure that most members must agree with the decriminalisation of homosexuality between consenting adults over a certain age. For goodness' sake, let us pass that aspect of the Bill. In the matter of human rights I have always felt that it was wrong to damage someone personally because of disagreement with his behaviour. I think all people should have the right to a job, the right to earn a living, and the right to associate within our society without being compelled to lose their job or some aspect of their life because of their sexual orientation. I think it is a matter of human rights, and I am sure that all members uphold human rights. We should go along with that kind of philosophy. The member for Hauraki mentioned AIDS. Most medical authorities I have read on the subject state that the sooner we decriminalise homosexuality the better, because it will come out into the open and make it easier to tackle the problem of AIDS. It is the weight of the guilt about one's own activities that helps serious diseases like AIDS to spread. The member for Hauraki used it in the same context when he spoke about developing a community of promiscuous people. Are we going to make promiscuity a crime? Is heterosexual promiscuity a crime? It is a matter of one's attitude to a broad form of human behaviour. My argument is that members will have different opinions about the age limit, but if members say they are not in favour of decriminalisation are they going to say they want to send homosexuals to jail? That is the alternative. I suggest that members should move along with most of the Western World and support the Bill. DOUG GRAHAM (Remuera): I have found the debate quite enlightening and I think that the various points of view have been put clearly, both from 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 consciences. In so doing we bring to the Chamber the beliefs and the moral laws with which we were brought up. I was instructed in the Christian belief, and I adhere to it to this very day. There seems to be some doubt about what that Christian message is. Some people would say that it is a message of condemnation, a message of hellfire and damnation, a message that requires people to interfere with the activities of others in an attempt to save them from themselves. I prefer the Christian message of forgiveness, compassion, love, and tolerance - the message that each one of us in our own way has to work out for ourselves for our own salvation. That is my personal belief, but I accept that others may have another view. That is the view I bring to Parliament and put to the test when legislation such as this comes before the House. What should members of Parliament do then as a group when they discuss such a Bill? I think the first consideration must be whether there is a suffering of our people that requires Parliament to assist. Then I think Parliament must ask how it can maintain the standards of behaviour that a clear majority believes are necessary in society's interest. Is it true that there is suffering that needs to be alleviated? I think there clearly is. I do not accept that homosexuality is a matter of choice. I am quite satisfied that in many cases, if not in all, it is not. Therefore, to apply a criminal sanction is wrong. I think people are suffering, and therefore I seek to alleviate their pain. I have asked myself whether I am at risk or whether those I love or those I represent are at risk from activities that two people take part in. I do not think so. The only people who could be at risk from such activities are children, and provided protection is given to them there is no reason not to support the decriminalisation of such acts. It is not the function of Parliament to enter the bedrooms of the nation. If I am in any doubt at all, I would er on the side of saying that it is not the business of Parliament to interfere in that way. I do not support homosexuality. I find it rather abhorrent, and I certainly have no desire to embark on a homosexual life. I feel very sorry for those who find it necessary to do so, but I have no desire to make it a criminal matter. I do not think it requires the sanction of the law, possible imprisonment, or at the least to be seen to be brought before the courts. Therefore I say that homosexual acts should be decriminalised. The next part is a little more difficult, and relates to the protection of the young. I think that 16 years of age is rather young for consent. I accept the argument that if it is good enough for young women it should be good enough for young men. However, I would prefer that the age be higher, and I suspect that during the Committee stage a number of amendments will be moved on that provision. The hardest part is the matter of the human rights legislation. Whilst I have said that I do not believe that the criminal law should apply, nevertheless, I believe it is absolutely essential that all New Zealanders, in the exercise of their individual rights, should be entitled to express their views on anything, free from interference, unless there is some compelling reason why they should be restrained. Not so many years ago the human rights legislation was enacted. It was made difficult-one could say it was made an offence-for people to discriminate on the grounds of sex, marital status, or religious or ethical beliefs. I do not find much to argue with any of those. I believe it is right to encourage people to take an objective, fair, and tolerant view. However, I accept that people find some behavioural patterns totally abhorrent, and from the speeches we have heard tonight it is obvious that many members in the House find homosexuality totally and utterly abhorrent to a degree far greater than my abhorrence of it. Should they be restrained from expressing their views? Are we doing New Zealand society proud if we say to them: “You can now no longer say that you want nothing to do with a person because of that person's behaviour pattern."? People will no longer be able to say: “If you elect to follow that course feel free to do so - you must work out your own salvation. I can help; I can guide, if asked; but I have to say that I do not agree with what you are doing, and I voice my opinion against it.” If we do not allow people to express that view - even though it may be bigoted and prejudiced on occasion - we are suppressing something that will become a festering sore at a later time. I believe that is dangerous, and I ask members to be careful before outlawing the right of people to express their views. FRAN WILDE: That's not stated in the Bill. DOUG GRAHAM: The Bill prohibits people from discriminating in matters of real estate or jobs on the grounds of sexual orientation. FRAN WILDE: People can express an opinion. DOUG GRAHAM: I do not believe it is as simple as that, because if a homosexual approaches me for a job I cannot discriminate against him on that ground. I believe I should have that right; I should be able to say: “I do not blame you for being a homosexual; I am not heaping scorn and condemnation on your head; I accept that you have the right to think as you will; but I do not want anything to do with you, and I do not want to employ you." I believe that right should not be taken away from me, because if it is I will feel that I have been frustrated in expressing my view, and society heads for danger when that is done. So the matter is not easy. Passions are aroused. At this time I believe that members should support the decriminalisation, and they should listen carefully to the arguments on the age of consent. However, when it comes to legislation on human rights I must say that I am not convinced that sexual orientation should be included in the Bill. I should hate to think that society is being prevented from expressing its view on this or any other matter unless compelling reasons are given. It is my view that, in this case, those compelling arguments do not exist. That is all I have to say at this time. Hon. WHETU TIRIKATENE-SULLIVAN (Southern Maori): I see the Bill as a radical measure. It has two revolutionary purposes. The first is to establish for the first time in New Zealand that the homosexual life-style is a legitimate option. The Bill is aimed at attesting, affirming, and enshrining that legitimacy in the laws of the country. Its second radical purpose is to attempt to redefine traditional normalcy as we have known it in our society. Its proponents are using the Bill and the debate to argue that homosexuality is a normal expression of human sexuality. The Bill seeks to make a socio-political statement that characterises the relatively recent gay liberation revolution. The revolution began in about 1970 - perhaps precisely in that year - in America and gave rise to the unnecessary strident and arrogant demands of the younger gays. That revolution transmitted 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 the Chamber. However, monogamous partnerships between older homosexual men went swiftly out of date at the inception of the gay liberation revolution. New Zealand is following the American sequence of events, even though it is some years behind. It is therefore instructive to see what well documented research of the American scene has revealed. In America the social institution that has been the most influential within the homosexual subculture has been the gay bar. In fact, without the gay bar, and the gay bath or gay sauna as we would say in New Zealand, it would be impossible to conceive of the homosexual movement as it exists today. Indeed, the exact event that brought the movement into the open arose when the New York Police endeavoured to curtail homosexual activity at a gay bar and the Stone Wall riot occurred. Already in New Zealand we have equivalent meeting places; we have had them for about 4 years. Medical researchers have observed that the degree of promiscuity in American gay bars defies the imagination of those not familiar with homosexuality. From the point of view of traditional values they are some of the most destructive and degrading institutions in America today. The mover of the Bill suggested that some might go to the city of the world that has the highest reputation for homosexuality. She has been, and so have I, recently. She has made her inquiries, and so have I. I do not want to see gay bars in New Zealand. I do not want them to flourish here, but if the Bill is passed they will inevitably follow. With gay bars or saunas constituting a major focus for the transmission of diseases, the most recent one being AIDS, there is revealed the full implications of gay liberation and homosexuality for the rest of the community in terms of the health/illness continuum. Unmasked is the risk to the health and well-being of the community by the individual human rights of the individual homosexual. I have studied considerable documentation by medical researchers for identifying the promiscuous gay community as a reservoir of disease for the rest of society, and any member can have access to that. The proponents of the Bill will resist the allegations because they are inimical to their interests and to the passage of the legislation. However, evidence suggests that the homosexual community is very much aware of that. Well known homosexual periodicals carry medical advice columns advising the nature, treatment, and prevention of illnesses directly related to male homosexual practices. There is no comparison with female homosexuality and they should not be compared in that context, although it is convenient so to do. There is a distinction, and they are not in the same category. In America there is an organisation called the national coalition of gay sexually transmitted disease services. The degree to which the homosexual community is affected by sexually transmitted diseases and the promiscuity prevalent among homosexuals is revealed in that organisation's own advice to its members: “Always exchange your name and telephone number to facilitate contact in case signs or symptoms of a STD are later discovered." There is so much more that I cannot repeat in my time tonight. The impression given by a study of the coalition's literature is one of ceaseless and impersonal sexual activity that creates the ever-present danger of sexually transmitted diseases. The coalition has devised a measuring scale to enable gay liberationists to ascertain their relative probability of contracting a sexually transmitted disease. Seven main 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 kinds of encounters carrying high risk the coalition points to one-night stands and group sex. The coalition also points to the high risk of sodomy, oral anal sex, rimming, and scatting, and also makes a particular point about the possibility of major surgery to repair injury sustained from anal sex using one's fist. It also warns about intestinal parasites. Writing in the Medical World News in 1980 Dr Dan Williams, an active member of the coalition, said that his concern was that there could be a sudden outbreak of seriously damaged immune systems. The House knows that AIDS did follow, as he predicted and about which he expressed deep concern. There is little doubt that the extreme promiscuity associated with male homosexuals guarantees that they are a high risk population for sexually transmitted diseases, as their own coalition points out. The Centennial, which is a well-established and respected homosexual newspaper in San Francisco, has admitted that the risk of gay people contracting disease is about 10 times that of people in the general population. It is also reported that for homosexuals the risk of developing hepatitis B is 10 times greater than for other people. Those conclusions were confirmed by a survey of members of the gay coalition and other homosexual organisations reported in the official publication of the American Public Health Association. That survey yielded a variety of results, one of which was that 78 percent of the thousands surveyed had been affected at least once by a sexually transmitted disease. The same survey indicated an average of 49 different sexual partners for each homosexual over a lifetime. It also reported that 10 percent of homosexuals have more than 500 sexual partners in a lifetime. The high rate of illness in the homosexual community has been repeatedly linked with the promiscuity of some of its members, and the connection between the promiscuous life-style of some homosexuals and their tendency to infection is clear. Any legislation that might in any way predispose us to go further along the course we have already embarked on and to impair the health of the community should not be passed by the House. When commenting about the high incidence of venereal disease in San Francisco, Dr Irvine Braugh, the director of the city clinic, indicated that the problem was generally due to active people having multiple sex partners. Dr Braugh made the observation that most of the partners chosen were single. Dr Silverman, the director of public health for San Francisco, has described that city as a tolerant one, hence the rate of venereal disease being almost 22 times the American national average. A public health medical officer with the state's venereal disease control unit, Dr Irene Hindle, has pointed out that people in gay communities tend to have more sexual partners; that they are not particular about their partners, and tend not to take precautions. Abundant evidence exists that leads to the reasonable assumption that homosexuals as a group pose a health threat to the rest of the community. The issue was raised in the United States House of Representatives in 1980 on the hearing of a Bill not dissimilar to this one-Bill No. 2074 - which many members would be familiar with from their research. I have already mentioned much of the evidence brought forward, and I have researched and read much more when preparing for the debate. It was also suggested that if 10 percent of the population were gay, and a substantial number of those people were infected at a particular time, the risk that homosexuals as a group posed to the health of the rest of the community would be very real. We have to think about that reality, which has been documented in a country along whose similar path we have already launched ourselves. In 1981 other infections began to make their appearance among homosexuals, especially young male homosexuals, who had previously not been considered to be prone to those illnesses. By December 1981 it had been reported that five or six new cases were being found each week. The homosexual publication The Washington Blade reported that male homosexuals were found to be affected by a new virus transmitted by the ingestion of semen and urine, as is said to be common in homosexual practices. Any member can find the source of the research, quotations, and references I have made. I believe that in attempting to quote sources that proponents of the Bill would accept, and in quoting research accepted by the gay coalition's own network, I have been as responsible and as detached as possible in the enumeration of my concerns about unleashing anything more on this country and our community than we have already. I have referred only to prostitution and to numerous partners, but I do point out that research indicates that homosexual prostitution has frightening prospects for younger male homosexuals. Besides homosexuality posing the danger of transmitting infectious diseases, certain sexual practices themselves are life threatening. I refer to sado-masochism, which is intrinsically violent, and homosexual prostitution often involves that violence. In San Francisco the coroner's office organised a workshop for sado-masochistic homosexuals on how to have their preferred variety of sex without injuring one another. The reason offered was that 10 percent of homicides in San Francisco are the result of sado-masochistic homosexual practices. I do not think anyone can deny any of those facts, which are based on the reality of recent experience, research and more recently, for me-inquiry. There is no doubt in my mind that the House must consider the issue with great responsibility, and realise the consequences of an uninformed liberal approach to providing equal rights for male homosexuals as compared with female homosexuals. The point of considerable concern clearly distinguishes between the male and the female practices, and the male practices are those that have given rise to the epidemics of sexually transmissible diseases. That is the substance of my research on the matter, and it has caused me to change the approach I have expressed in the House in the past when similar measures have been discussed. Members may know that I have expressed concern for this group in the population. I have been a counsellor and have felt the acute anguish of those people. I am, however, aware that if one releases or removes the present restrictions the group knowing the anguish will inevitably be increased, and why should that be done? I am clear that I cannot support the Bill because of what has happened over the past few years. There has been a revolution. Attitudes of 5 years ago towards the condition must surely have been changed by the facts to which I have referred. PHILIP WOOLLASTON (Nelson): As has already been said, this is one of those measures that provides a severe test for the House and its members. I am sure that other members have received a great deal of correspondence about the Bill, as I have. It is significant that more of the correspondence I have received has supported the Bill than has opposed it. I have paid particular attention to the correspondence from my own constituents, and it did not surprise me to find that of those in my electorate who felt strongly enough to put pen to paper the support and opposition were numerically almost equally divided. The measure is divisive of society, as is the issue. For that reason I do not think it is possible for members to walk away from the issue. Walking away from the Bill will not cause the issue to go away. The House has to give very careful attention to it, and to the matters in the Bill. We need to consider carefully what is actually in the Bill and what the House is being asked to approve. I do not accept that the Bill is aimed at attesting and enshrining homosexuality, or that it is a socio-political statement of the kind mentioned; nor do I accept that the movement for decriminalisation of homosexuality started in 1970. Members have heard some views expressed on promiscuity, and the suggestion has been made that the views of some members have been determined by the promiscuity practised by some homosexuals. However, it is equally true that the world and this country have undergone an explosion of heterosexual promiscuity at exactly the same time, and I suspect in exactly the same proportion. There has been an explosion of heterosexually transmitted diseases, so the logic that has been advanced on that score in opposition to the Bill would lead one to invoke criminal sanctions against heterosexual activity between consenting adults. If that were to happen we would either break the law or become extinct in a fairly short time. I want to discuss briefly some of the issues that have been raised with me by constituents, and also some of the fears that have been expressed, because many of the expressions of opposition have attested to a degree of fear, not always well informed, about what may or may not be in the Bill. Those people outside the House, and also some within the House, who have dwelt at some length on some of the more bizarre, and, I hope, rare sexual practices that have been described in medical and other literature are not addressing the issues in the Bill but are playing on those fears. Some of the practices described tonight are not homosexual practices but sexual practices that can be engaged in between people of any gender and any form of pairing. Discussion of those does not help to determine the issues the Bill deals with. Some of the fears raised by my constituents have been based on a perception that, if homosexual acts between consenting adults in private are no longer punishable by imprisonment, adult homosexuals will in some way be free to prey on young boys in our society. That is incorrect. If it were true it would be good ground for opposing the passage of the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill that would permit that to happen. It is interesting to note that the Bill provides a protection for young boys that does not exist in the present law. At present there is no specific protection for male children from homosexual attention. The Bill seeks to provide the same protection for male children as for female children. I am the father of a boy and a girl, and I think they should receive the same protection. It is an unfortunate truth that the youth of our country are 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. That is what I want the law to do, and that is what I understand the Bill to do. It would incorporate into the Crimes Act exactly the same measures to protect male children that at present protect female children. I want to mention the age of consent, because that has been mentioned by some members. I mention it in the context of equality before the law. It may well be that 16 years of age is too low an age of consent. If that is so, I suggest that it is equally too young for female children. I should want my daughter to have the same protection before the law as I should want for my son. The real issue regarding the age of consent is whether there should be a different legal prescription for homosexual activities from that for heterosexual activities. I turn now to Part II of the Bill. Another fear that has been expressed to me by many constituents concerning the Bill has been mentioned in the House tonight. Part II of the Bill provides a particular protection against discrimination on the basis of perception of sexual orientation. The fear that has been expressed to me is that, if there is no general criminal sanction against homosexual acts between adults, people in positions of responsibility such as teachers, members of the police, or senior members of the armed forces may in some way be able to abuse that responsibility to make sexual advances to people within their care. That is manifestly not correct. Probably the most common form of sexual abuse by people in positions of responsibility is heterosexual attention to female schoolchildren by male teachers, but that does not call into question the legality or otherwise of heterosexual acts between consenting adults. In that context it is statistically demonstrable that by far the greatest abuse of positions of responsibility relate to acts by males in superior positions to girls or young females who are in some way in their care. If the licence for the acts between adults were causative of that, 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 regard to female pupils. Exactly the same sanction in regard to abuse of trust or of advocating immoral behaviour would apply in any case to any person in a position of such responsibility with regard to the people for whom he was responsible. The argument that there will 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 stand up. It is a fear that has been whipped up. The member for North Shore said that Part II of the Bill is asking the law to do the impossible - to legislate for public attitudes. That is not in the Bill, and not in the present law that makes illegal certain forms of discrimination. It is obviously impossible, by law, to require people to hold certain attitudes. The present law does not require people to hold tolerant attitudes on matters of race or religion or on any other matter that is covered in the Human Rights Commission Act. What it does do is make discrimination illegal. Discrimination involves an unfair or unjust attack on the rights of other people on the basis of perceptions of race, religion, and so on. Similarly, the Bill seeks to make illegal an unfair attack on the rights of people on the basis of a perception about their sexual orientation. That is a right and proper matter for the House to legislate on. The member for Remuera suggested that it would make impossible an expression of opinion or personal dissociation from people whose nature one disapproved of or whose nature gave rise to perceptions that led one to want to dissociate oneself from them. That is not what is proposed in the Bill. What is covered in the Bill is an unfair attack on the rights of other people because one thinks they might be homosexual. The matters of principle in the Bill are likely to be lost sight of in the emotional debate that has arisen. I am pleased that most 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 to link the Bill to such matters as incest, euthanasia, prostitution, and so on. They are not in the Bill, and they are not envisaged by the Bill. The Bill does not affect the law on those matters, nor does it make statements on those matters. It behoves members of the House to bear in mind the matters relevant to the Bill and the Standing Orders on relevance when debating it. The Bill is not about homosexuality per se. That is not well understood. The Bill is about whether certain sexual practices, or sexual practices between males, should be subject to criminal sanction. It does not imply a judgment for or against people who wish to engage in those practices, but merely deals with the question of whether or not they should be subject to criminal sanction, the threat of imprisonment, and, consequent on that, to the threat of blackmail and sometimes of violence that goes unreported because of the possibility of legal action. I suggest that members mu: address themselves to the narrow question of whether we consider there should be a criminal sanction when dealing with matters of moral principle that are perhaps matters of strong opinion in society, but are not matters of damage to third parties and would not normally be dealt with in the criminal law. There is also the matter of equality before the law and whether there should be two different sets of legal prescription, one governing the behaviour of the majority of people in New Zealand who are heterosexually inclined, and the other the minority who are homosexually inclined. The Bill seeks to amend the Crimes Act so that one law applies equally to all, with the same protection to young people of either gender, to the mentally incapable, and to others in need of protection. I believe that equality should exist before the law whenever possible. This is one of the cases in which there must be equality. Therefore I believe the Bill should be passed, and I believe that whether or not one thinks 16, 17, 18, or some other age is the appropriate age of consent for sexual activity there should be one age of consent for sexual activity. Therefore the Bill should be passed with the age of consent at 16. The matter of what the age of consent should be in general terms could be addressed at another time if the House wanted to. I should like to say a few words about the petition that has been brought before the House. The member for Hauraki said it was for God, for country, and for family. I 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 the Bill; by people who are patriots, but who do not like to see it claimed that only people who are in favour of the Bill can claim to be for country; and by people who hold strong family views, but who resent the suggestion that only those who oppose the Bill can claim to hold strong family views. There is more I could say on the petition, but I know that other members want to speak. I urge the House to support the Bill as it has been reported back. BRUCE TOWNSHEND (Kaimai): If ever there was a time when the House is flying blind it is on this issue, because the select committee did not consider two vital issues that we are considering tonight: the age of consent, and the moral aspect of the threat of AIDS to the wider community. Many speakers tonight are struggling to decide the right position on the Bill - whether is should be passed, the effect its passage would have, and the risk at which its passage would put the community at large. Debate interrupted. The House adjourned at 11 p. m.

IRN: 3846
PRIDENZ URL: https://www.pridenz.com/hansard_homosexual_law_reform_bill_second_reading_continued_16_october_1985.html
TITLE: Homosexual Law Reform Bill - second reading continued (16 October 1985)
DATE: 16 October 1985
LOCATION: Parliament buildings, 1 Molesworth Street, Wellington, New Zealand.
TEXT: BRUCE TOWNSHEND (Kaimai): Before the interruption of the debate 1 week ago I had been expressing my concern that the House had been deprived of information about the effect of AIDS on the wider community. At that time 85 public submissions were still to be heard, and it was unfortunate that the Government used its majority to deprive those people-many of whom were experts - of their right to present information before the committee. While the committee cannot make recommendations to the House other than on technical matters, it had an absolute obligation to present to Parliament the best information available. It is easy to identify the moral argument that homosexual activity is unnatural and against God's law. On the other hand, the liberal attitude states that it is the right of an individual to do what he wishes in private, and that the question of morals is a subjective issue. I doubt that we will ever persuade those two sides to change. There is a third element that is probably best defined as charity, expressed by those holding conservative or liberal views on whether homosexuality should be decriminalised. The subject of AIDS has added a further dimension to the debate, and an important issue is that of the morality of the House in relation to the wider community. It has been clearly demonstrated that AIDS is not a disease of homosexuals alone. It can be fairly well demonstrated that the spread of AIDS is probably accelerated by the homosexual community, but beyond that–because it is widely accepted and established that about 60 percent or more of males who practise homosexual acts are bisexual - there is a threat to many other innocent victims throughout the total community for whom we have a responsibility to do our best. There is no known cure for the disease; it can take years to develop fully, and it is a virus with constantly changing characteristics, which makes immunisation by vaccine a distant hope. No symptoms of pain occur in its early stages - unlike venereal disease, with which there is a burning desire to tell somebody within a few days. Medical evidence submits that education is the only weapon to deal with AIDS in the long term. In the short term, openness, blood screening, and identification of carriers or potential victims are essential requirements. A critical aspect of the law reform is whether we should criminalise consenting acts in private and try to closet homosexuality, with the risk that we hasten the spread of AIDS. Few have difficulty in arguing that homosexuality and homosexual acts are unnatural. I notice that the member for Hamilton West is screwing up his face, but in the eyes of most of the population I would suggest that that is the accepted view. To enforce a position whereby it is a criminal offence, while knowing that to do so could unleash a social and health time bomb of the magnitude of the plague or the great influenza epidemics, is an issue that the committee should have considered and been able to make firm recommendations to the House on. It is the responsibility of members of Parliament to do what is best to avoid the development of that position, and I suggest that that is our moral responsibility to society. At present we have a latent law, one of inaction, in the provision of the Crimes Act and homosexual acts. It is really token legislation and, unfortunately, rather than having argued the issue with logic we have seen attitudes harden in both camps. If we were, in passing the Bill, to restate within the statutes that homosexual acts should be criminalised, even within the limitations that the final Bill will prescribe, I suggest that the whole debate would awaken an avalanche of public opinion. That same opinion created a petition with 800,000 signatures, and I fear that we will see a reaction demanding adherence to the new law. Is it right that we put this imposition on the public at large? Parliament must der the issue very carefully. I personally disapprove of homosexuality, and I also believe that Parliament cannot legislate for the morals of the nation. My personal belief is in the charity of Christianity, and I would support that view rather than the imposition of a fundamental religious direction on a minority of 10 percent of the community by 90 percent of the community. I do not support the human rights provisions in the legislation, because I do not think New Zealand is ready to accept them. In particular, there is concern for families when parents feel they still have a right to select those persons who, knowing them to be homosexuals, they prefer should not influence and direct their children. If we look specifically at some of the unanswered questions from the select committee we will see that at about the time the hearings concluded there was an announcement about the similarity between Alzheimer's disease and AIDS degeneration and the AIDS problem. Since then there have also been two articles about the similarities between scrapie and AIDS. Scrapie is the disease that affects the brains of sheep, and a major importation of livestock affected by the disease, which could have had a significant economic impact on the agriculture sector, was slaughtered in New Zealand. As a nation we were prepared to destroy in order to protect our livestock, yet on this issue we tend to have argued on a very narrow band between morality on the one hand and liberalism on the other. I suggest that members must think a little more clearly in future. The observation about scrapie highlights the problem that no vaccine could ever be prepared that would be effective in the control of AIDS if it contained a protein. That in itself is a problem, but the principle is more important. We were prepared to take more violent steps in our livestock industry than we are to face up to one or two of the real issues. The conclusions of the select committee and the report of the Department of Justice show that it seems there is doubt about what the real effect would be, but two interesting observations were made about the effect of criminalising homosexual acts and the effect that would have on the disease. On balance, the conclusion was reached that it may well be better out in the open. The Australian experience tends to fortify that argument. The conclusion was reached that it was a matter for the Department of Health and not one that should be dealt with within the criminal law. I was impressed by the visiting New South Wales general practitioner, Dr David Sutherland, who explained the position in New South Wales as against that in Queensland. When we study the parallel case of California, where homosexual acts are not criminal, and Florida, where they are, no clear evidence is found to indicate that by criminalising those people whom we recognise as having a sexual orientation that is different from the average, because of metabolic or hormonal differences, we shall achieve the right answer. When a kite was flown recently in New South Wales about making AIDS a notifiable disease, and it was decided that AIDS carriers should also be notifiable, the public backed away because there is no known cure. On balance, I invite the House to meditate on this very important issue. It is one on which Parliament must make the best decision for the people of the country. Sitting suspended from 5. 30 p. m. to 7. 30 p. m. BRUCE TOWNSHEND: Before the adjournment I canvassed the impact of AIDS on the wider population and also the responsibility of Parliament to have a moral conscience about doing the right thing in the Bill to ensure that AIDS does not become a plague. Having canvassed that and other issues in relation to the removal of the human rights provisions in the Bill - I consider them to be premature, because New Zealand is trying to lead the world in that field - I also see a need to raise the age of consent for males to beyond 16 years. The member for Papatoetoe is reported as having said in the second reading debate that he felt it was male chauvinism to have a different age for males and females. There are three reasons that the House should consider raising the age in the Bill. The physical and sexual development of girls is acknowledged to be at least 11/2 years more advanced than that of their male counterparts. At 16 years of age girls are much more at risk if they want to move into the world of sexual activity, and with the risk of pregnancy they have an inbuilt deterrent. Conversely, the adolescent male at 16 years of age has nothing at risk. He may be prepared to experiment, and if there is a propensity towards homosexual activity-which I do not condone or encourage - I do not think it is desirable to have a law that will encourage him to take that risk. Hence I support the amendment to raise the age to be moved by the member for Fendalton. At this stage I will be voting against the second reading, with the desire to see the human rights provision removed. Other members - in particular, the member for Tarawera-hold parallel views to mine on such issues. Unfortunately, the member for Tarawera is away from the House on urgent public business, concerning himself with the plight of farmers around the country. As legislators it is easy for us to have a general criticism of a selected group of society. While from our own particular perspective of morality we may disapprove of a principle or activity, I invite the House to take back the responsibility each member has to a personal basis. As legislators it is easy to be critical of an individual, or a group, or a minority, or an activity. However, if we had a personal or family contact with someone who had inherited strong homosexual tendencies through the hormonal or metabolic imposition that nature had given him-and it is not correctable, as many would claim-it would put a different perspective on our attitude to whether a homosexual should be made a criminal. Although I shall vote against the second reading, I assure the House that I intend to take what I feel is the best course. I hope that more evidence on the matter will be raised in the debate, because it is an important matter. It is an important matter for the 33,000 people in my electorate and the 3,300,000 in the country. Parliament must adopt a broad perspective in producing a workable and sensible Bill. Finally, I want to give a short résumé of one of the most touching letters I received on the matter, which was sent to me when the matter was receiving much public debate. It was from a woman in a quiet corner of my electorate, who said that the finest man in the world that she had ever met was a homosexual. “I married him, and I endeavoured to work through the marriage. He has stood by me and has done right through his whole life. But, due to his orientation, we could never overcome that difficulty.” She said that she was now 74 years of age. She asked that we do not make a criminal of him. TREVOR DE CLEENE (Palmerston North): I congratulate members who have so far participated in the debate. For myself, I find it one of the most pleasing aspects of the Chamber that on a debate on a social conscience matter the quality of debate usually rises - and indeed it has - and members can fulfil the democratic and constitutional process that Parliament was originally designed for - that is, the individual expression of a democratic opinion on matters pertaining to the people whom we seek to govern. I urge the member for Kaimai to change his mind on voting against the second reading of the Bill, because, in my view, the Bill should have a second reading so that the very matters he put before the House tonight can be the subject of Committee debate and at the vital stage of the Bill the individual conscience of the people in the House can be exercised in the voting lobbies. By those means we will have a better Bill, in whatever shape or form it eventually passes - because I am sure some of it will be passed. I urge the member for Kaimai, for whom I have respect-indeed, as a Government member I have respect for all members, particularly when they are voting on a conscience matter - to depart from voting against the second reading. I am speaking as a member and also as a lawyer with considerable experience of acting for people who, whether due to God, nature, or something else, are designed in a different way, or had a different proclivity in life on sexual orientation than perhaps mine or somebody else's. I am reminded of the famous passage in the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam: “After a momentary silence spoke Some vessel of a more ungainly Make; ‘They sneer at me for leaning all awry: What! did the Hand then of the Potter shake?” I am the last person who wants to be judgmental. I did not want to speak in the debate, but, because I would otherwise have avoided what is a duty that I owe to my constituents and the people, I am forced to exercise my conscience on a matter that I would rather not have had brought before the House at this time. However, I commend the member for Wellington Central for her courage in introducing the Bill and making members exercise their consciences. I want read into Hansard a history of the matter. Before 1533 the felony and the common law of England recognised no derogation of what a person, male or female, wanted to do in a sexual orientation. It was left to the ecclesiastical courts. Later in my speech I shall say that that is basically where we still are. I remind the lawyers of the House, and anybody listening tonight who is a lawyer, that the law of the country sprang not from the historical common law of which Anglo-Saxons were so proud, but from the abolition by Henry VIII of the religious aspects of the ecclesiastical courts. A Bill was passed during the sixteenth century stating that the abominable vice had been dealt with exclusively by the ecclesiastical courts and that the offence of buggery was made a criminal offence under the law of England. Thus for most of the evolution of mankind the people who suffer from the present criminal law did not suffer. It was only in the sixteenth century that it was brought from the law of God into the law of man. I repeat: buggery became an offence only then. One could do what one wished in relationships after even that, so long as it was not buggery, which was defined as an act with an animal, a woman, or a man. However, if one did commit the offence one could be burnt at the stake - and some people were. I hope they will not be after this debate, but they may be if some members who have spoken get their way or if some people who are visitors from overseas and who represent a moral point of view get their way. I am not one of those. The death penalty was finally abolished in 1861 but consensual homosexual acts other than buggery remained legal. Total prohibition came only in 1885. One of the people who suffered from that Act was probably one of the greatest literary geniuses ever to grace the English stage - Oscar Wilde. There was the famous action against the Marquis of Queensbury - who was well known for other, pugilistic activities - who acted for the love of his son. Oscar Wilde wrote such things as The Picture of Dorian Gray and the Essays on Socialism. He was one of the literary greats of our heritage, but he was tried and died in poverty. The only thing I can say about it is that if accident of nature and criminal law can do anything, he wrote the Ballad of Reading Gaol before he died. I view that as one of the great literary masterpieces of the English language. Those Acts came into New Zealand law after it took Dominion status. The law against homosexuals was passed at a late hour of Parliament when La Bouchère moved an amendment that was basically designed to stop the prostitution of women and young girls. It came into law as an accidental matter aside from buggery and other things. What I am saying to the members who oppose the Bill is that fundamentally the act of criminal homosexuality was not derived from the common law of England from which we inherit our marvellous system. It was derived from an act and a sin against God, as it was seen by the ecclesiastical courts. I have no argument with the fact that some members of the Chamber and a lot of people in this country regard homosexuality as an act against God. God can sit in judgment when they have shuffled from this mortal coil. I urge upon members and the public generally that they render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, unto God what is God's, and that they do not exercise a moral judgment in a criminal sense against their fellow human beings. I am no stranger to the King James Version of the Bible. I had tremendous respect, Mr Speaker, for your predecessor, Sir Richard Harrison, as a Speaker of the House. If I ever quoted the wrong version of the Bible he would pull me up later and say: “Trevor, that is not the King James Version." However people view this criminal law today, it came into the courts as an act against God-not against man and the criminal law. Among the hullabaloo with which this issue has been attacked in New Zealand one finds people who believe they have the word of God on their side. To me that is a very onerous burden indeed, and I am not being jocular. I believe the members who honestly think that are to be treated with the greatest respect. The people who take that view may be right and I may be wrong, but it is not an onus that as a member of the House I am prepared to speak on lest I, too, should end up at the judgmental seat and someone may say to me that the greatest sin upon earth was to assume the burden of God and judge fellow human beings when that is best left to the Maker. What I am saying is that as long as they do not hurt anyone, as long as they leave children alone - and that is the evidence-I could not give a damn what they do as long as they do not scare the horses. I am not being jocular in saying that; I am simply not being morally judgmental of my fellow human beings. If we decriminalise--and I shall vote for decriminalisation; I shall follow the member for Wellington Central through the lobbies - we are removing as a criminal act something that historically, and in all other senses, has not been an offence other than in an ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and I do not offer an opinion on that. If members think they are right then God bless them, because there is only one person who can tell them that, and I have had no great advocate come back from the other side to convince me of who is right and who is wrong. From the people I have known and acted for in the past I am not prepared to say that what is right for a woman, and what was never considered as an offence, is wrong. In 1921 a private member's Bill was brought before the House in England to make so-called unnatural acts illegal. I am not saying what is unnatural and what is normal. Frankly, I do not know what is normal or unnatural. I know what I accept within myself as a natural thing. I know what I regard as normal, but I do not have the temerity, as other members do, to say that the view I take on morality is so correct and accurate that it must have the force of the laws handed down by God to Moses on the Mount. I suppose I shall be punished in another place just as other people here will be, but not before the courts of this country for an act that is proper and legal between women. In my opinion if it is good enough for the gals it is good enough for the boys. I believe in equality of the sexes. I know that some of my women compatriots in the Chamber do not think I display that belief with the vehemence and enthusiasm that some of them do, but I was brought up by a mother-a Scottish woman whose name was MacDonald before she married Willie de Cleene - who drilled into me that not only were women equal but basically they were superior. If one fought it with old Mary de Cleene and survived, one would be a survivor in this world. The one thing she taught me at her knee was that all people who walk on two legs and speak in a guttural tongue are human beings. My old dad used to say that one did not have to drink with them or be with them if one did not like them, but for God's sake - and he used that expression - do not judge them. If the Lord is omnipotent and created all people then the Lord must, by definition, have created the very people attacked by some members in the Chamber. Who is the sinner and who are the sinful if that be the case? I am not urging it, but my logical mind says to me that if the Lord is omnipotent he could have fixed all of this up in a flash of a pan. Leaving that aside, it is not a matter for the criminal law. The Bill that was brought before the United Kingdom Parliament in 1921 stated that lesbianism should also be subject to the criminal law. It was thrown out on the basis of the submission from the House of Lords that if one let women know about it they would be encouraged by it. There have been advertisements up and down the country. I am not, in the words of Karen Hay with whom I debated against Shadbolt, Scott, and McCormick, trying to make it compulsory. The member for Napier made a brilliant speech but, one again in the words of Karen Hay, “I was not going to ram this homosexual law reform down his throat”. I am merely asking for tolerance. That brings me to the next point. If ever I preached any doctrine to the democracy of this country it is the doctrine of tolerance and respect for one's fellow human beings. The scenes of moral judgment that occurred outside the House shocked me, and turned by mind back to the Nazi members of Nuremberg in 1933. (Interruption). “Crap” someone says - it certainly was - and there were brownshirts out there to prove it on both sides - with people lining up in uniform, singing hymns, flying a flag, and saying " God's on my side!” During the war God was on the side of the Nazis. There were Christians there. God was on the side of the Russians. God is on everyone's side. One can get out of the Bible any argument that can be taken out of the New Zealand Law Reports if one is the advocate for it, but tolerance and mercy I have always taken from the Bible. I do not want to bring you, Mr Speaker, into the debate, but I know you are a Christian person. I am not saying what I am, but I am saying this to you: that I read incessantly that the virtue of tolerance is preached to us from the word go, and I wish that some of the people who Bible-bash would read some of the other quotations. A fellow called Pastor Sheldon came to New Zealand, got his photograph on the front of the New Zealand Times lounging back in leather-tooled, high-kneed boots with high heels, and told New Zealand women what they should and should not do about abortion, and what homosexuals should and should not do. I am afraid it reminded me of an extremism that is anti-democratic and an intolerance that I will not have in this country. If there is anything to be aware of in this debate it is that it has brought out in New Zealanders a hidden feeling that must have been there all the time. I do not exempt the other side of that same debate. People on the other side of the fence have shown an extremism that, in my view, should not exist. It has brought us into a virtual war of moral positions. All I am preaching tonight is that the greatest thing in this democracy is that right advocated by Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Equally I do not believe that the common law of this country or the statute law of crime should enter the bedroom. What adult consenting males do there is their business. The fact that someone else should exercise a moral judgment, send a policeman creeping up a private drive to peer through a blind to see what was happening and give evidence - and there have been cases of that happening - is to me simply a waste of the time of the police. Anyone who is prepared to do that has got a damned dirty mind, because what I, like Shakespeare, have always worried about is that the people who protest too much, “Methinks have a lot to protest about". What particular conscience are they serving in trying to flagellate people who have a different point of view? As a lawyer, when I retire from the House or get booted out - whichever is earlier-I will go back and defend the people of the ungodly-as I jocularly call them-the people who have sinned against the law. I do not want to go back as a criminal lawyer and have to defend people who were minding their own God-damn business in their own God-damn houses in their own God-damn time - to use the Reverend Sheldon's expletive, which was brought by him from America at some expense to the people of this country. I am saying that the New Zealand nation is better than that, and that most countries have decriminalised the offence. I intend to vote for decriminalisation. I intend to stick with the age of 16 years, not because I do not bear with some weight what the member for Kaimai said but because, in logic, I cannot say that what is good enough for the women is necessarily bad for the men; and if 16 years has to be the age of consent - and that may be another matter-I intend to vote for it. I want to reserve my right to hear more speeches on the human rights issue, but even then the more I note the extremism and intolerance in this country the more I am driven to the belief that the only way to squash this matter entirely is to decriminalise it, to make the age of consent 16, and to give people who walk as human beings upon this earth the same rights as anybody else. The more we get into extremism the more I am being driven by the logic of the legal mind to the belief that if it is not to be criminal then people have a right to the human dignity of equality with everyone else in the country. PHILIP BURDON (Fendalton): In rising to speak to the Bill I want to commence by emphasising my respect for the sincerity of the arguments presented by both sides of the House. In particular I draw attention to the deep and profound sincerity and the concern, on the one hand, of the member for Hauraki in his opposition to the Bill, and, on the other hand, the arguments in favour of the Bill presented by the Minister of Customs. There have been many other equally sincere speeches. I regret the way in which certain members have attempted to personalise and belittle the beliefs that are quite clearly sincerely and honestly held by other members. I dissociate myself from the ridicule and contempt that has been reflected by some for the 800,000-strong petition of those opposed to the Bill. Regardless of whether or not one agrees with the objectives of the petition the reality is that, irrespective of a substantial number of errors, it is a reflection of deep concern in society. To that extent it deserves responsible and concerned attention, which it clearly has not had from some of the more radical supporters of the proposed legislation. I do not propose to attempt to review in any detail the confused and troubled history of the legislation. Rather, I want to foreshadow my intention to introduce an amendment to the Bill to raise the age legalising homosexual acts between consenting adults from the proposed 16 years to 20 years. The amendment will be supported by a significant number of my colleagues who believe that there is justification for a much more limited reform than the radical and overdramatic reform proposed by the member for Wellington Central and supported by many of her colleagues. I invite the member for Palmerston North to listen carefully, as I believe he has prejudged some of our reasons. For purely clinical reasons we believe that it is wrong to legalise sodomy from the age of 16, which would be a direct consequence of the passing of the Bill. Regardless of the moral considerations, sodomy should be strongly discouraged. Sodomy, or anal intercourse, is a very dangerous act for health reasons, and society has an obligation to attempt to protect the young from a practice that carries very severe health risks. It is clearly shown that the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases is very high for those who engage in sodomy. It appears that the absorption of semen through the rectum could critically suppress the body's immune system and so account for the particular phenomenon of AIDS in the homosexual. It appears that the gay bow syndrome, which, together with the increased incidence of sexually transmitted diseases, may be central to the AIDS phenomenon is occurring because of the unbelievably crude acts performed between homosexuals, which the general public appears to be oblivious of. I do not believe it is in the public interest to allow 16-year-old boys or girls to be legally sodomised even though they may purportedly consent to the act. To pass laws requiring people to wear seat-belts while at the same time allowing 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds to be sodomised is a sad reflection of society's priorities in respect of health care. If people wish to sodomise one another they should be permitted to do so only after they have reached maturity and have had ample opportunity to understand the dramatic health risks that such an activity involves them in. For that reason I believe that 20 is an appropriate age for society to accept that it is no longer appropriate to protect the individual from himself. By the age of 20, society ceases to be entitled to claim an educative role and must let the individual take his place in society subject to all the usual constraints of consent and public decency. I now want to refer briefly to the philosophic argument. I believe in the rights and freedoms of the individual, and I respect the right of the adult to conduct his or her life with minimum interference from the State. I accept that the State has the right to educate and protect the individual. However, I cannot support the continued imposition of criminal sanctions against the adult homosexual, as I do not believe it is the role of the State to impose public morality on the community by enshrining it in law. What people do in the privacy of their own homes, however morally and physically obnoxious it may be to the ordinary citizens, is their own affair as long as the participating parties do it in full knowledge and with mutual consent. Society has an educative role until the age of 20 for strictly health reasons because of the uniquely dangerous nature of certain homosexual acts, and that is the reason for distinguishing homosexual acts from heterosexual acts. After the age of 20, society must accept the right of the individual to conduct his life according to his own personal values. We do not allow children under the age of 15 to smoke or people under the age of 18 to go into public bars. Likewise, for public health reasons, we believe, accordingly, that 16 is too young to allow sodomy to be indulged in. In addition to those reasons, I emphasise also that I totally reject the argument that the present law should remain as it is because it represents a constraint on homosexual activities. I accept that the present law is totally hypocritical in so far as it contains criminal sanctions that clearly are not enforced. It is wrong to allow a law to be perceived as a token discipline. If we acquiesce in abusing the integrity of the law, ultimately we bring the whole rule of law into disrepute. That may seem to be rather too puritan an argument but it is another reason that there is a compelling argument for legalising homosexual acts between consenting adult males over the age of 20. Accordingly, I foreshadow my intention, with the expected support of many of my colleagues, to introduce an amendment that will raise the age legalising homosexual acts between consenting adults from the proposed age of 16 years to 20 years, and tell the House that we will not be supporting Part II of the Bill. A group of us who support the second reading do so only to pursue the narrower reform I have outlined. None of us supports the Bill as it stands. JUDY KEALL (Glenfield): This is a very difficult speech for me. It is a speech that relates directly to my fellow human beings and to whether they criminals. I know that tonight I am speaking for people who are personal friends of mine, people in every walk of life. Many of them are ordinary working people; others are professional people such as lawyers, doctors, policemen and policewomen - women are involved, of course, in the second part of the Bill, by the removal of discrimination-teachers, and trade union officials. For a long time those people have wanted this change in the law. They have wanted male homosexuality to be decriminalised, and they have wanted a change in the law so that gay people will no longer be discriminated against in housing, employment, and various goods and services. I know that it is very important to them that the Bill should be passed. I support the Bill in its entirety. I come to this position of support from a background that is a traditionally Christian one. I was brought up in a Presbyterian home; my father was a Presbyterian minister. I am a woman deeply committed to the welfare of the family. I am a member of Parliament who has sat through many hours of the parliamentary select committee that heard evidence on the Bill. I sat through every sitting of the Statutes Revision Committee on the Bill, and three sittings of the Justice and Law Reform Committee. Along with the member for Hamilton West and the member for Wellington Central, I think I would have heard more submissions than any other member. I have been most impressed by the weight of submissions in favour of decriminalisation. The Bill has had a fair hearing. Nearly 60 percent of the submissions heard supported the Bill, and, of the 85 submissions not heard, 63 supported the Bill. Most of those people have written to say that they are happy for the Bill to be reported back and the criminal law should not punish private consenting behaviour. It should proscribe only behaviour that occasions positive harm. The Bill decriminalises homosexual acts between consenting male adults in private. The law has no business having any control over what consenting adults do in private. The law should be concerned to protect people from harm and to keep order in society. When people do something quietly in the privacy of their own homes they harm no one. The Bill does not allow the molestation of children. It does not allow sexual acts in public. It does not allow soliciting. In fact, it strengthens the law against those who seek to have a sexual relationship with a boy under the age of 16, putting a penalty of 7 to 14 years' imprisonment on that activity. Part II of the Bill includes those of homosexual orientation or perceived to be of homosexual orientation amongst those against whom one should not discriminate. It is important here to emphasise that we are talking about homosexual orientation; we are not talking about homosexual behaviour. Most of those who have spoken in the debate so far are getting muddled about the provisions of Part II. It contains nothing about homosexual behaviour. It is simply about those of homosexual orientation or those perceived to be of homosexual orientation. The Bill is exceedingly conservative in that area and it strictly specifies the categories of employment, accommodation, and the provision of goods and services. I plead with the member for North Shore and the member for Remuera, who seemed to have a very enlightened approach to the problems of homosexual people and discrimination against them, to read the submissions made by the legal faculty of Victoria University, which clearly point out what this part of the Bill does. It does not lay down attitudes. A person can still think what he likes about the matter, but the Bill refers to discrimination against a person's homosexual orientation in the provision of goods and services, employment, and accommodation. It is very important to pass that part of the Bill so that people have to re-examine whether they are discriminating against their fellow human beings. Homosexuality is not a disease or an illness but a valid form of behaviour. The submission of the Department of Health clearly stated that, and I shall briefly read from it: “Homosexuality is no longer generally considered within the medical and other health professions to be a disease. Increasingly, it has come to be viewed as a psychosexual variant, one of a number of possible sexual orientations. This was given expression when after 1973 the board of directors of the American Psychiatric Association removed the classification of homosexuality from its diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. This manual is increasingly accepted as the standard reference for the clinical classification of mental disorders, both in New Zealand and elsewhere.” Homosexuality is not in that manual. The development of homosexual orientation is not a matter of individual choice. In the committee we heard of no one cause of homosexuality, but it was very clear that at any given time or place there appear to be about 5 percent to 10 percent of homosexuals. The committee was made aware that research by many reputable sources showed that. Regardless of how homosexuals come to be that way, and regardless of the law, there always appears to be about the same number of them. In some geographic areas the percentage is higher. In the cities it is near the 10 percent mark, while in the small provincial towns, where social attitudes do not accept homosexual behaviour under the present law, the percentage would not be likely to be as high as that. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, the Mental Health Foundation, and the New Zealand Society on Sexology all gave strong submissions that provided evidence and research on those matters. It is interesting to consider the law in other countries. From the way some people have opposed the Bill one would think that New Zealand is leading in this matter, but it is following. Most Western countries with a similar kind of life-style have already decriminalised. Some of them have never had a law against homosexual acts. Britain decriminalised in 1967. Sweden has the same age of consent - 15 - for heterosexuals and homosexuals. In Norway the age is 16 for both. In France the age is the same for both, but I am not sure what it is. In Denmark the age is 15 for both. Austria has decriminalised at 19. The Federal Republic of Germany decriminalised at 18. Italy has never had a law against homosexual acts. The age of consent in the Netherlands is 16 for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. In Belgium the age is 18 for homosexuals and 16 for heterosexuals. In Spain the age is the same, and I think it is 12. Twenty-five American states have decriminalised. In Australia, New South Wales has decriminalised. In the Australian Capital Territory the age is 18 for both heterosexual and homosexual behaviour. In South Australia the age is 17 for both. It is interesting to note that South Australia, which decriminalised in 1972, has not had one case of AIDS. Some prominent countries that have not decriminalised are the Soviet Union, Romania, South Africa, Chile, and the Republic of Ireland. That speaks for itself. I believe that everyone has the need to give and to receive physical affection. Some people choose to deny that need and to become celibate, but that should be their personal choice and should not arise from legal necessity. Homosexual males are members of families - sons or husbands. One of the most common arguments used against the Bill is that it will cause the breakdown of the family. Some of the people who brought submissions to the committee were concerned about tension in a marriage when the husband turned out to be homosexual. They gave evidence of suicides in difficult marriage relationships or in family relationships when a son had been found to be homosexual. I point out that that happened under the present law. We must face the sad fact that as long as the law states that homosexual acts are criminal many men in society will feel socially pressured to enter into a heterosexual relationship. Many young men in families will feel that they cannot explain their feeling of difference. The Minister of Customs described that problem very well when she explained what had happened with a friend whose son had committed suicide because he felt he could not explain his life-style to his family. If homosexuality is decriminalised, part of that problem will be removed. The change will not happen overnight, but it is to be hoped that social attitudes will change and men will be able to develop stable homosexual relationships rather than having the tension, upset, and strain of trying to be heterosexual when it does not work out. Homosexuals are members of families. There are many different kinds of families. I see nothing very wrong in homosexuals setting up their own family life in a stable relationship. Surely that is better than a promiscuous relationship. On that matter, we must be very careful about arguing against the Bill by saying that it will encourage promiscuity. After all, some heterosexuals are promiscuous and we have not brought in a law to ban heterosexual sex. Promiscuity has nothing to do with the Bill. The Bill concerns the decriminalisation of homosexual acts between consenting adults. If those acts are decriminalised there will be more encouragement for people to develop stable relationships. The private morality of one section of the community should not be imposed on all. Under that heading, I should like to discuss the different Christian viewpoints. It is fair enough, as the member for Palmerston North pointed out, that various people should have different beliefs about homosexual behaviour, but they should not expect those to be imposed on everybody else-certainly not through the secular law. A democratic society should embody tolerance of the varieties of human behaviour. In my ideal society we would accept different cultures, different races, and different life-styles. It is most frightening to look back at Nazi Germany and to see how many millions of Jews were killed. At a conservative estimate, 250,000 homosexual people were also killed under that regime. When I hear the arguments being made against the Bill I see the same kind of regime being encouraged, in which people's views are imposed and there is intolerance of people with differing life-styles. The age of consent is another matter. It is difficult to sustain the argument for a higher age of consent when two individuals are morally responsible for their actions and consent to their actions. After all, 16 is the age of carnal knowledge for young women. That is the age at which young men and women are allowed to marry at present. If that is the present law I believe we should decriminalise homosexual acts also at 16. Many opponents of the Bill also fear the spread of AIDS. Unfortunately, the spread of AIDS has very little to do with the processes of the law. One needs only to look at two American states and the high numbers of people with AIDS-one is California and the other is Florida. In California homosexuality has been decriminalised but in Florida it is still illegal to take part in homosexual acts. The law has very little bearing in that case, because AIDS was in the area before there were any changes in the law. As I said earlier, in South Australia, where the law was changed in 1972 and education has been able to take place more openly, there have been no cases of AIDS. I congratulate the AIDS Foundation in New Zealand on the excellent work it has done among the gay community in educating it about the dangers of AIDS. Recent statistics show a great decrease in the number of sexually transmitted diseases. If the Bill is passed that education programme will be easier. In the end, all members must vote according to their consciences, but I plead with members of the House to give the Bill a second reading so that arguments on some matters about why some members are still uncertain can go further. I plead with the member for Kaimai, in particular, to vote for the second reading so that his constituent who does not want her husband to be called a criminal any longer will have a further chance for the Bill to be passed. How can what two consenting adult males do in the privacy of their own home have any detrimental effect on society? I am confident that it will not hurt any of the people I know, my family, my children, or any of those whom I love. I plead with the House to vote for the Bill in the interests of humanity and equality. Hon. PHIL GOFF (Minister of Housing): I have carefully considered the evidence and arguments put forward and it is my intention to support the Bill in its present form. That is not a decision I have arrived at suddenly. I have given thought to the issues involved in homosexual law reform over a period of time that pre-dates the legislation. The issue was raised occasionally in my electorate during two election campaigns. At that point I made it clear to my electorate that I would support a measure to reform what I regarded and still regard as outdated criminal legislation on homosexuality. This is not an issue on which the vote is taken along party lines. It is a so-called conscience issue on which each member of Parliament must exercise his or her own judgment. Opinion in my electorate, as in all others, is divided. Inevitably there will be people in my electorate who will not endorse my decision on this issue. Unlike other members, I have not taken a formal poll of electorate opinion. I believe - and share this belief with the member for Tamaki - that a decision should be based on the merits of the arguments and not simply on a count of heads. A member of Parliament is elected to exercise his or her judgment on issues. That does not imply that I have ignored or not listened to the views and opinions of all in my electorate. There are those who sincerely hold an opinion that is different from my own. I have answered all correspondence on the Bill and I have willingly discussed the issue with anyone in my electorate who has sought to raise it with me. My correspondence reflects divided opinion. Initially, the correspondence was heavily against the Bill, but some time ago it swung to being predominantly in favour of it. My electorate is one that has a reputation for its religious character. However, I must say that the majority opinion of church leaders and regular church attenders who have spoken to me about the issue is overwhelmingly in favour of reform. In reforming the law it is clear that by now Parliament will be following public opinion rather than leading it. Heylen polls have consistently shown that majority support is in favour of reform. The most recent poll suggested 62 percent in favour to 33 percent against. Regardless of the poll results, however, I repeat that judgment ought to be exercised on the evidence and the logic of reform rather than simply on numbers. Fundamentally, the question to be answered by the House is whether personal morality can or should be imposed by law and the threat of criminal sanctions. I do not believe that that is the proper role of the law. I do not believe that the State has any role in prying into the bedrooms of the nation to determine what is acceptable sexual behaviour between consenting adults in private. Each of those words - " consenting”, “adults”, and “private”-is important. The Bill does not legalise any behaviour that takes place without consent. Indeed, it imposes strong sanctions against any person forcing their sexual attentions on an unwilling party. It explicitly prohibits and provides penalties for the exploitation of minors and sexual activity with young people under the age of 16 years. Exactly the same protection is accorded to a minor against homosexual or heterosexual acts. I believe that that protection should be consistently applied. Young men and young women should receive equal protection. Similarly, the Bill does not allow explicit sexual behaviour in public. Homosexual and heterosexual acts will equally be governed by the same laws affecting acceptable public behaviour, as at present. Indeed, I strongly object to receiving through the mail from someone purporting to be a crusader for morality pornographic material on homosexuals, sent with the suggestion that that is what will inevitably follow the passing of the Bill. That suggestion is inaccurate. I suspect that it is dishonest. Nothing in the Bill makes legal or acceptable any form of pornography, whether homosexual or heterosexual. The Bill seeks to remove a criminal sanction that subjects homosexual behaviour to a penalty of up to 14 years' imprisonment. Such a sanction is totally inappropriate and I have heard no member-indeed, not even the member for Hauraki-attempt to justify the maintenance of such a sanction on the statute book, or its enforcement. The only countries in the world that attempt to enforce such an approach are countries such as Iran. In this country that approach is totally out of place. If we as a country were to determine that morality was properly to be imposed by the criminal law then we should at least be consistent, as they are in Iran. Lesbianism, adultery, fornication, and any other act deemed by some to be immoral should be proscribed. They are not, of course, and nobody seriously suggests that they ought to be. As well as removing the criminal sanctions against persons for homosexual behaviour the Bill also seeks to end discrimination against persons on the grounds of their sexual orientation. The orientation of most people in our society is, of course, heterosexual. For most, homosexuality is not normal. For a significant minority, however, a homosexual orientation is normal. To the best of my knowledge, those people have not threatened or harmed society or any other individual. They have, nevertheless, been persecuted and discriminated against, been liable to blackmail, and often been subjected to physical abuse. Regrettably, there is evidence that the emotional wave that has accompanied opposition to the Bill has again encouraged physical violence against homosexuals. Official sanctions against and intolerance of homosexuality have had profound consequences for those whose only offence is that they are homosexual. People have been forced to live in the shadows and to pretend to be other than what they are. The result has been unhappiness and misery for thousands of people and for their families. Our society and archaic laws have condemned people to psychological distress and, as we have heard in the House during the debate, sometimes even to suicide. Others have been forced to resort to what I guess has become a stereotyped homosexual life-style. I do not believe, however, that promiscuity or sexual flamboyance inevitably reflect the aspirations or behaviour of most homosexuals. That may, however, be the lifestyle to which our laws and our society have compelled many. Opponents of the Bill fear that acceptance by society that some people have a different sexual orientation will threaten or undermine society. It is further argued by those people that decriminalisation may cause mass conversion from heterosexuality to homosexuality. Neither point has any basis in logic or in evidence. Most Western democratic nations have long ago decriminalised homosexual behaviour between consenting adults in private. Those societies have not been transformed or damaged by the change; nor is it true to say that homosexuality inevitably becomes more ostentatious through law reform. I have heard warnings from some that if the Bill is passed New Zealand will become another San Francisco. No evidence exists to suggest that that city is any more a relevant model for New Zealand than are hundreds of other cities in which homosexual behaviour is not a criminal activity. However, what does stand out is that those countries in which homosexuals are not discriminated against are the same countries whose record of observance of a full range of human rights and tolerance is much higher than in those nations-often authoritarian - that retain criminal sanctions against homosexual behaviour. On the matter of the conversion of heterosexuals to homosexuals, I cannot find any evidence to suggest that homosexuality is a choice or even a life-style into which people can be seduced. Scientific evidence suggests that sexual orientation is inherent, rather than acquired. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists told the select committee that there was strong evidence that the direction of sexuality in almost all people is determined at a pre-school age. The suggestion that the seduction of adolescents was likely to be a major factor in determining subsequent sexuality was not supported by the evidence. I do not believe that any person should be persecuted or discriminated against simply on the basis of sexual orientation. As the law faculty of Victoria University told the select committee, clause 9 will not coerce people into accepting behaviour or activities of which they disapprove. The public right to disagree with or criticise homosexual behaviour is unaffected by the Bill. The Bill means that a person's right to employment, housing, or the provision of essential goods and services should not be affected simply because of sexual orientation. I cannot see that even those who are opposed to the Bill could oppose that provision. Many groups told the select committee that their opposition to the Bill related to a person's homosexual behaviour, rather than to homosexual orientation. The final issue to which I want to refer is AIDS. AIDS is undoubtedly a serious threat to health and life, which our community must minimise and contain. The primary way in which AIDS can be caught is by sexual contact, and contagion is, so far, predominantly confined to the homosexual community. Clearly, indulgence in particular sexual acts and promiscuous behaviour increases the danger of the spread of AIDS. However, the answer to that problem is not unenforceable criminal sanctions against certain sexual practices: far more useful has been the education campaign conducted by the New Zealand AIDS Foundation, which has warned people against behaving in a way that is unsafe. That campaign, and efforts by the Department of Health to detect and contain AIDS, are not enhanced by the present criminal law. There is far more reason to expect that the efforts of the Foundation and the Department of Health will be assisted if the fear of criminal prosecution is removed. The Department of Health told the select committee that it could not justify the present legislative provisions on homosexuality on health grounds. The Bill should be supported by the House. In a democratic and pluralistic society such as New Zealand it is not appropriate for the criminal law to intervene in the private lives of citizens to enforce any particular moral viewpoint. Rather, the role of the law should be to prohibit behaviour that causes identifiable harm to others. People should not be persecuted because of their sexual orientation, which all the evidence suggests is something that they have been born with rather than have acquired voluntarily. The passage of the Bill will be a mark of the maturity and tolerance that our society has achieved. HELEN CLARK (Mt Albert): I have supported the Bill from the time it was introduced into the House, and I have done so for reasons similar to those expressed by the Minister of Housing. Fundamentally, I believe that what people do in private by way of consenting sexual behaviour should not be within the reach of the criminal law. I strongly believe that what people agree to do in private is no business of mine, or of anybody else, or of the law. New Zealanders have traditionally enjoyed a great degree of personal freedom, and that is as it should be when the rights of other people are not infringed by the exercise of that freedom. I would not argue for absolute personal freedom to act without regard to the rights of others - no rational person would do so. However, the point about the practice of homosexuality is that when it occurs between consenting persons in private it infringes upon the rights of nobody else in society. For a long time the New Zealand statutes have treated consenting homosexual activity as if it were such a heinous offence that it warranted the special attention of the law, and as if it in some way infringed upon the rights of others who are not so engaged. While it is true that homosexuality is regarded as an affront to the morality of a section of the community, it can in no way logically be turned into an argument that an affront to the morality of some should deserve criminal sanctions under the secular law of the land. It is extremely important that when Parliament passes judgment on the Bill it should make a clear distinction between what some people in the community regard as a sin and what is a fit subject for the secular law of New Zealand, and all that the enforcement of that law entails. Those who believe that homosexuality is a sin are entitled to hold that view, and I personally defend their right to hold it. What deeply concerns me - and has increasingly concerned me throughout the public debate that has followed the introduction of the Bill-is that some people would seek to have the law enforce their moral viewpoint on into the twenty-first century, as it has done for the past 100 years. I believe that by doing that we would carry on a serious injustice and would continue seriously to impair the civil liberties of a minority in society. By world standards New Zealand has a remarkably free society. People here are free to practise any religious or ethical belief they choose, and are free to follow any political cause they choose. New Zealand has a free press - we often curse it, but we would not be without it. The world human rights guide rates us extremely highly on all the criteria it uses to judge whether or not a society can be considered free, open, and democratic. Along with countries such as Finland and Denmark New Zealand enjoys a 96 percent rating on that index of what constitutes a fair, open, and democratic society. If the Bill is passed that rating will increase to 100 percent. The Bill removes the injustices that those who are seriously concerned with human rights regard as the one serious blot on our image. As it stands now only New Zealand and Ireland in the Western World continue to regard male homosexuality as a criminal act. The British Act on which the law is based was changed almost 20 years ago after the acceptance of the Wolfenden report on homosexuality. It is time New Zealand took out of the statute book a law that was passed in the British Parliament 100 years ago and adopted into New Zealand law a year later. It was a law that was not intended to have the effect of totally outlawing male homosexual activity. It was put forward as an amendment by a member of the British House of Commons at the time to protect young boys from prostitution. The way in which the Bill was drafted-poorly and without thorough parliamentary scrutiny-led to the Commons actually outlawing all male homosexuality. It was a mistake then and I think 100 years is much too long to have lived with a mistake such as that on the statute book. Surely now, 100 years later, on the centenary of that event, we can take the step to remove that blot from our own statute book. We have heard much debate in the House and in the public arena about the age at which it is appropriate to decriminalise consenting homosexual behaviour. At present there is no age of sexual consent whatever for men concerning heterosexual activity. At present the law imposes an age of consent only on women, and that age is 16. It is an arbitrary age. Before the 1880s the age of consent in New Zealand was 12; it rose to 14, and later to 16 in the 1890s. There is nothing preordained about an age of consent. It is an arbitrary judgment, arbitrarily fixed, and it varies widely across countries. The age of consent has no bearing on the age at which young people become sexually active. The age at which they become sexually active is more likely to be related to levels of sexual maturity and to peer group and life-style pressures. If, however, there is to be an age of consent the one for which we have settled as being appropriate for young women for about 90 years is logically the one we should now accept as appropriate for young men. I can see no logic in the argument being advanced by some that boys are more deserving of protection in that respect than girls are; nor do I see any evidence to suggest that an age of consent of 16 for boys could lead to their being seduced and orientated to homosexuality against their will and before they have had a chance to make up their own minds. Those who argue that way are poorly informed about the nature of homosexuality. We know that sexual preference and orientation are fixed rather earlier in life than 16 years of age. No one quite knows why or how it is fixed. It is probably valid to describe homosexuality as a fundamental tendency in human behaviour that will show up among certain sections of populations across all cultures. Some people will be exclusively homosexual; others will be truly bisexual; many will have at least some, or occasional , homosexual experiences during their lifetime; but most will probably be exclusively heterosexual. Whatever we turn out to be, we probably have very little choice in the matter. Our sexual orientation will have been set early, and will be well established by the time we are 16 years of age, which I submit is a fit age at which to establish the age of consent in the Bill. I suggest that even occasional homosexual experiences - even seduction-cannot make a blind bit of difference to the fundamental sexual orientation of young men in our community. We are either predisposed to act in that way or we are not. Some have suggested in the debate - and we have heard the case again tonight - that the community is not ready for decriminalisation at the age of 16, but that it might accept a higher age. The ages of 18 years and 20 years have been put forward. I put it to those who have argued that way that we have a role as opinion leaders in the broader community and we have a responsibility to do what is sensible and logical and to persuade others of the reasons that 16 years should, in all logic, be seen as an appropriate and sensible age of consent. The report of the Department of Justice gives some weight to that argument when it states: “Logic and principle would seem to support a uniform age of consent for both heterosexual and homosexual relations. In the absence of clear evidence that boys need a further period of protection in respect of homosexual acts, there is a logical difficulty in justifying higher age of consent for homosexual acts” - I stress “a logical difficulty”. Others have suggested in the course of public debate on the Bill that decriminalisation of homosexual acts might lead to an increase in the numbers of homosexuals in the community. I believe that the evidence I have already alluded to shows that that view cannot be supported. People are either predisposed to homosexuality or they are not and the position of the law on the matter will not make one iota of difference. People cannot be recruited or seduced into permanent identification with homosexuality. What a change in the law may well do is increase the number of people in the community who are known to be homosexual. It often amuses me when I hear people say that they have never met a homosexual. Almost certainly they have, but those people have not felt able to express the fact that they are homosexual, given the present state of the law in this country, which buoys up unfortunate public attitudes towards homosexuality. Many homosexual men and women repress their homosexuality because they are afraid to express it. For men it is a criminal offence to do so. For women it is seen by a vocal section of the community as offending against social norms. Many homosexual men and women lead secret and unhappy lives because they feel unable to express the way they are. Some of them came to the select committee the day I sat on it in Auckland and told us what it was like to grow up as homosexuals in a society in which legitimate expression of their homosexuality is denied. We heard oral submissions such as the following from a male homosexual: “As a teenager my life was confused, sad, and frightening. At school there were no role models presented which had any relevance for me. My peers proved unmerciful at any suggestion that one's behaviour or sexual interest was anything other than that of a pattern determined by macho male role models of a type best exemplified by reference to film star heroes or famous rugby players. The total effect upon myself over an important formative period of my life was the development of an extremely negative self-image. Any list of adjectives I might have honestly used to describe myself would have included sinner, abnormal, dirty, wicked, and perverted. Such was the influence of my peers, societal mores, the church, and the education system." We heard similar evidence from a female homosexual who told the committee that through lack of information, confusion, and social naivety as a teenager when she was brought up in a small country town she thought she was the only homosexual in New Zealand and that marrying and having a baby would cure her love for women. She told the committee: “I do not want another generation with probably 10 percent of its adult population so utterly miserable.” Last week the member for Hauraki took exception to my statement in the House that the passing of the Bill would help to build a healthier social climate in New Zealand. I stand by that statement now, as I did then. I believe that society is far less than healthy when it represses fundamental aspects of the identity of some of its citizens. Society is not healthy when it sends overt messages to that minority that their behaviour is disgusting, abnormal, and so perverse that it should be regarded as criminal. Society is not healthy when it forces on people secretive and closet life-styles because of a fear of their expressing what they are. I believe that society will be healthier when people acknowledge their differences, acknowledge that the preference of a minority is not a fit subject for legal or other persecution, and accept homosexuals as normal members of any community-as they are entitled to be accepted. Finally, I come to the second section of the Bill, which would prevent discrimination against New Zealanders on the basis of their sexual orientation. Some members have told the House that while they accept the case for decriminalisation of homosexual acts they are still unsure about the second part of the Bill. I put it to them that the second part of the Bill, dealing with anti-discrimination measures, follows on naturally from an acceptance of the case for decriminalisation. If we accept homosexuality as a form of sexual practice that is normal for a minority and not deserving of criminal sanction, what then is the case for saying that others, presumably of a heterosexual orientation, should be free to discriminate against that minority? The rights of the minority in that case are thereby very seriously infringed. I suggest that we will have made little progress if, on the one hand, we decriminalise, at whatever age, and, on the other hand, fail to take steps to discourage discrimination on the ground of sexual preference. It would be utterly wrong for the House in any way to imply, by failing to pass the second part of the Bill, that it is legitimate for employers or landlords to discriminate against people who are homosexual. There will, of course, be good and bad employees and good and bad tenants among homosexuals, but there is simply no case to be made for blanket persecution and discrimination against homosexuals because they are homosexual or for refusing to employ them on that basis or refusing to rent flats to them. The experience with anti-discrimination legislation in New Zealand has been that over a period it has the effect of lessening prejudices against those likely to have been discriminated against before those laws came into effect. In the case of women, antidiscrimination legislation has helped to build a social climate in which it is accepted in the employment field, for example, that girls can do anything, and that they are fit to be employed across a wide range of occupations. Similarly, it has been found that legislation to prevent discrimination on the grounds of race and national or ethnic origin has helped to bring about a change in attitude and practice towards those minorities. I hope that, in the same way, if anti-discrimination provisions to protect gay people are enacted they will, in the longer term, lead to greater acceptance of them, their talents, and the useful role they can play as citizens of a healthy society. On that basis I appeal to those who are still thinking of supporting the first part of the Bill on decriminalisation and not supporting the second part to think again. I support the Bill in its present form, as I believe the evidence before us and simple common logic compels each of us to do. REX AUSTIN (Awarua): Every person who puts himself forward for parliamentary office - and certainly every member who is elected to the House-does so with personal gifts, personal goals, personal aspirations and ambitions, and personal morality. A member may stand for a party, stand on a party platform, espouse a party manifesto, and be elected on a party ticket, but as individuals all members bring with them their individualism. That is what distinguishes one from the other, and that is what sets each of them apart. It is entirely that parameter, that boundary of individualism, that will determine how each of us views the matter before the House and how each of us will cast his or her vote. The nature of the Bill forces us to square up as individuals, and that is how I want to present my short contribution-entirely as an individual. I cannot honestly assess, condemn, or, for that matter, praise other members, nor should I make judgment on them. To do so would be both presumptuous and wrong. I stand alone on the matter; I stand against the Bill. I intend to vote against every clause and do everything I can to prevent the advancement of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. I do not want to be identified as supporting it in any way, and I do not want any part of the persuasion embraced by the proposed legislation. It is wrong, and if the Bill is passed the country will rue the day it accepted and passed it into law. Certain distinct issues are contained in the Bill, and the most important one is the issue of human rights. It is to that issue that I want to address my next remarks. As I understand the Bill, and as it is interpreted by many, the issue is that human rights demand that every individual shall have the absolute right to follow his sexual persuasion. I cannot subscribe to an all-embracing licence. While I admit that the sexual drive is a powerful and sometimes consuming element of human nature, it is, nevertheless, human nature, and it cannot be disregarded. However, I submit that boundaries, rules, limits, judgments, disciplines, and responsibilities are equally important, if not more important. It is the duty of members to set those parameters for our own protection, for our children's protection, for our families' protection, and for society's protection-indeed, if taken to the ultimate, for the survival of the country and its people. A great writer, Bronowski, made what I thought was a profound comment in the foreword of a book he wrote called The Ascent of Man: “Man is a singular creature. He has a set of gifts which makes him unique among animals so that, unlike them, he is not some vague figure in the landscape. Man has the ability to shape that landscape." I shall not go with the tide. I have no intention of joining the ballot of convenience, and I do not want to drift. I want to accept my responsibility for shaping the political landscape of the country - and the encouragement of homosexuality forms no part of that landscape. I shall not step aside from my duty, or acquiesce by default; nor will I make the mistake of not accepting a moral judgment. I consider it to be a moral judgment. We have a duty to improve humanity whenever possible; to bring forward our personal gifts and ideas to make life more comfortable, acceptable, and proper for each person in the country. Those views are well understood in my electorate. The people there know my views, and, I hope, respect me for them if they do not, I do not deserve to be here. I cannot change my mind on the issue. I have no inclination to be persuaded against my moral and my personal conviction. As I perceive it, there is no other important issue - the issue of homosexuality itself, the attraction of one sex for members of the same sex. As an individual I am conditioned by my knowledge; my logic; the environment I have grown up in, both physical and personal; my religious persuasions and convictions; and my experiences. Few New Zealanders have had an opportunity to visit countries in which homosexuality is widely practised. What disturbed me more than anything else - and I was not a member of the select committee-was the evidence that suggested that the homosexual tendency is limited and is more or less consistent worldwide at 10 percent. The figure of 10 percent gives credence and authority to the belief that, come what may, not more than 10 percent of New Zealanders would ever find themselves involved in the practice of homosexuality. From personal observation and knowledge I find that figure and that evidence to be false. They are misleading, and should not be relied on. If we study the history of the human race we find that among certain Polynesian nations the incidence of homosexuality was reliably assessed at not more than 2 percent. However, even today, in many countries in the Middle East the number of those who practise homosexuality in some communities is higher than 50 percent. I submit that the incidence of homosexuality can be set at between 2 percent and 50 percent. Its incidence is determined by the mood of the society, the environment of the society, and the acceptance of the practices of people. I invite the House to contemplate the 50 percent incidence of homosexuality amongst certain tribes and races of people, some of whom conform to the religion of Mohammed. In those societies homosexuality is not condemned; it is encouraged, and enjoyed. It is approved, and there are good social and environmental reasons for it. For example, in a Muslim society a man with money can, with the approval of the church, legally take unto himself, four wives simultaneously. It follows that the climate for homosexual practices amongst deprived males is ripe for exploitation when that practice is approved. Most of us know that. We may not know the details, but we are generally familiar with the practice. If one reads about the early Greek and Roman empires one finds that the seduction of young boys was widely known and practised. It is still the practice in many Muslim societies today. That climate is further enhanced, because those young boys are given preferential social status; they reap rewards and have powers conferred on them. That may seem an extreme example, widely divorced from the New Zealand scene. The only point I want to make is that it is possible to create environments in which the incidence of homosexuality can increase greatly beyond 10 percent; in the right climate it can be as high as 50 percent, or higher. I do not want to be identified with any law that opens the door to that remote possibility. I do not want to leave the House someday knowing that I have been a party to increasing the practice of homosexuality. It is possible that it could come in abundance; I am sure of that. I want to preserve in this country those elements based on the Christian society that preserve the right of children and the right of the home, and enhance the family. I do not believe that the Bill will enhance any of those elements - it will undermine them. It will also undermine the Christian religion. I do not believe in humanism, or that we live in a world in which human practice alone should rule supreme. I believe that religion is so much a part of man that when he divorces himself from it he lowers himself and exposes himself to practices some would call evil, but which to me simply mean that man degrades himself. I shall vote against every clause in the Bill, but I shall support the amendment that offers me the opportunity to raise the age of consent as high as possible. I propose to do that because I think the Bill will be passed, and that more people will support it than will vote against it to defeat it. I will regret that very much when we come to the vote. I shall vote for the highest possible age of consent amongst males, because not to do so would be to impose upon young boys the age of 16 as the age of consent. That, to me, would be regrettable. There is a difference in the age at which males and females reach maturity. To me, it does not follow logically that what is good for the young female is automatically good for the young male. Males mature more slowly, and if it is possible for me to protect young boys that is exactly what I shall do. I want to make a final plea. I do not believe that it is valid to feel that because something happens one has to accept it. We must all make judgments; that is why people put us in Parliament. As individuals we cannot divorce ourselves from moral judgments. Most people expect us to be moral and to bring a moral judgment to the House. As an individual that is exactly what I intend to do. NOEL SCOTT (Tongariro): I respect the integrity of the member for Awarua, and the fact that we disagree fundamentally on the issue is surely testimony to the need for tolerance and rationality of debate. In recent times the matter of homosexuality as a social issue has been matched in the New Zealand public arena only by the Springbok tour, in terms of fervour and division, extreme reaction, bigotry, and the absence of calm, reasoned debate. There are some interesting parallels. Each of the issues involves a widespread, longstanding, and, for many New Zealanders, seemingly inalienable conviction-first, that rugby assumes the place of paramount right; and, second, that male homosexuals are pooves to be despised and outcast. There is among New Zealanders a remarkable coincidence of opinion that is pro-tour and anti - Homosexual Law Reform Bill. Public opinion on both issues has undergone dramatic changes and has generated powerful lobby groups. The reasons that might explain that change are worth considering. I think it is a basic reaction to the overreaction from both extremes; a result of increased public discussion and education; and, significantly, because world opinion has finally expressed its pressure in New Zealand. A totally different argument is presented by each of those lobbies, and I want to consider them carefully. On the one hand, it is claimed that there should be absolute freedom for sports people to follow their favourite interest wherever they wish and with whom they wish. On the other hand, there is a belief that male adults must be legally prevented from homosexual acts, even if they are between consenting adults in private. I have drawn the above parallel because it closely mirrors my own opinion development. For some years I shared a common belief that rugby was supreme and that pooves were bad news. My change of opinion in both cases followed a conscious questioning of reality when placed against the wider social and international ramifications of the issue. To me the answer was clearly and irrevocably negative. Therefore I support the Bill in its entirety. Struggle as individual members might - and those who have the gracelessness to sit in the Chamber during such a debate and mutter inanities might think a little on this - the vote on the Bill is a conscience one. If members ever have the cover of referenda those decisions will not take away the conscience vote. There is no electorate machinery that adequately enables a member to cast a vote reflecting the majority opinion. Within the Tongariro electorate, which I represent, hundreds of opinions were expressed to and at me, directly, in about equal proportions. There were distinct variations between the rural areas and the urban areas, and between towns in different parts of the electorate. I acknowledge openly and sincerely that hundreds of humane and sincere people expressed strong emotions and opinions on both sides and extremes of the issue. I respect their opinions and their right to express them. I shall not interrupt other members who speak, as the member for Waikaremoana is trying to do to me. If they wish to translate their reactions into an antagonisticJIM MCLAY: I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I ask the member on his feet to correct the assertion he made about me. I have not interjected once. NOEL SCOTT: I apologise to the member if that is so. I am sorry. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Generally, members have been tolerant of other members, even when they have disagreed with them. Generally speaking, that is the tenor members would want in the debate. If members cannot restrain a desire to interject I suggest they should leave the chamber. TREVOR MALLARD: I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I did not want to interrupt the member who was speaking, but I point out that the member for Whangarei interjected from a seat closer to the speaker than his own. It is important in a debate such as this that tolerance is shown, and that, at the very least, members do not shift closer to a speaker in order to interject. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am aware of movement in the Chamber, and I have been watching various members who are inclined to interject more than others do as they have moved around the Chamber. I shall say no more than that. It would be most unfortunate in a debate of this nature if a member were to be required to leave the Chamber. I ask members to afford each other the tolerance that has been generally characteristic of the debate. NOEL NOEL SCOTT: I sincerely apologise to the member for Waikaremoana if I named him incorrectly. I entirely accept the right of people in my electorate to translate their reaction into an antagonistic decision at the ballot box, and if they do so I will not complain. Regrettably, the major petitioners against the Bill have discredited their cause. The supposed total of 800,000 signatures is an acknowledged question. I found the public presentation of the petition to be a frightening enactment of things that are anathema to most New Zealanders. Many people who signed the petition have said so to me. The invective and openly threatening demeanour and statements accompanying the presentation were distinctly unchristian. JOHN BANKS: I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I refer you to new Standing Order 165: " Offensive or disorderly words - When any offensive or disorderly words are used, whether by a member who is addressing the Chair or by a member who is present, the Speaker or the Chairman shall intervene." I put it to you, sir, that pursuant to your last ruling about orderly conduct in a debate on a conscience issue, if that member persists in using words of that type strung into sentences against those good people who presented the 800,000 signatures to Parliament I will get disorderly - and that is a promise. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Whangarei will not threaten the Chair in that manner. That is disorderly. If he wants to threaten disorder he will take the consequences of showing the disrespect for the Chair that that implies. As far as he has gone the member for Tongariro has not encroached upon the rules of the House, the rules of debate, and the rules of good behaviour that are generally required of members in a debate of this type. NOEL SCOTT: It is not my intention to do that. Most of all, the exercise of the petition, in my opinion, largely illegitimised many of the humane concerns of tens of thousands of New Zealanders who genuinely wished to debate and present their point of view while constructively tackling an issue that requires, above all else, rationality and humane decision making. Those petitioners caused many New Zealanders to decide eventually that the threat that some of the petitioners presented was even greater than that represented by homosexual acts. Clearly and irrevocably, the homosexual tendency is as genetically inevitable as genius, intellectual handicap, or the tendency to aggressive, excessive heterosexuality. Scientific and social research affirm that fact overwhelmingly. The natural range of sexuality is as totally inbred as that of intelligence. There is more than reasonable proof that the proportional distribution of reasonably hard-core homosexuals and excessively heterosexual males roughly approximates the lower and upper divisions of intelligence quotient distribution-about 10 percent, which is a reasonably normal distribution curve. Historically, society has tended to blame the individual for a quality or a feature that many fear or dislike or find themselves without-it is the old “blame the victim" trick. Examples are ugliness, alcoholism, mental illness, and - for too long in New Zealand-homosexuality. Sections of society have continued to want to persecute those who are different from themselves. Homosexuals have been subjected to such persecution more than any of the other groups I have mentioned. The very existence of the present punitive law that the Bill seeks to change proves that point. Sexuality is a basic driving human force; emotion, and much more; passion that is the heat of this issue. Public expectations and assumptions of what is normal in terms of sexual behaviour are steeped in mythology, custom, religious conviction, and straight mumbo jumbo. The Bill deals with that expression of sexuality that is most commonly regarded as abnormal-male homosexuality. As the present law operates, acts of male homosexuality are a criminal offence, even between consenting adults in private. The history of attempts to protect society and such men, supposedly from each other, has been a sorry one in terms of the law, in terms of social impact, and in terms of the social traumas involved. In terms of the law, it is honoured only in being ignored. What possible justification is there for such a law? In terms of social impact, there is widespread hatred and division, and this debate has exhibited just how trenchant and harmful those emotions can be. In terms of personal trauma, I suggest that every member's mail and every member's personal experience will have been touched many times by tragic individual examples. The sexual issue involved is central to, but not the only component of, the debate and the Bill. Unfortunately for many, the issue does not in any way seem to transcend the banal, the raw, the physical, the earthy, the seamy, or the aggressive. People paint pictures and seem to delight in them. That is sad, because were those people able to view the wider involvement of social dignity and equity, and, most of all, basic tolerance and even understanding and acceptance, the issue might then be publicly viewed with that combination of compassion and dispassion that is essential to calm and rational law making. Love is a much more complex passion and emotion than its mere physical expression. The sexual expression of a relationship is far more than the orgiastic component that gets so much attention now. If the law is to invade the bedrooms of the nation to put the whole matter of sexual behaviour and acts under scrutiny, let it logically extend its purview to include heterosexual and female homosexual relationships. Who is normal? What is normal? Is anal intercourse by heterosexuals acceptable? Research would indicate that it is apparently widely practised. What is depravity to one, deviance to another, bestiality to another, is another's delight. What is normal? Is sex for procreation only, as some would have us believe? I suggest that the judges of that might have a little difficulty working out who is holding to the law. Adults must decide for themselves what is normal for each of them. If there is infringement of personal standards beyond what is acceptable in terms of force or lack of consideration let the individuals involved find their own solutions-unless, of course, they need help and protection to do so, in which case the community must provide the support machinery. By and large, that is available now. Decriminalising an act, whether that act be adultery or blasphemy or acts of male homosexuality between consenting adults - that is, stating in law that it is no longer illegal - does not necessarily make that act attractive of itself or acceptable to others, let alone compulsory. To hear some of the points made in debate, one would expect that when such a law was passed everybody would be indulging in homosexuality. The law must, as it does now, continue to educate, to define limits, to apprehend, and to adjudicate in order to protect our young. The protection of our young is of central significance to every New Zealander. I accept that, and I am certain that that is true of all people, no matter what their sexual orientation. I contend that, far from impeding that vital aspect, the decriminalisation of male as well as female homosexual acts between consenting persons over the age of 16 years will allow a more balanced scrutiny of the range of indignities both homosexuals and heterosexuals inflict upon our young. The dangers are much more from heterosexuals-relatives, friends, and close acquaintances. In all seriousness I suggest that the attention of people, such as the many who signed the petition, should be directed at the social conditions and attitudes under which far too many of the aforementioned activities flourish. Efforts to isolate and deal with such activities must remain a high priority for the police, the social agencies, and particularly the families involved. I acknowledge that the 16-year age division is controversial. I contend as well that any other age limit would be controversial. No legal age limit will of itself prevent such acts absolutely. The passing of a law and the imposition of an age restriction cannot prevent it and make sure that it does not occur. I am amazed that the matter of female homosexuality has been conveniently ignored and its effects minimised. It is an issue central to the Bill both in terms of decriminalisation and, more important, the danger posed by acts and threats involving those under 16 years of age, and thus specified as being protected in the Bill. After very careful consideration, I support the 16-year age provision for several reasons. The arguments about equality of the sexes count heavily with me. The experience of the 16-year age of consent for women has worked reasonably well. That is, there is at least enough public acceptance of it not to have excited cries for change. Were there a need, there would have been large-scale and rapid cries for change. It would remove the unjustified legal expectation that one does not need to look after oneself until some later stage in life - that the law will protect people until they are 18, perhaps until they are 20, or, as now, for ever. Are we protected for ever now? The human rights aspect is the most straightforward. Basically, I believe it is inhuman and unacceptable that laws discriminate against any New Zealand citizen on the grounds of age, sex, colour, or sexual orientation. The basis of justice in all cases for all people must be whether they threaten, interfere with others, or break the laws that bind us all, and not just some. Great fear has been expressed about homosexual teachers. Let it be clearly understood that there are already a considerable number of those. The fear and tension under which they operate at present could only be relieved to the benefit of their charges were the law to be changed. In my experience - which I would say is not inconsiderable in this field-young people have been much more at risk from aggressively heterosexual teachers of both sexes, both physically and educationally, than they have been from those who are markedly homosexual. I say that in total sincerity. In conclusion, I contend that all actions of teachers or others that are dangerous or unprofessional should be dealt with decisively and immediately, whatever the sex, religion, or sexual orientation of those involved. There are no justifiable grounds for human rights discrimination against homosexuals. For that combination of reasons I give the Bill my full support. WINSTON PETERS (Tauranga): The member for Tongariro began by comparing the Bill and the Springbok tour. He said that those who supported the Springbok tour were strangely opposed to the Bill. I ask him whether he thinks the converse is true. If he does not, why did he raise that issue tonight on an entirely separate Bill? The overwhelming proportion of his electorate of Tongariro is opposed to the Bill, but he is entitled to cast his vote on the basis of his conscience. That is a fundamental principle of democracy, and I respect him for it. I am not opposing him on the grounds that he is out of step with his electorate. He is in step with his conscience. For that reason, those of us who have a different view should respect him. I shall begin by quoting the words of Geoffrey Weeks in a magazine called Coming Out: “The law does not create public opinion, but it does shape and reinforce it.” The member for Wellington Central said in the second reading debate - and I am paraphrasing what she said - that all the Western World had done it or was doing it, and so should we. If that is the case, why do we not follow other Governments' economic policies or defence policies, or is there something peculiar that means that we must do what the Government does on such issues but not what it does on issues of paramount importance to a greater proportion of humanity - to follow the Benthamite policy that used to motivate the New Zealand Labour Party and its socialist supporters? The member for Wellington Central then said that basic sexuality was like being left-handed or right-handed, and made the accusation that those who did not support the Bill were prejudiced, biased, or homophobic. I thank her for not repeating a claim she has made before - that Sodom and Gomorrah were merely practising a hospitality code. She made that claim against all the analysis of history, but dropped it in the second reading debate, and I thank her for that. She did not seek this time to identify famous men who are now dead and claim that there were what they were not. For that, the House should be grateful. TREVOR MALLARD: How do you know? WINSTON PETERS: I do not know, but I do not believe in damning people who are not here to defend themselves. The member for Hamilton West would not know about that. The member for Wellington Central then asked M. P. s to look beyond their own vague anxieties. We are expected to respect each other's points of view in the Chamber, yet the promoter of the Bill asks those who do not support her view to look beyond their own vague anxieties, as though they were not concerned about those people in their electorates who support the Bill. The member for Wellington Central said that members should follow the professionals and the experts. But what about the ordinary New Zealanders, the ordinary men and women? Are they not entitled to a voice in our democracy and in Parliament? They are not professional, and they are not expert; they are just ordinary New Zealanders, the salt of the country, the people who made the country and will always be the driving force behind our economic survival. The member said that research had shown - and I do not believe this, because I sat in the select committee for as long as she did, for more days than she did TREVOR MALLARD: Rubbish! That's untrue. WINSTON PETERS: -and for more days than did the member who is interjecting. TREVOR MALLARD: That's a lie. ROBIN GRAY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! WINSTON PETERS: I do not want a point of order; I can handle him. (Interruption.) DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I do not require any advice from any member-[Interruption.)-including the member for Invercargill . The member for Hamilton West will rise, withdraw, and apologise. TREVOR MALLARD: I apologise, and withdraw. WINSTON PETERS: The member for Wellington Central said that 25 percent of all men have had significant homosexual experience. As a redeeming feature, she said that not all are basically homosexually orientated. The member for Hamilton West said that 60 percent of men had had homosexual experiences. NORMAN JONES: Fifty percent. WINSTON PETERS: I believe that I have knocked around as much as any member of the House who is my age, and I do not believe that research. What is more, scientific analysis cannot substantiate such a claim. Both the member for Hamilton West and the member for Wellington Central know that. If the argument is meritorious, why falsify it? The member for Wellington Central went on to quote further from evidence given before the select committee. For that reason I shall analyse the committee's history. First of all there was a petition. The most outrageous claim I heard was that the men at Marsden Point-the men who have a strike record of independence against their own unions and against the Federation of Labour that is unparalleled - were being strong-armed into signing the petition. The member for Wellington Central made that claim in May 1985. If the arguments for the Bill are so meritorious why falsify the facts? According to the member, the men at Marsden Point were frog-marched into the place where the petition was held and told to sign it. When the Bill was before the committee in May 1985 there was a by-election. The committee's hearings were adjourned because the matter became politically embarrassing. If the arguments for the Bill are so meritorious why was a select committee of the House fiddled with and manipulated? Those who support the Bill - not those of us who have a different view-should answer that. If the arguments for the Bill are so cogent, powerful, and convincing, and if the majority of New Zealanders are for it, why was the committee examining the Bill manipulated? The position does not improve. There is logic to my argument-1 do not care what side of the issue people are on. If people support the Homosexual Law Reform Bill and believe it is meritorious the logic lies with the facts, not with somebody's human political behaviour. On 18 September the member for Hamilton West wrote to all Government members of Parliament. He was then the chairman of the select committee. He wrote 1/2 pages opposing the petition's coming before the committee. Did anybody ever act in such a partial, biased, and prejudicial way? I say again that if the arguments in support of the measure are so cogent, powerful, and meritorious, why did people act in such a fashion? Why did they pervert the parliamentary process? If the Bill stood on its own merits why did they pervert the select committee process? Let those members get up tonight and answer the allegations. I should not have to, because I am motivated for reasons that may, on the face of it, not be apparent, but before I finish tonight I shall explain that for me it becomes a matter of my background and the need to survive. RICHARD NORTHEY: Ha, ha! WINSTON PETERS: The member for Eden may laugh. I assure him that if medical science does not find a remedy for what we face he will not laugh in 2 years' time. If he has no conscience he might have a sense of responsibility. I was on the select committee when the matter came up for consideration-or, rather, should have come up for consideration. Government members sought to pervert the parliamentary process. There was no consideration of the matter before the committee, as there should have been. Expert witnesses on the final evidence were not called, and the committee, which had been convened to consider a matter that had generated more interest than any other, was shut down. NORMAN JONES: On a party vote. GEOFF BRAYBROOKE: I didn't vote for it. WINSTON PETERS: I did not say it was a party vote, but I say to the member for Napier that some people have rudely dealt with the support and the background of his party. That is a fact. The Deputy Prime Minister said that he would give select committees more power, and that they would be able to initiate their own inquiries. He said that minority reports would be permitted, and that we needed a real opportunity for the public to participate in the making of public decisions. JOHN BANKS: Who said that? WINSTON PETERS: It was said by the paragon of constitutional virtue, the Deputy Prime Minister. He used to give lectures about it. He has to sit here tonight knowing that what I am saying is true. He knows that it has happened in the way he said it would not happen, and he has not uttered a word of protest. The public needs a real opportunity to participate in the making of public decisions. The petition was signed by 800,000 New Zealanders. I do not care if 100,000 signatures are wrong, false, or fraudulent. That petition warranted due consideration and it received a vote of no recommendation. Trevor Mallard: 1 raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is my understanding that the select committee decision on the petition has not been reported to the House. I therefore ask whether that comment was in order. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I think the point is well made. The member is debating the principles of the legislation, and I think he tied his comments in reference to the petition to what he perceived as a principle in regard to the handling of the legislation. I ask him to confine his remarks to reflections upon the principles of the Bill. WINSTON PETERS: The principle I am talking about tonight is survival. That is a principle that has not been considered by many members in the House, and I do not believe it ever will be. If I am wrong I would be happy; but if I am right it will not be on my conscience. It will not be on the consciences of people who feel like me, but it will be on the consciences of those who would not face the facts before them, and they will live to regret that. I hope I am wrong. A woman called Kirsty Burnett, of the Lincoln College Students Association, wrote to me in total support of the Bill. I wrote to her on 28 May and asked what kind of survey she had done at Lincoln College. I am still waiting for a reply. A person from Victoria University wrote to me in support of the Bill, and I found that that person had surveyed 5 percent of the studentship. I am still waiting for a reply about how that person could demean the democratic voice of that institution and make totally false claims. I am still waiting for a reply about what the public of New Zealand feels. The Heylen organisation claims to have conducted a poll on how New Zealanders feel. The people who conducted that poll know full well-as does anybody who has ever studied political science - that that analysis was totally unscientific. They did not put before the people the full issues contained in the Bill. Did somebody seek to pervert the public voice in favour of the Bill? I am drawn inexorably to that conclusion. The Heylen poll made no mention of the human rights provisions, or of Part II of the Bill, yet the people who conducted that poll try to tell me that the public feels a certain way. A survey conducted in my electorate of Tauranga showed that 15,721 people had signed the petition. I do not mind that, because this issue is a conscience issue, and, in the end, people must live with their consciences. However, 15,721 people signed that petition, and a member opposed to me said that I live in a freak, cranky electorate. I want to talk about the issues that concern me. The leading witness told the select committee in submission 416 that he saw nothing wrong with homosexual marriage, or adoption, and that he would not go along with any law that prevented homosexuals from giving blood; I was appalled at that. He said he would be disturbed if educationists promoted heterosexuality. An article in the Auckland Star of 30 September stated: “Gay secondary school teachers will form a group to identify their rights and protections in the profession. The Post-Primary Teachers Association Sex Equality Advisory Committee will co-opt a group of lesbian and homosexual teachers to present the policy paper at next year's conference.” That is the hidden agenda. However, the Australian agenda was made public by Tim Maltby of the Australian Paedophile Support Group. He said: “The Australian community seems unwilling or unable to make a distinction between paedophilia and child rape. Can we develop a radical course of action to throw off the accusation that gay people are child molesters, fight the problems of rape, and accept paedophilia as a viable sexuality?” DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I must draw it to the attention of people in the gallery that they are not part of the debate. Therefore it is not in order for them to register any form of reaction. What they are doing is not in order, and they will not be allowed to stay if that continues. Neither is it appropriate for any member to address the gallery. WINSTON PETERS: I was not addressing the gallery. Mr Maltby did not end there. He said: “Childhood is the last bastion of patriarchal capitalism, and we must take up the struggle.” In conclusion, I believe that we are sitting on a medical holocaust that requires an answer to the problem long before we consider the concerns expressed in the Bill. Dr Goldwater, who spoke during an AIDS conference in Atlanta, said that we face a holocaust to match a nuclear holocaust. The only greater holocaust would be a nuclear holocaust. In Australia 1000 people already have AIDS. The member for Wellington Central said that we must go to San Francisco and see. People have been there and have noted that sexual diseases in San Francisco have increased by 2400 percent since the liberalisation of homosexuality. She cannot deny that - those are the facts. As at 22 April 1985, 3415 people had died from AIDS in New York City, and 1141 had died in San Francisco. Those cities have no laws against homosexual practices. On 16 August AIDS was said to be the top killer in New York. At the end of the day it is the duty of every member of Parliament to prevent a preventable evil, and for every New Zealander AIDS is still a preventable evil. If overseas evidence is any indicator and the Bill is passed, within 2 years AIDS will be the No. 1 medical problem in New Zealand. Some will say that sexual hedonism is more important; others will say that the greater public good lies in giving in to sympathy and to fine feelings. It does not. RICHARD NORTHEY (Eden): I was amazed to hear the previous speaker commenting on my response to his speech. I had been sitting with my pen poised to write down anything he might say to do with the Bill so that I could reply to it, but the pad is still empty. It is a matter of basic human rights - our ability as mature adults to allow other mature adults to express sexual activity that is basic to their own nature. It is a question of the right to develop and express one's own intrinsic nature. It is the ability to be able to give and to receive affection from others. It is a question of ensuring equal access for all people to basic needs such as employment and accommodation. I found it quite amazing to hear the previous speaker suggest that the passing of the Bill will bring on a holocaust and the collapse of human civilisation. Most countries have treated heterosexual and homosexual acts equally in law and in the role of the State for a very long time. In Spain, which has allowed both heterosexual and homosexual acts from the age of 12 for the past 150 years, the incidence of AIDS in the population is only one tenth the incidence in New Zealand, because people are able to seek and gain basic information, education, and responsiveness regardless of their sexual orientation. There have been suggestions about paedophilia being promoted. They are nonsense; that is not in the Bill. There have been suggestions that 50 percent of the people in the Middle East are homosexual, and the only reason given was that they are allowed four wives each. There is nothing in the Bill to allow people to have four wives, and Muslim teachings are based very much on the Old Testament. They proscribe homosexual acts just as strongly. In Iran the penalty for homosexual acts is death. PHILIP BURDON: What's that got to do with it? RICHARD NORTHEY: It has a great deal to do with some of the comments that have been made about the Bill. The fact is that about 10 percent of any population, regardless of its social structure, naturally expresses homosexual orientation. The submission of the Department of Health gave clear evidence that “Homosexuality is no longer considered within the medical and other health professions to be a disease. Increasingly it has come to be viewed as a normal psychosexual variant, one of a number of possible sexual orientations. An essential and integral component of mental health is the individual's sense of identity and self-esteem and his or her perceived value in society. This position underlies the frequent observations made in clinical practice that the major causes of mental distress found among some persons of homosexual orientation derive not from that orientation itself, but from the attitudes of the wider society and the laws which give them expression." The United States National Institute of Mental Health noted that the problems facing many homosexuals are caused by the need for concealment and the emotional stresses arising from the opprobrium of being in violation of the law. As with heterosexual orientation, there is strong evidence that homosexual orientation is formed in the very early years of life and that it is not a matter of choice for the individual. It is something like left-handedness, developed early in life and perfectly normal. It is ludicrous to suggest that something that is common to all societies is not normal. To go on and deny legal acceptance and legal rights to those who differ from us in only that respect when they cause no harm to others is ludicrous, grossly unfair, and shows a lack of respect. There has been much argument about the question of life-style, and the description of homosexuality as an alternative life-style in some ways derives from the obsession with sexuality that many in our society have. In most cases it is only the sexual component of their lives that is different, and even in that the methods in which it is expressed are in most cases the same as those for most heterosexuals. The suggestion that sexual orientation can be changed or determined by seduction or rape is as ludicrous for homosexuals as it is for heterosexuals. There is clear evidence that such events do not change basic sexual orientation and may leave permanent scars in terms of expressing sexual activity. It has been clearly shown that the attraction to sexual activity with children is an illegal and harmful variant as common among homosexuals as it is among heterosexuals, and to the same relevant degree. The question that really arises is the human right to be able to express affection, and on an emotional life for all people, rather than a continuing persecution for a characteristic over which people have no control. It is a question of mutual respect and acceptance of people as people, and the right to full participation in life. That is a stand that members should take on the evidence and on what is right or wrong. When I stood for Parliament I said quite clearly that I would support reform of the law that would ensure that homosexuals and heterosexuals were treated the same in law. I received 953 letters from my constituents in favour of the change and only 176 against change. Of those 953 in favour, 930 were in favour of the whole Bill, including the provisions of the human rights clauses and an age of consent the same as that for heterosexuals. The petition against the Bill was signed by many people on the basis of their sincere belief, but it is a fatally flawed document in many respects. The suggestion was made by previous speakers that the workers at Marsden Point would not succumb to such pressure. That is misleading. The macho attitudes prevalent in society mean that that is exactly the kind of pressure that the workers at Marsden Point could not stand up to. I have received letters that refer to similar pressure being applied. A woman who was terminally ill in a hospital in my electorate was pressured by her nurse to sign the petition. That was an invasion of her privacy and rights, particularly as she was totally dependent on another. She argued the point, did not sign the petition, and died within 24 hours. I urge members who may be considering voting against the second reading, because they are not yet convinced of the rightness of some parts of the Bill, to allow it to go forward. There is clearly a need to change a law that sentences to lengthy terms of imprisonment people who are carrying out activities basic to their nature. What may be regarded as a sin against God cannot be regarded as something for which such severe penalties should be provided in the law of the nation. There is a desperate need for change, and I urge members to vote for the second reading, and to consider the appropriateness of the amendments and the appropriate way to vote at a later stage. One of the key questions is the implication for the physical health of people. The Department of Health submission stated: “Physical health problems can result from promiscuous sexual behaviour in 'both homosexual and heterosexual persons by contributing to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, such as syphilis. It should be emphasised that it is the promiscuity rather than the sexual orientation which is the crucial factor determining the transmission of such diseases.” The best way of reducing such practices is through effective education in a non-coercive environment. The December 1984 edition of the expert publication Sexually Transmitted Diseases found in New York that there is a lower proportion of sexually transmitted diseases amongst homosexual men compared with the general populace. That arises because they are intrinsically no more promiscuous and careless in their sexual activities than other people; and, of course, the publicity about AIDS effectively reached that population in areas where that activity was legal, and the incidence of disease rapidly decreased amongst that population. The extent to which promiscuous and dangerous sexual activities occur is related to the nature of the law and to myths that surround the issue. The views expressed in the House tonight about different levels of activity in other countries are related to those myths rather than to reality. World experts on AIDS have made the following comments. Dr Pearl Ma, the chief of clinical microbiology in New York, said: “New Zealand's laws and conservative attitudes against male homosexuality are a major problem in trying to combat AIDS.” Dr David Miller, a clinical psychologist and a leading researcher into AIDS prevention, said in Auckland in January of this year: “The single most helpful action the Government could take is to legalise homosexuality.” The AIDS Foundation and the New Zealand gay community have done a tremendous job in effectively educating the openly gay community about prevention and safe sexual practices. The problem is in the education of, and the dissemination of information to, practising homosexuals who keep their activity and orientation secret, and who also take part in heterosexual activities, often within a marriage. Unless the law and social attitudes are changed they will spread AIDS into the heterosexual community. Promiscuous and dangerous sexual activities, whether homosexual or heterosexual, must be prevented if the spread of AIDS in this country is to be prevented. The view has been expressed that homosexuality is an inferior sexual activity because the length of relationships is less and more promiscuous activity is engaged in. That is very much caused by the legal position. If that position were changed, those who are concerned to preserve families, whether the traditional family or a family that consists of a stable homosexual relationship, would be able to secure those relationships and make them more lasting and greater in depth. Many distressing examples of the effects of homosexuality in marriage were given in evidence to the committee in Auckland. There was one case of a woman who found out that her husband was a homosexual when she was rung from the police station and told of the activity for which her husband had been arrested. There was another example of a woman who sends her child to a special school outside her neighbourhood in an effort to prevent other pupils from describing the child's father as a criminal and a pervert. There is clearly a need to support a change in the law; having token laws is bad for respect for the law in general. For several reasons the age of consent should be the same for homosexual and heterosexual activities, and for boys and girls. It has been clearly implied that boys are more special than girls and need protection for a longer time. I reject the sexism inherent in that assumption. I am concerned that if the age of consent were raised to 20 years the dilemma of the young person uncertain of his or her sexual identity would intensify, and ability to seek counselling and advice would be greatly reduced. Given the harm that would be done to that group at a time when people are at their most vulnerable, I am not sure how I would vote if the age were raised so that that group was not given protection. The human rights aspect is also vital, and there are some misinterpretations about it. The law clearly states that people can say whether they are in favour of homosexuality or even if they regard it as a mortal sin. Discrimination in employment would still be possible on the basis of sexual activity; the law deals only with the question of sexual orientation. That is something that is not determined by the person; it is as intrinsic to the individual as one's sex or the colour of one's skin. If public attitudes are to be changed and real protection given to those people to enable them to play an equal role in society, it is essential that the law be changed. I urge Parliament to pass the second reading so that the degree of reform needed can be carried out. ROB STOREY (Waikato): I voted against the Bill when it was introduced to the House. Many people have written to me and asked why I did so. My answer has been that I voted against it because of the method and timing of its introduction. I voted against it because I believed it was introduced by the member for Wellington Central, the Junior Government Whip, with the full connivance and support of the Government, as a useful diversion from serious matters affecting our economy and our deteriorating position within the world family of free developed nations. I voted against the Bill because I objected to the way in which a measure that was studied at great length in Britain - where it was sifted, examined, considered, went to a royal commission, and then came back to the parliamentarians, who are really laymen elected to make laws, with a body of expert opinion on which they could rule - was brought before the New Zealand Parliament with very little expert opinion. I believed, as I still do, that that would have been the proper and correct action to take with the proposal. If that action had been taken, much of the damage that has been done between the homosexual and the heterosexual communities, and the rift that has developed which will not go away, no matter how we vote on the Bill - could have been avoided, and still could be avoided. If the matter were referred to a royal commission, an opportunity would be given to the many people who have been unable to have their submissions heard. More important, it would also enable people who are experts in particular fields of knowledge about which the House requires information to use their expertise to examine the submissions, to comment on them, to criticise them, and debate the subjects introduced, thereby arriving at a considered body of opinion on which the parliamentarians could work. That has not happened. Having gone through a lengthy select committee procedure we are in the process of debating a topic about which very few of us know a great deal. We have listened to facts that certain people describe as myths, if it suits them to, and other judgments have been made on the basis of individual experience and limited knowledge. If that is the way we as politicians and lawmakers are prepared to go about changing a most important law, it is little wonder that from time to time the people of New Zealand have a very low opinion of our reasoning and thinking capacity. No matter what decision is made, the debate will continue. If most New Zealanders do not accept the final decision after the debate, the estrangement that exists between the homosexual and heterosexual communities, which did not exist before the Bill was introduced, will be continued, heightened, and widened. The ostracism that is said to be felt by homosexuals will increase; it will not go away. I shall comment on the way in which I went about polling opinion in my electorate. Initially, a local newspaper conducted a postal survey, to which about 130 people responded. Of those, 90 wanted the law to remain the same, and 29 wanted the legislation introduced and the legalising of 16 years as the age of consent. That survey was conducted in March. The gay rights movement commissioned the Heylen poll in Huntly, and found, according to its poll of an undisclosed number of people, that 55 percent of the people in Huntly favoured a change in the law. I later undertook a poll of 400 people in my electorate. In that poll, 56 percent of the respondents were against a law change, and 44 percent were in favour. I then took an opinion poll of the churches in my electorate and found that seven of them were against change and four in favour of change. I finally came 10 perhaps the most important sector, the medical fraternity, and polled the doctors who practise in the electorate. Four were against change and five were in favour of it. The question was whether or not they felt that a change in legislation would help or hinder the containment of AIDS. I did not consider the petition presented on the steps of Parliament to be an extreme or reactionary document. I did not consider the way in which it was presented to be extreme or reactionary, any more than I found the way in which the gay rights movement went about its protest in most cases to be unacceptable. At times there were extremes on both sides. I deplore that kind of behaviour, which can only further divide the community. I noted with interest that 4580 people in my electorate signed the petition against the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. I have no evidence to show that any of them had been pressured to sign or that anyone who signed it did not understand what he or she was doing. I accepted that petition, as I accepted the petition of 56 staff members at the University of Waikato who asked me to support the correction of an existing law that effectively denied equal rights to homosexual citizens in New Zealand. I have had two conflicting petitions, and I acknowledge them both. I accept the viewpoint of the people who signed those petitions. I am opposed to both sections of the Bill as they are before the House at present. I understand some of the psychological problems of homosexuals who feel alienated from society. I have sympathy with their needs. I shall talk for a moment, not about the psychological condition of homosexuals but about AIDS, and mention a petition that was presented to the committee but was not heard. It was an expert submission from a surgeon who is involved in his day to day work with surgery in the rectum and anal areas. He has a particular knowledge of - and, I suppose, a particular concern for - the effect on medical people of the passing of the Bill. The surgeon was Geoffrey Wynne-Jones, who comes from the Hamilton East electorate, which may be of interest to the members for that electorate. He is a past president of the New Zealand Association of Part-time Hospital Medical Staff. That person very much regretted that he did not have the opportunity to go to the select committee to make known his expert point of view. I shall present to the House some of the information that he presented in written form and would have elaborated on had he been invited to attend that committee. Mr Wynne-Jones makes one or two points. The first is about one of the common dangers to nurses and doctors - the danger of needlestick. I have here a needle that is commonly used to extract blood from patients. It is one of the old type of needles. The person using the needle takes off the guard, places the needle in the patient, and withdraws the blood. By that stage the needle is probably infected. The person using it puts it back - with a bit of luck, into the guard - and does not damage his or her fingers. A good deal of luck is required, because the rate of needlestick injury to hospital staff as reported overseas is about 15 accidents for each 100 hospital beds. About 80 percent of those people are nursing staff; about 10 percent are theatre staff. Most needlestick accidents in the theatre involve potentially contaminated needles, knives, and instruments. One positive thing to emerge at last as a result of the grave concern of the medical profession about the disease of AIDS is a guard that can prevent needlestick. When the needle is put back into the guard the guard can go over the top, and, instead of the needle sticking into the hand of the doctor or nurse, it goes through into the guard, or it can be placed through the hole and the cover put back over the needle. I am told that doctors have been asking for many years for something like that to combat the effects of infection from hepatitis B. It was concern about the disease of AIDS, and the effect it can have on doctors and nurses and surgical staff, that led to the development of that device in New Zealand, so I suppose we can say that one good thing has come out of this real concern. Perhaps not too many other good things have come out of it. The concern expressed by Mr Wynne-Jones is that all sexually transmitted diseases-STD-are transmitted by anal intercourse, as is hepatitis B and AIDS as well. He noted that syphilis has almost been eliminated from the general population in the United Kingdom. Only one case of congenital syphilis was reported in the past year. There are still 3000 cases of adult syphilis in the United Kingdom, and nearly all of them are male homosexuals - and that in a country without restrictive legislation against homosexuals. A high proportion of male homosexuals become hepatitis A antigen positive within 2 years of becoming active as homosexuals. AIDS, both epidemic and endemic, parallels the behaviour of hepatitis B more closely than anything else. Neither disease is sexually transmitted, and neither should be labelled as sexually transmitted. AIDS may become endemic, in the fashion of hepatitis B, which has become a real worry in New Zealand. There have been several debates in the House indicating concern about the prevalence of hepatitis B in some parts of New Zealand. There is obviously a real link between hepatitis B and AIDS in homosexuals. One of the points made in that submission, which was not considered by the committee, was that, had the Wolfenden report been brought before the British Houses of Parliament at a time when a disease such as AIDS faced the country, it is unlikely that it would have been carried, because the thrust of that report was that sexual activity between consenting adults, when no damage was done to anyone else, could be accepted by society. Anal sex, whether it is homosexual anal sex or heterosexual anal sex, carries a major risk of AIDS, and there is a very good reason for that. I have here two photographs that I intend to table, and even from a distance most members will get the general idea of what I am saying. The one in my left hand shows the thin layer of secretory goblet cells that line the rectum, and there is a very thin lining across the top. The second photo shows the vaginal mucosa, which is a tough, thick, protective surface, 20 times thicker than the lining of the anus. If the committee had been prepared to hear what Mr Wynne-Jones had to say, it would have heard that his concern is that anal sex rather than homosexual activity per se between males is the major cause of AIDS. To pass legislation at this time that gives tacit approval to anal sex, until Parliament knows more about the ways in which AIDS can be contained, would be to give the wrong message to society as a whole about our concern regarding AIDS. It shows an acceptance of a means of making sure that the disease continues. I hope that members, particularly those members of the committee who did not have the opportunity to hear that submission, can take that point, because it is a very real one. It impresses me that a surgeon was prepared to stick his neck out and give some technical information to the House, which, as far as I know, has not yet been presented. I said earlier in my speech that I have a concern for homosexuals in New Zealand society, and that I deplore the way in which the Bill has been introduced. I shall vote against the Bill in its present form at all stages. However, if an amendment were moved showing that the House cannot give a signal to people that anal sex is a satisfactory method of sexual intercourse at a time when we are concerned about AIDS and know very little about the disease, but the amendment could in some way meet the needs of the homosexual community-because not all homosexual acts are related to anal sex-I would be prepared to consider supporting it. Hon. KORO WETERE (Minister of Maori Affairs): Te Hemana, ko koe te Rangatira o tenei whare. Tenei ra te mihi atu ki a koe, oti ra ki te whare e whakaaro nei ite kaupapa. Me ki ko te kau ma tahi pea te tau i whakaarohia ai i tenei whare i nei kaupapa. I tera wa ko te mema o waitotara te kaihautu o tenei kaupapa. I tenei ra ko hoki mai ke taku tuahine mana i kokiri ai i roto i te whare nei hei whakaarohia ai e tatou i te kaupapa e mahiotia tenei o tatou. Tuatahi kei te mihi atu ki a ia a me tatou katoa e whakaaro mei i te kaupapa e pehi nei ki runga i a tatou. Otira ite marama o Mei i tenei tau i tu ai te hui o nga Wahine Maori toko ite Ora ki roto o Heretaunga. I reira i tantokongia ai te kaupapa i roto i tenei pire. I tuhingia ai e au kia rateu, pehea o ratou whakero ki te kaupapa nei, me te te mohio ano ka nui tatou te iwi Maori kua tai ki roto ki tenei kaupapa. Ko taku i mea atu kia ratou, he taonga a o tatou matua me whakaaro atu ai e ratou. Maku e ki atu kei te mohio tonu tatou i nga taonga a o tatau matua mo tenei, e penei ana te korero. “He aha ra te mea nui maku ra e ki alu-he tangata, he tangata, he tangata." Ko wai o tatau hei whaka he i tera taonga i korerohia e ratau mai ra ano i te wa a tai ano ki te rangi rei. I runga ano i tenei rerenga korero ara i waihotia e ratou kei whea he korero maku ki te whaka turikina i tera whakaaro e hangatia e ratou. Tenei te whakaaro o to koutou mokai, “me tu ki runga ki nga kaupapa i waihotia e ratou ki te tantoko ai i tenei pire mai tona timatanga, a tae ano ki tona mutunga.” Noreira kei aku rangatira, tenei ra te mihi atu ki a tatou katoa e hui nei i teni po me te mohio ano te nuinga o to motu e whakaea ana kia penei tatou. Noreira tena koutou, tena koutou, tena ano tatou katoa. About 11 years ago the House considered an identical measureWINSTON PETERS: Not identical. Hon. KORO WETERE: O. K.-it dealt with almost similar circumstances and was introduced by the present member for Waitotara. I said in Maori that in May this year I had attended the annual conference of the New Zealand Maori Women's Welfare League, which unanimously endorsed the proposals contained in the Bill. The House will know that I have canvassed issues such as this with the league-for example, the Bills on adoption and abortion and have come to the conclusion given in a proverb left by our ancestors: " What is the greatest thing on this earth? Let me tell you, it is people, it is people, it is people.” I have chosen that proverb and could not depart from that philosophy. We have followed it to the letter on all occasions. Others in the House have spoken about human rights. I accept, as I am sure all of us do, that Maoridom has gone through many changes in the past 140 years, more particularly in the past 20 years. Maoridom has to accept that many of our people are now in this position. As the member of Parliament for Western Maori, I cannot afford to cast aside those of our people who have decided to take that upon themselves as their way of life. I therefore intend to support the Bill. I congratulate the member who introduced the Bill. She went through a traumatic experience. (Interruption.) I am sorry, but the member for Tauranga has had his opportunity and he can get another call during the Committee stage. There will be plenty of opportunities. I remind him of one simple fact, and ask where he stands in terms of the proverb I referred to. WINSTON PETERS: Man alone; survival. Hon. KORO WETERE: I asked about the proverb. Of course he would know where it came from. If he knew what it was all about and where it came from - its origins-I am sure he would have no difficulty with it whatsoever. I challenge the member about it, because it is well known in his district and to his people. Those people are to be admired, and if he is moving away from those principles I ask him to think again. I also ask him to consider the position of our people at present. He well knows that 75 percent of them are urbanised, and that 75 percent of them are below the age of 25 years. A great number within that age group have now joined this section of the community. I shall not deny the people who have chosen that course, but I simply say that Parliament has been called on to make a judgment and to pass a law that will give those people the right of choice. That is what I believe we are being asked to do. As I said before, I have considered this matter for some time. It is not the first time it has come before Parliament. This time round I think a sign of maturity had been demonstrated, and most people have come to accept the need for reform. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON (Papakura): I have seldom heard the Minister of Maori Affairs so defensive. Indeed, earlier in the debate I called to him and he knowsMr Gerbic: Get away from personalities. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: We heard from that member about a week ago and have forgotten what he said - and rightly so. I called to the Minister of Maori Affairs, who is the senior Maori Government member - and I see that he is being congratulated by the member for Mount Albert. I concede that this is a conscience issue and that he, of all members in the Chamber, has the authority, the prestige, and the seniority to speak for the Maori people, particularly as he has for many years - and I do not include the present year-managed the land affairs of the Maori Queen. Hon. K. T. Wetere: Oh, really! Hon. M. L. WELLINGTON: He protests, but that is so. I have joined the Minister on the marae on a number of occasions-for example, St. Stephens College, which is one of the premier Maori colleges. I use that word advisely, for it is primarily a Maori college and one of distinction and prestige. I have enjoyed the Minister's company and I have enjoyed his comments on occasions on the marae. By way of interjection I said to him, " Speak for the Maori people.” I was disappointed with his comments tonight, because in essence they were by way of prevarication; they were ambivalent and ambiguous. I wonder who has been at the Minister of Maori Affairs in recent weeks and recent months. Who has hammered him into shape? Is he speaking for the Maori Queen? Is he speaking for the four quarters? FRED GERBIC: I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. The member has been on his feet for 5 or 6 minutes, supposedly talking about the Bill, but he has not referred to any part of it. Instead he has referred to the previous speaker. I ask you to call him to order. ACTING SPEAKER (TREVOR YOUNG): Order! The member has not been speaking for 5 minutes - he has not quite finished his first 2 minutes. In any case, I think he was referring to some of the matters contained in the contribution made by the Minister of Maori Affairs. It is in order for any member of the House to do that. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: I record my disappointment at the contribution made by a senior Maori member of this assembly. WINSTON PETERS: The Minister used to be a senior member. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: That prophecy will be proved correct. Of all the people in the Chamber the Minister of Maori Affairs has the authority to speak for the Maori people. He did not do that. Who got at him? Does he reflect the views of the Maori Queen? Does he reflect the views of the four quarters? Every member in this assembly-excluding a few such as the member for Glenfield---will know to what I am referring. His speech would not go down at all well at St. Stephens College, Queen Victoria College, and Te Aute College, because the Bill does not serve the interests of our young people in any realistic or practical way. It calls for the legalisation of homosexual activities from the age of 16 onward. I mentioned St. Stephens College advisedly, because in 1962 I took up a position there as a teacher. I assure the Minister of Maori Affairs, who has a responsibility as the local member - which he shares with the member for Franklin - that his views would not be tolerated for 2 minutes on the marae of St. Stephens College, or its sister school, Queen Victoria College, in Parnell, Auckland. The Minister would be run off the property if he made a speech on either of those two marae such as he made in the House tonight. I am disappointed that the Minister of Maori Affairs has given the Maori people such a bad steer and a bad lead in the Chamber tonight. The time is now 10. 47 p. m., and the lights will be out in St. Stephens College. The member for Eden and the member for Tongariro - wo extreme liberals-may well scoff, but they will get their reckoning in due course. I am disappointed in the Minister of Maori Affairs, and I am sure that Mat Rata, who once sat in the House, would be equally disappointed. I am sure the honourable member for Southern Maori is bitterly disappointed, as her father would be, and I make no apology for bringing the ancestors of the honourable member for Southern Maori into the debate. The Minister of Maori Affairs made a disgraceful contribution to an important debate. He made such a contibution because he is a Minister in the Labour Government, which happens to embrace this latest piece of liberalism. The Minister of Maori Affairs thinks he owes his position in the Chamber to his mates in Cabinet and on the back benches. His greater loyalty should be to his own people. I pay tribute to the member for Hauraki, the member for Invercargill, and especially the member for Gisborne. I know the pressures that have been brought to bear on the member for Gisborne. He is in a marginal electorate, but he had the courage to say that that is what he believed in and what he believed his people sent him to do. That member is not like the Minister of Maori Affairs, who is under the Whips. He has been brought into line and he knows it, and tonight he merely regurgitates the party line. To the member for Napier, who tried for various Labour seats around the country and finally won the seat in Napier, I say “good on him”, because he had the courage to defy his party on the issue. I pay tribute not only to those four members, but also the people who have backed them and who have been damned in the House. Those people have no right of reply under the panoply of privilege in Parliament. People such as Keith Hay have been damned in the House for presenting facts and events. Government Members: Oh, oh! Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: There they go again-they damn those people and scoff. People such as Sir Peter TaitRICHARD NORTHEY: When will the member start talking about the Bill? Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: The member for Eden is in trouble. In Auckland we heard representations from various people, and the member for Eden and the member for Mount Albert did not ask a question or make a comment when the liberals and the lesbians came in, because they knew very well that if they did their arguments would be cut to pieces. If the member for Eden continues to interject I shall ask him where Ms Soich is. I suggest that the member for Eden keep his mouth shut, as the member for Hamilton West is advising him to do. I pay tribute to the people who brought the petition before Parliament. It was the largest petition in the history of the country. Those people sustained unprecedented attacks in the House. I pay tribute to them, as I do to the four members who backed them. They have no privilege within the panoply of this particular place. As I have listened to the meandering speeches in support of the Bill I have been reminded of the eighteenth century political philosopher, Edmund Burke, who wrote 200 years ago: “The concessions of the weak are the concessions of fear.” In the past 10 days I have read that the member for Ohariu has polled his electorate and it has told him what to do. That is a concession of the weak. I have heard of the confusion of the member for East Cape, who said that she had polled her electorate and that she had thought she was for the Bill, and then she was against it, but she had polled her electorate and now she was for it. What integrity! In 1980, on another issue, at a different time, the people in my electorate said to me at an electorate meeting that unless I voted the way they wanted me to vote they would fix me. Members on this side of the House will know of what I speak. I told them that they had sent me to Wellington, and if they did not like what I had been doing they could follow that course. I am still here. I will not deal with that issue, but simply say that it was in 1980, and after two terms as Minister of Education-when my two immediate predecessors, both Labour and National, were cut short in their electorates - I say to the member for East Cape and the member for Ohariu, “Stick to your guns”. The member for Glenfield should stick to her guns. Do what is right; do not obey the dictates of an amorphous mass. The member should do what she thinks is right on a conscience issue. The Minister of Customs polled her electorate and had her mind shored up–God bless her. She should stick to her guns. I say to those members and to the people out there - the people who brought the petition and the people who did not sign it, perhaps because they did not have the chance or did not want to, because they were not seized of the importance of the matter - " Obey the dictates on what you consider to be a conscience issue when you stand before the supreme body of the country, Parliament.” The member for Ohariu has changed his mind; the member for East Cape has changed her mind; the member for Glenfield has changed her mind; and the Minister of Customs has changed her mind. The concessions of the weak are the concessions of fear: they are fearful for their electoral hides. What a way that is to make decisions affecting the people of the country, and in particular the young people! I referred earlier to St. Stephens College. I went to a boarding school, as did many members. I repeat what I said when the Bill was introduced - that to fix the age of consent at 16 years will be to sow not just the seeds but the actuality of discord and dissent in school after school across the country. Government Members: Ha, ha! Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: Government members may laugh: do I see the Minister of Internal Affairs smiling wryly, or does he agree, and believe in what I am saying? A 16year might be in form IV or form V, or if a young person is fairly bright he may be in form VI. If homosexuality is legalised at form IV, form V, or form VI, the seeds of discord and dissent will be sown from the far north to the deep south. The Minister of Internal Affairs knows that what I am saying is correct, and that is why the Minister of Maori Affairs has Aed the Chamber. THE ACTING SPEAKER (TREVOR YOUNG): Order! I remind the honourable member that he may not refer to the absence of any member. He understands why members leave the Chamber, and it is disorderly to refer to a member's absence in that way. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: The Minister has departed on urgent public business; I can see why, and I do not blame him. I have referred to Edmund Burke's comment on the concession of those who are fearful. He also said that something may look specious in theory but be ruinous in practice. That is the burden of my argument. If the Bill introduced by the member for Wellington Central was the alpha and omega of human male and female relationships, what is it that gives her a monopoly on human wisdom in 1985? The member for Hamilton West is discomfited. Politics and political fortunes come and go, but one thing is certain in the political life of this country - the member for Hamilton West will be gone within the next 2 years. He is finished as a representative within the House. He is ancient history before his term has finished. The member for Mount Albert, the member for Wellington Central, and all those other fair-weather friends of everybody and everything who change their minds, have polls, and say they will decide when they know what their constituents think, are also finished. The people know what Burke knew a long time ago - that something may appear specious in theory but be ruinous in practice. If that were not so, why did some enlightened lawmaker not bring this measure in many years ago and have it passed in the Chamber? It is because the theory is specious and the practice would be ruinous, and most New Zealanders know that. They are suspicious of measures brought into the House by a Government Whip under the guise of a private member's Bill. TREVOR MALLARD: Here we go. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: That is why, apart from the member for Napier, the member for Southern Maori, and the member for Gisborne, Government members have been whipped into line. This measure was introduced at a time when the economy was doing badly, and when the ANZUS debate and a few other foreign policy issues were warming up. The member for Wellington Central, who is the Junior Government Whip, said she would bring in a private member's Bill to take people's minds off all this nonsense. Unfortunately, it is not nonsense. They are serious and weighty matters foreshadowed 2 centuries ago by people such as Edmund Burke. The people of succeeding generations were warned by Burke and others not to go down that road and other roads of like description. It is as simple as that. I have heard a lot about rights - the right to do this and the right to do that. I have heard nothing about responsibilities. Let us forget the adult population and think about the 16-year-olds, the 15-year-olds, the 17-year-olds, and the 750,000 pupils in primary, intermediate and secondary schools. What about their rights? TREVOR MALLARD: Mr SpeakerACTING SPEAKER (TREVOR YOUNG): Is this a point of order? An Hon. Member: Time's up. ACTING SPEAKER (TREVOR YOUNG): I have not rung the bell yet. WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. I understand that under the Standing Orders the member on his feet is entitled to go to the allotted time. That is a historic and well publicised provision. No bell has been rung, but the member for Hamilton West was on his feet like a jack-in-the-box. ACTING SPEAKER (TREVOR YOUNG): Order! I think members were reading my hand signs. The member has 5 seconds left. I did not ring the bell. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: I have heard nothing from the proponents of the measure about the responsibility of people. Debate interrupted. The House adjourned at 11 p. m.

IRN: 3856
PRIDENZ URL: https://www.pridenz.com/hansard_homosexual_law_reform_bill_second_reading_continued_23_october_1985.html
TITLE: Homosexual Law Reform Bill - second reading continued (23 October 1985)
DATE: 16 October 1985
LOCATION: Parliament buildings, 1 Molesworth Street, Wellington, New Zealand.
TEXT: SPEAKER: I shall check which member was speaking when the matter was adjourned last week. Mrs Hercus. JOHN BANKS (Whangarei): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You were about to say who was speaking when the House rose. Whom did you say it was? SPEAKER: I have called the Hon. Mrs Hercus, and the reason for that is that, on the information available to me, I am trying to arrange the debate so that members speak alternately for and against the Bill. ANN HERCUS (Minister of Social Welfare): Before I was elected to the House in 1978 I made a commitment to my electorate that, if elected, I would hold a poll or referendum within my electorate on each of the four conscience issues if they should arise, and provided no such conscience issue moved so quickly through the House that a referendum was physically impossible to arrange. That was a hard commitment for me to make to my electorate. I have strongly held views on each of the four conscience issues. I had in 1978, and still have equally, a strong sense of being a representative of my electorate. I wanted to ensure that the voters of Lyttelton had an opportunity to express their views, and so to guide me. My decision to hold a referendum to guide me about the electorate's opinion on a conscience issue. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek clarification. A week ago I was speaking in the debate. Am I not entitled to conclude my speech? Would you clarify the ruling you made 30 minutes ago? SPEAKER: I draw it to members' attention that the Journals of the House of Representatives record that the leave of the House was granted to the member for Papakura to register his vote on the Homosexual Law Reform Bill, which is order of the day No. 1 for private members' Bills. The House moved that the member for Papakura be suspended from the service of the House, and that is the position. I presume that the member understands the motion that was passed. DON MCKINNON: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek clarification. The member for Whangarei asked you which member was speaking when the House rose last after debating the Bill. You said that you were still trying to determine the issue. Can it be clarified whether the member for Papakura was speaking when the House adjourned last Wednesday? SPEAKER: Yes, he was, but because of the motion that has been passed the House may no longer take notice of the member for Papakura; but he may still vote. DON MCKINNON: I raise a further point of order, Mr Speaker. I request that you take the leave of the House to allow the member for Papakura to conclude the speech he was making last Wednesday. SPEAKER: That would be an extraordinary concession, as the member for Papakura had finished his speech at the time of the conclusion of the debate. WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker, relating to the concession the House has given to the member for Papakura enabling him to register his vote. I understand that members can register their vote in two ways: by being in the lobby, or, usually, by voice in the House. Does that mean that the member for Papakura is entitled to be in the House in accordance with the motion passed by the House, or have you given it the interpretation that he must remain in the lobby? SPEAKER: There is no difficulty about the matter. The member may return to the House when the question is put, but that does not entitle him to be present in the House at any other time. The House has granted the member leave to vote. That leave is absolute and total as far as voting is concerned, but it does not affect any other procedure. I have made it clear that the member is entitled to be heard on a vote on the voices, and he is also entitled to vote in the lobby. WINSTON PETERS: I raise a further point of order, Mr Speaker. Does that mean my colleague will be denied the right to return to the House on a vote that the question be put? SPEAKER: That was not granted by the leave of the House. Leave was granted solely that the member might vote on order of the day No. 1 for private members' Bills. Hon. ANN HERCUS: I was saying that I have a contract with the people of my electorate to hold a referendum. I do not give up my own views; I choose to share my conscience vote in Parliament with those who sent me here to be their representative. Therefore I am speaking in the debate tonight as the member for Lyttelton. Later in the debate I shall speak as the Minister of Police. It is beyond my resources to hold a poll as a secret ballot if a general election is held. However, I have done my best to ensure that every voter in the Lyttelton electorate has had a fair opportunity to participate in this referendum, and I have done my best to ensure that it has been done by a means whereby their opinions remained confidential to them. There is a particular reason for that. I am the Minister of Police, and in the past few months I have received anonymous letters from people who have identified themselves as coming from my electorate but who did not wish to sign their names because they were afraid of the consequences of admitting to a Minister of Police that they were homosexual. Therefore there was, and is, a compelling reason for a secret ballot to be held in my electorate. For that reason I had two ballot papers delivered to each house with no requirement for them to be annotated with a name or address. A mechanism was provided for more ballot papers to be acquired if there were more than two voters in a particular household. Such a system is obviously open to some abuse, so I took several steps to inhibit that. First, the ballot paper was printed in an ink colour that could not be reproduced or xeroxed. Secondly, extra ballot papers were made available only after a roll check. Thirdly, assuming that a single person in a household might fill in both the ballot papers delivered, it would be statistically likely that those on either side of the issue would abuse the system in the same manner and even each other out. As it was, enough ballot papers were returned with only one of the two connected ballots filled in to convince me that the voters of the Lyttelton electorate were fairly honest. Out of the 25,000 ballot papers distributed or requested, 3731 were returned, 13 of which were invalid, mainly because no voting was recorded in any way on those papers, only obscenities. Thus, 3718 valid ballot papers were returned. The primary purpose of the Bill is decriminalisation of the law to remove criminal sanctions against homosexual acts between consenting adults. The first question asked was therefore the central one: “Do you support a change in the law to remove criminal sanctions against consenting homosexual acts? Yes or no.” Of the valid replies, 1982 voters stated yes, and 1736 stated no. On the basis of nearly 4000 returns, a majority of 53. 3 percent of the Lyttelton electorate supported decriminalisation and 46. 7 percent did not. It may be fairly said that the vote was evenly divided in my electorate. Taking account of the majority view expressed in my electorate, I intend to vote for the removal of criminal sanctions against consenting homosexual acts. There is an additional interesting element that should be noted. The Hay petition against the Bill claimed that 5139 people in the Lyttelton electorate had signed that petition. I and a team of helpers went to a great deal of trouble to search every one of the boxes containing the petition sheets presented to Parliament, and then to xerox every sheet I could find with a Lyttelton address on it. I could only find 1500 names, not 5139. I then had those names and addresses checked: only 1300 of them were on the Lyttelton roll or had been added to the roll since it was last published. The return from my own referendum of those who opposed the Bill was 1736. Therefore I think I can reasonably speculate that the Hay petition seems somehow to have totally overrepresented and misrepresented the numbers of those opposed to the Bill who live in the Lyttelton electorate. I asked two supplementary questions on the ballot paper flowing from the central question of decriminalisation. One related to the age of consent, and the other to the change in the Human Rights Commission Act to include sexual orientation amongst the grounds on which it would be unlawful to discriminate. As those who did not support decriminalisation made it very clear to me in notes that they did not support any age of consent whatsoever, I turned to the views of those who supported decriminalisation. The referendum showed that 75 percent of those who support decriminalisation support the age of 16 as the age of consent, and 25 percent support other ages. As I have said, the third question related to the amendment to the Human Rights Commission Act. Of those who supported decriminalisation, 85 percent also supported that change. On the basis of the Lyttelton referendum the majority supported decriminalisation, and, of those, there was majority support for the age of consent to be 16 years, and for a change to the Act to prevent discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. My personal views coincide exactly. I am a Christian and a family woman. My God is not punitive or oppressive; my church submits that the present law and attitudes in society are harmful to the individual who has a homosexual orientation, since they force him to deny his sexuality as a person and an integral part of his identity as a person. The values of a loving New Testament God are reflected in an acceptance of homosexuals in a non-judgmental manner as fellow citizens equal under the law. I am a family woman and homosexuals are part of families. I support strong, loving, and tolerant family life in which every child is loved and accepted for what he or she is - and adults are children of parents. As a law student in jurisprudence, I remember lectures studying the question of distinguishing morals from law. John Stuart Mill asserted the view, reasserted much later by the British Wolfenden report on homosexuality, that legal coercion-the weight of the criminal law - can be justified only for the purpose of preventing harm to others. The Bill makes it very clear that a sexual act between males, to which one party does not consent, is a crime. The Bill also provides that any homosexual act with anyone under the age of 16 years remains a crime, as is now the case with heterosexual acts. In those circumstances criminal penalties - legal coercion-are justified for the purpose of preventing harm to others. Law and morality are overlapping circles. Morality condemns murder, as does the law. Morality may condemn adultery; the law does not. As lawmakers, we have the responsibility to decide not where morality lies but where the law should lie. In my own opinion the criminal law has no place in the sexual behaviour either of men or of women when there is consent between two caring partners. Hon. PETER TAPSELL (Minister of Internal Affairs): I commend my colleague the member for Wellington Central for her courage and tenacity in promoting the Bill . I know how sincerely and deeply she feels about it, and we all know the tension she has faced during these past few months. At the same time I want to mention those people who, feeling equally strongly that the Bill should not proceed, have gone to tremendous lengths - some would say inordinate lengths - to prevent its passage. Despite the tremendous publicity the Bill has aroused throughout the country, the general public is poorly informed about its effects. The member for North Shore summed the matter up clearly. He said there were two parts to the Bill: the first part modifies the Crimes Act; the second modifies the human rights legislation. In the first part there are two essential changes. The first is to remove or modify section 142 of the Crimes Act, which makes sodomy and certain indecent acts illegal. The second part relates to the age of consent, and the first part in the second part of the Bill - it sounds peculiar, but it is so-relates to the human rights legislation and would provide that those persons - whatever their sexual orientation-enjoy the protection of the human rights legislation. I will comment on one or two matters that have arisen during the debate before going to the first part of the first part of the Bill, which modifying section 142 of the Crimes Act, making sodomy between consenting adults legal. That is the crucial element of the Bill; the other two sections are in the main consequent upon the first part, which I will go back to shortly. I make it clear that what I have to say is in no way condemnatory of either of the two major groups or of any other member who has spoken. First, I want to mention the polls. If the polls have shown nothing else they have shown how unsuccessful and how inaccurate that method is in determining the wishes of the majority of an electorate. For example, a member might state his or her own view publicly and at length, and then seek the electorate view. One would have been surprised to find that an unbiased opinion was obtained in that way. More important, the essential feature is the question that was asked. If, for example, the question had asked “Do you believe that homosexuals are at present persecuted and that that ought to change?"-and many would say that that was the effect of the Bill-I think the answer would have been in support of the Bill. Equally, if the question had asked, “Do you believe that sodomy between consenting adults ought to be condoned by the law?" I think the change might very well have been to the alternative. Many people put forward the view that they would support part I of the Bill-making sodomy legal on the grounds that it was not abnormal, with no danger to the participant or to anyone else - but they could not bring themselves to support the other two changes. If sodomy is normal, and no danger to the person or to anyone else, what justification is there for making the age of consent for homosexuals different from that for heterosexuals? If a homosexual is not to break the law, what good grounds are there for denying that person the protection of the human rights legislation? Someone said-and it was the major part of the argument - that sending homosexuals to jail is clearly a mistake and so it is. If that is so, why are we sending to jail those homosexuals who would carry out sodomy in public places, or, for that matter, why are we sending anyone to jail? As an aside, my own view is that no one ought to go to jail apart from those who are a threat to public safety, or who persistently refuse to take part in community rehabilitation. Several people said that other countries have already passed similar law and that New Zealand has lagged in some way, yet I heard not one shred of evidence that any one of those countries was the better as a result of the change. Many people said it was unreasonable that lesbians - homosexual women-should be treated differently from male homosexuals. It seems to me that anyone with the meanest intelligence and no more than a passing knowledge of human physiognomy would see there is a very real difference that cannot be denied. I want to draw attention to the almost pitiful reliance on so-called expert witnesses, particularly on lawyers or doctors. There is an almost craven obeisance to medical evidence. How often in select committees have we heard a person say, “I am a doctor of 2 years' standing; this is my view”, and then hear that person recount the most ridiculous rubbish. I was a consultant surgeon for nearly 30 years. In the early part of my career I did a good deal of surgery, some of which I now know was at best worthless, some of which was harmful, yet at the time it was backed by irrefutable evidence and we did it with the best of intentions. Expert medical witnesses are a very useful tool in the hands of those who know something about the subject, but a fearful weapon in the hands of those who do not know a lot about it or are determined to use it to support their own case. The medical evidence presented by the Department of Health was an example. I read that evidence. Many people put forward a view saying that it was from the Department of Health, but it was not. I want to come back to the essence - that relating to Part 1 of the Bill, concerning whether sodomy and certain indecent acts ought to be condoned by the law. In general, our law is concerned with a set of rules determining the use of force by the State - those occasions on which the State ought to interfere in the activities of private persons in the interests of the majority. It should be noted that we are not concerned with whether sodomy is good or bad, and still less with whether it is right or wrong; we are concerned with whether it should be condoned by the law. That is the difference. All the actions of the human race have been promoted by passions, impulses, and desires. It may well be said that a person acting on the spur of the moment could be forgiven for some action the majority would not condone, but there is no similar case to be made for the person carrying out an action that he or she has had time to consider. Indeed, the one feature that distinguishes us from all other animals is our capacity for conscious discretion and conscious determination. It may well be said-and some have said it - that sodomy is a normal variant. Many human desires are physiological and strong, but second only to that of self-preservation is procreation - the sexual drive. It is well known to us that complex physiological reactions such as the sexual drive are bound to go awry at times-(Interruption.) Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before the member proceeds it should be made clear to people in the public gallery that they are not participants in the debate, and they are not entitled to intervene in the debate by verbal or other means. I hope I have made myself clear, and that members of the public will not take the matter to the point at which more appropriate action will have to be taken. Hon. PETER TAPSELL: Human activity is governed by passions, and second only to the drive for self-preservation is that for procreation-sexual procreation. It runs awry at times, and we do know that the sexual reaction can run awry to the extent of progressing to events of shuddering aversion that are clearly abnormal in any sense. The law may not have any part in private morality, but clearly it has a part in civic morality. It seems unreasonable to me to say that the law is concerned simply with the protection of property and the person, but has no action in civic morality. It seems quite clear to me that it does. It seems to me that the law ought to have some say in whether sodomy is condoned, and, moreover, that persons ought to abide by the law in some way. I come to my own particular concerns about the Bill, which are three. In the first instance, whatever happens to the Bill - whether it is passed or whether it fails, and it will probably be passed - I wonder what people expect of the change. What will the change do? My own view is that it will make no difference to anyone, or very little. I think it will be a 9-day wonder, because the sanction against homosexual acts of severity-sodomy-is not the law. The sanction against such acts is public obloquy and that will not change. The mother who discovers suddenly that her son is a homosexual will still feel that chill from now to the end of time. The public obloquy will not change. The second point I want to make - and it would be wrong to leave the debate without mentioning it - is the disease of AIDS: the acquired immune deficiency syndrome. My view is that there will be a quite severe epidemic of AIDS. That has been the problem overseas, and I do not think there is any reason it will not be the case here. Whatever the grounds for saying that AIDS is a heterosexual disease in other countries, one certainly could be forgiven for believing that it is still very much a homosexual disease in New Zealand. Regretfully, we are in the position we were in with cigarette smoking about 10 or 15 years ago, when it was believed that we could conquer an epidemic by using filter tips, which would in some way ameliorate the carcinogenic effect of cigarette smoke. We know now that the one way to prevent the carcinogenic effect of cigarette smoke is not to smoke. That needs to be made clear to everyone. There is some wild belief throughout New Zealand that we will conquer the epidemic of AIDS with the provision of contraceptives. That will prove to be false, and we will regret it. The last point I want to make is that throughout history human societies have set a standard for themselves. Some acts have been enjoined, some acts have been forbidden, some acts have been applauded, and some acts have been abhorred. Human reaction to any particular act has changed to a remarkable degree in the course of time towards the acceptance of an act, and away from the acceptance of an act. It has not been, as we would think, a gentle oscillation such as that of a pendulum, but a gradual and consistent movement away from the accepted norm of the day - always probing at the borders, always going beyond what is generally accepted, always going beyond until the swing-back eventually comes. It is not a smooth swing-back; it is often sudden, and sometimes savage. As humans, we can see ancient history a lot more evenly than recent history. We can all consider the classical Greeks or the industrial Italians, and see the light. We can all see the hills in the distance, but none of us can see the ground just in front of us. We have forgotten that in this century, in the most sophisticated, civilised country in the world, we saw just that - a gradual move away from the standards until there was a sudden reversal. It is true that, in the main, the reversal was due to economic changes, but it affected the middle classes and the upper classes, who were not dependent on economic changes. It was due to a backlash against deteriorating moral standards. Hitler and his group depended on the view of the middle classes. The objection of the middle classes was not economic; it was an objection to the sudden loss of the standards of the people. Hitler was voted into power, and, indeed, he retained the majority support of the German people right up to within months of his final collapse. Among the middle classes and the upper classes the support resulted not from the economic change but from the fear that public standards were declining. It is my belief that the New Zealand public is getting close to the stage at which the change will come. I regret it. I hope it does not occur, but I feel the cold winds of history drawing closer to us. I think there is a feeling - and often the morality of homosexuality will be unreasonably blamed for it-of lack of respect for the law, with murder, rape, beatings and bashings, the more far-out pressures of the feminist movement, and the more violent activists in the Maori movement, along with the change in morality and the shift away from the standards of the day. There will be a change, and when it comes those who are responsible will not be solely those who lead the march back, but, in part, those who, in the decade earlier, laid the grounds that made it inevitable. I did not have the facilities to carry out a poll in my electorate, and if I had I believe my electors would have had sufficient good sense to put it in the fire. But I have been around the electorate, and have spoken to people on marae and at meetings. I believe that I could fairly accurately sum up their feelings - as accurately as some of the polls I have heard about. They would not want homosexuals to be persecuted. They would not want sodomy to be condoned by the law. They would want the individual to retain the right to decide whether to employ or provide accommodation for a person whom they considered to be homosexual. That sets out very clearly the view of my electorate. It is also my own view, and I will vote accordingly. MAURICE MCTIGUE (Timaru): This is a matter of conscience, and, as such, members have to decide whether it is right or whether it is wrong to decriminalise the act of sodomy. It is not a matter of persecuting homosexuals but of dealing with a physical fact, and, in dealing with that physical fact, the law of this nation has seen fit to proscribe that activity as being contrary to the best interests of society as a whole. For all members it is time to be counted. We must exercise the standards and values that are part of our nature. Are not all the matters we refer to in the House matters of conscience? Should we not always exercise those standards and values we have been brought up with? It has been said that we should keep God's law and man's law separate, but is most of the law we pass here not part of God's law as a whole, and do we not make an appeal to God at the beginning of each day before we sit down in the Chamber to consider the affairs of the nation? It is not a time for aggressive rhetoric, because aggression enthuses those who support one on an issue such as this, antagonises those who oppose one, and tends to alienate those one needs to convince, to win one's cause. The value judgments I have used to form my opinion on the issue are based on my life experiences, my family background, the kind of family I live in, the kind of things my parents and brothers and sisters and the rest of my family and community around me taught me to be the basis for exercising my judgment, and the education I received. Emerson once described education as the sum total of our experience. That is crucial to the argument before us. In my opinion, and according to the evidence of experts that I have been able to glean information from, homosexuality is not a condition someone is born with, such as a club foot. It is not a hereditary or genetic condition; it is a result of conditioning. Perhaps that conditioning is the result of bad family experiences. Perhaps it is the result of peer pressure. Perhaps it is the result of the environment in which a person is nurtured, but, in my opinion, it is conclusively a learnt experience and is a learnt condition. As a learnt condition it can be dealt with by the standards and the values we have lived; by the standards and values that teach us self-discipline in other areas; by the standards and values that teach us to exercise the judgment of right or wrong in our dealings with other people. It is a learnt, deviant activity. It is an aberration of normal sexual behaviour. Many people are trying to convince us that it is just different sexual behaviour. It is not different sexual behaviour. As the speaker before me said, one of the strongest emotions that mankind experiences is the emotion to procreate, and normal sexual behaviour is the fulfilment of that emotion to procreate. The perpetuation of the species is instilled in that emotion to procreate. It goes back many thousands of years, and has meant that the species has been able to sustain all kinds of shocks during that time. The cult of humanism says that if something is pleasurable why not do it; it is only an alternative expression of sexuality. I totally reject that view, because if we were to use that code for the determination of our lives, our values, and our laws, we could apply it to all kinds of deviant behaviour, and that would be totally unacceptable. The codes of society have always regulated and disciplined the exercise of sexuality. We have laws that proscribe sex with a heterosexual partner before the age of 16, and we accept those laws. We have laws that proscribe incestuous relationships, and we accept those laws. Often when both participants agree that the activity will take place it is no doubt pleasurable, yet we proscribe it by law. Why should we now decide that homosexuality is an acceptable demand of the flesh? Some people describe it as an alternative expression of sexuality. I cannot and will not accept that. Homosexuality is the total rejection of the normal love patterns between man and wife that lead to procreation and bring the family into being. The family is the cornerstone of our society. Anything that brings about the degeneration of the family unit will ultimately bring about the degeneration of society as a whole. For those reasons members should be prepared to act, as have lawmakers before us, 10 ensure that the fabric of society is not torn apart. If we allow that to happen, not only will we see the degeneration of the family, but we will see degeneration in the form of violence among members of society; we will see degeneration in the home and family life that is provided for the children of those families; and we will see degeneration in all the values that have gone to make this a very pleasant nation in which to live. If one accepted the cult of humanism, what else would one have to accept? If one accepted the concept that homosexuality is an alternative expression of sexuality, one would have to accept that the same principle applied to sadism, to bestiality, to prostitution, to euthanasia, and to incest. There is a time and place for society, through its lawmakers, to say “Stop”. On this issue society has given just that direction: 830,000 people have said that. Many people will try to discredit the petition, but even if they discredit one-fifth of the signatures 500,000 people will still have said “No”, clearly and distinctly. No other issue in the history of this nation has brought people forward voluntarily in such numbers to express their determination. I have not polled the people in my electorate. At the time of the by-election I told them that they should accept me with my standards and my values, and that they could expect me to use those standards and values in exercising my judgment on their behalf as their representative in Parliament. That is what I intend to do today. My values are not negotiable. They will not be swayed. However, 15059 people in my electorate signed the petition. During the election campaign the Timaru Herald conducted several polls, and it is interesting to note the comments that were made in response to some of the questions. A poll conducted by the Timaru Herald on Wednesday, 12 June 1985, showed that moral issues and the state of the economy remained the issues that most concerned Timaru voters in the lead-up to the by-election. They remained the leading issues in the latest Timaru Herald poll conducted 2 weeks ago. Of the 600 people polled, 21. 8 percent said that moral issues were particularly important issues in voting. Among the intending National voters, moral issues were identified as the most important, followed by the state of the economy, taxation, inflation, and the cost of living. Labour voters identified moral issues as the most important, followed by the state of the economy, unemployment, and the cost of living. Moral issues and taxation were of most concern to those who intended to vote for the former Social Credit Party. So it went, across the spectrum of the parties. The supporters of all political parties were polled across the electorate, and, regardless of their political affiliation, they all expressed their concern about the Bill and their desire for a representative who would take their concerns to Parliament. There is an additional provision to the Bill that I find totally repugnant - that is, the provision that brings the legislation under the protection of the Human Rights Commission Act. It is, I believe, incredibly important that the people of the nation should have the right to have their children educated in a climate in which they can determine the morality to be taught. The recent passage through Parliament of the Education Amendment Bill fills me with grave concern that the provisions under the human rights legislation attached to that legislation would mean that, when teaching sexuality in schools, teachers would be obliged by law to teach alternative sexuality-homosexuality and lesbianism-on an equal basis. Hon. Members: That's not true. MAURICE MCTIGUE: To me that is totally repulsive, and it is one of the main reasons I would never be prepared to accept this provision. I also want to preserve for all time the ability to determine whether the person I employ as a vestryman in a church, a dormitory master in a school, a nurse, a policeman, or a person in any other role that comes into constant contact with the public, would not be able to exploit people by means of aberrant sexual behaviour. I am not prepared to move from that position. The provision is abhorrent to me, and it is most important for the protection of the life-styles of young people that that is not forced upon us. Many issues will be canvassed during the debate. Many prejudices will be aired. Many people will find the decision made by Parliament - whatever it may be-quite unacceptable. In many instances those people have brought their considerations to Parliament with the best of intent, but many of them have been gravely misguided. The experience of ancient history has taught that society as a whole begins to degenerate as soon as relaxation of its moral standards is allowed. If we sanction the Bill and legalise the act of sodomy we will begin that process of degeneration. There are so many problems within society now that I do not believe we can place another problem on its shoulders. I believe that the homosexual within the community is a predatory being. The investigations I have conducted personally indicate to me that a homosexual will have a multitude of partners during his lifetime. TREVOR MALLARD: It sounds like an interesting experiment! MAURICE MCTIGUE: It may well be an interesting experiment for that member, I am pleased to say that it will never be an interesting experiment for me. The protection of the nation is dependent upon the passage of the Bill. I urge my colleagues in the House to accept the importance of the Bill and to give it the consideration it deserves; not to be swayed by the feelings that might have been engendered by colleagues who have tried to force them to give it favourable consideration; not to be swayed by the vocal people who have tried in recent weeks to persuade good people to change their attitudes. I believe that members must take a stand now for the protection of the moral fibre of society. That is the opportunity that Parliament has. Hon. FRANK O'FLYNN (Minister of State): For the second time in only a few weeks the House is confronted with a private member's Bill to which no party will be applying its Whips but on which all members will be free to vote as they wish, some of them according to polls, and some according to their conscientious view of the matter. In those circumstances I consider it necessary to give a brief explanation of my views and the way in which I intend to vote, but there are one or two preliminary things that ought to be said. The first-and I think I said the same kind of thing to the member for Waitotara, formerly the member for Egmont, 10 years ago-is that I congratulate the member for Wellington Central on the courage she has displayed in producing and promoting the Bill. I was here when the member for Waitotara introduced his Bill, and I have also seen other private members' Bills; I know what happens to members who are in the eye of the storm. My second point was illustrated by the first two speeches this evening. Members heard two eloquent, telling speeches giving contradictory points of view. To some extent that indicates the difficulty dealing with the matter. As is usual in these circumstances, the debate has done the House considerable credit in the main. I thought some of the speeches contained much wisdom, even when I did not agree with the end result. There have been many prophecies - some of them gloomy, and, I hope, wrong. There have been many shrewd observations about human nature, and those who have listened to the debate would have learnt something, although they might not be entirely sure what it had to do with the Bill. Usually I try to keep my moral views to myself - unlike some of the opponents of the Bill, I regret to say, or, indeed, some of its supporters, who have tried to shove their moral views down other people's throats and have sometimes been not very scrupulous about the way in which they have dealt with them. I actually hold a reasonably unemotional and pragmatic view, but I shall start by saying what my view about the problem really is. I regard homosexual conduct as wrong, immoral, and sinful - to use a word that is out of fashion because it expresses a moral judgment, and that is not popular. It is impossible to argue that such acts are either normal or natural for man. That conclusion is self-evident, because, as has been pointed out already this evening, mankind's instinctive sexual urge - perhaps the strongest, or at any rate the second strongest after self-preservation is linked to the act of procreation, and that, of course, is necessary for the perpetuation of the race - as it is for all living creatures. However, I do not propose to pursue those moral problems any further, because the Bill does not raise them. The question raised by the Bill is not whether that kind of conduct is normal or abnormal, moral or immoral, but whether it should continue to be criminal. As another speaker pointed out earlier this evening, it is not the purpose of criminal law to condemn everything that is immoral, and still less must it condemn everything that is abnormal. Some conduct that is immoral or abnormal is also criminal, but some, indeed much, is not disapproved of by the criminal law. It is equally clear to me, and I am glad to say to most members of the House, that in exercising a conscience vote a member ought not to give rein to his personal opinions or what some members might think are his personal prejudices. He ought to exercise his vote in the way he thinks is best for society. That view was expressed quite well by the member for North Shore. When the member for Waitotara, previously the member for Egmont, introduced his Bill 10 years ago I said that, after giving serious thought to whether this sort of conduct ought to continue to be criminal, I reached the conclusion on balance that it ought not to, and I still believe that. I did not reach that conclusion either lightly or easily, and I am certainly not persuaded that large numbers of people are being deprived by the present law of some right to sexual expression, but that is a matter I shall discuss very briefly when I come to Part II. I shall concentrate first on Part I. There are three quite narrow and somewhat pragmatic grounds on which I reached the conclusion that homosexual acts between consenting males of a proper age - and I choose that expression carefully-should no longer be criminal. First, I know, and experience in legal practice serves to confirm it, that for many years criminal proceedings have hardly ever been taken in the circumstances to which the Bill is mainly directed - acts by consenting adults of full age in private. Secondly, I know, and again my own experience in legal practice confirms it, that tremendous and dangerous pressures are exerted on male homosexuals under the present law and that those pressures lead to all kinds of objectionable activity and frequently to serious crimes such as blackmail. I looked up the speeches I made on the Bill 10 years ago and I see that during the second reading debate I mentioned that several charges of murder had arisen not long before that debate - if not out of homosexual conduct itself, at least in a setting of homosexual relations. Thirdly, in the light of my experience of the operation of the law, I believe that the passing of the Bill will eliminate the evils to which I have just referred, without increasing the risk of the spread of what I regard as immoral conduct. In 1975 I chose to abstain altogether from voting on the Bill, because of the concern I felt at that time about the behaviour, actions, and statements of some of its over-enthusiastic supporters. They were trying, as indeed they are now, to say that this is a permissible alternative life-style, or even that it is a good life-style. They were threatening to encourage and spread it as far as they could. It was that kind of conduct that actually persuaded me in the end that the only course available to me was to decline to vote. The conduct of the supporters of the Bill has been much the same this time, and even worse in a way. This time they have been joined in that by many of the opponents of the Bill, and their conduct has been rather worse. There has been gross intolerance on both sides, shouting down of the opinions of others, personal insults, and objectionable forms of pressure by both lobby groups. In 1975, as a result of electoral misfortune, I had to return to the practice of the law, and soon afterwards one case in which I was professionally involved illustrated for me once and for all the gravity of the pressures to which homosexuals are subject under the present law. That incident persuaded me in one hit that reform of the law was necessary in the public interest. I am sorry to have to say that the case concerned also showed how very badly some members of the police service treated homosexuals, at least at that time. It was clear from the evidence that they were harassed beyond belief in the street and elsewhere, simply because they were homosexuals. The case itself concerned disciplinary action against a policeman, and that at least showed that the Police Department management was opposed to such conduct. The evidence was an absolute object lesson to me. Without going into the details, I was shocked at what was revealed at the hearing. It is for that reason that I shall support Part I of the Bill in principle, though I do that rather as one choosing the lesser of two evils, or supporting without too much enthusiasm a legal reform that seems to me to be justified in the imperfect world we live in. The way I vote may in the end depend on the age that is decided upon. It is 16 in the Bill. I would prefer 20, although I am prepared to go along with 18. If that is defeated I have an anxious question in front of me and I shall not reveal at present what the answer may be. In fact, I have not actually determined that. I may be loath to see the reform defeated. I shall leave that there and go on to Part II, which is a different matter. It seeks to forbid discrimination against any person on the grounds of sexual orientation. If it is passed it will become impossible to treat homosexuals differently in almost any way because of their homosexuality. The proponents of the reform say it is unjust that they should be treated differently. They say that homosexuals have a basic or a fundamental human right to act as they do. Some even say - as they did 10 years ago - that homosexual liaisons are a valid alternative life-style. I am totally unable to agree with claims like that. One speaker earlier this evening said that if that kind of conduct is normal it might be appropriate to pass the amendment to the Human Rights Act. I have already said that in my view homosexual acts between males - which is what we are dealing with - are unnatural and abnormal, and I cannot see that there can possibly be anything that could be described as a basic or fundamental human right to act in a manner unnatural to man. Holding the view of homosexual acts that I do, it is quite impossible for me to vote for Part II of the Bill. I also believe that people who find homosexual acts totally repugnant-as I do - are entitled to shun homosexuals if they want to do so. I do not think that a person letting a part of a building-particularly if he lives in it himself - should be obliged to accept a homosexual as a tenant. I do not think that an employer ought to be bound to accept homosexual employees, at least when he is going to come into personal contact with them. There might be other examples, too. It is possible that some forms of discrimination practised by people against homosexuals are unnecessary and indefensible and might even be cruel in some instances. If that part of the Bill were directed solely at them I might consider supporting it. That would be quite different from what is in front of us, which is an amendment asserting that the right to treat homosexuals in any way differently ought to be totally withdrawn. I am unable to agree with that proposition and I shall vote against it. Finally, I tell the House that if the Bill receives its second reading I shall introduce provisions to preserve the law at present administered on this topic in the armed forces. An amendment to the Bill will be necessary in Part II, but it may be possible to preserve the present military and disciplinary law relating to homosexual acts without an amendment to Part I. Those matters are still under consideration and can be dealt with in the Committee stage. In short, I am in favour of Part I in principle, but I am having difficulties in the way I have indicated with the age, and I am totally opposed to Part II. BILL DILLON (Hamilton East): The Bill has been previously described as decriminalising or legalising homosexuality. Therein lies the nub of the difficulty of dealing with the Bill. I believe it is important to distinguish between legality and morality. One of the earlier speakers this evening suggested that the kind of answer one received depended on how the question was raised. If a petition opposing the legalisation of homosexuality is circulated, a majority is likely to accept that viewpoint. However, if the same petition were to be circulated, wanting to know how many supported the decriminalisation of homosexuality, probably the same kind of majority would support the petition. Sodomy used to be dealt with in the ecclesiastical courts; so did adultery. I believe that that is where it should be returned, particularly as covered in the Bill in relation to adult consenting males in private. I appear to be the third consecutive practising Catholic to speak on the Bill, and I have the third different viewpoint. Right at the outset I say that I hold no brief for homosexuality. I consider it contrary to Christian moral standards, but I have a sympathy for the plight of homosexuals. I have had the advantage of chairing and being on the committee that dealt with the submissions on the Bill, and, consequently, hearing more than 1200 submissions and sighting the material made available to that committee. I have read letters both for and against the Bill. I have received some letters that horrified me, and some that gave me great heart and support. Medical and scientific research do not appear to have advanced from the findings of the Kinsey report in 1948. That report determined that there was a continuum of sexuality of a grade of 1:6. Later research during 1981 supported and updated those findings, but the continuum of 1:6 is still relevant. At one extreme is the person who is an outright homosexual, while at the other extreme is the person who is an outright heterosexual. It has been concluded that between 5 percent and 10 percent are at the homosexual end, their orientation being established probably before the age of 5 years. Consequently, we are dealing with a group in our community of up to 10 percent who, like those who are lefthanded, cannot - are unable to - avoid their sexual orientation. Given that, we then take the minority that we are being asked to consider when dealing with the Bill. I believe it is important that that be considered as a starting-point. No doubt, in the middle area between the grades of 1:6 there are many who can be persuaded to go one way or the other-heterosexuality or homosexuality. I am not concerned with those people - they must rely upon their education and family upbringing, and determine for themselves which choice they make. I speak as one of the members of the House who is particularly at risk over the total Bill. I say that because, according to the petition taken by those who opposed the law reform, the petition in my electorate contained 20 299 signatures. That amounted to an almost unbelievable 97. 25 percent of the electorate. The Heylen poll conducted on 22 June recorded that 61 percent were in favour of reform, 35 percent were opposed to reform, and 5 percent were undecided. As a result of the publication of those figures for Hamilton East, Professor Pool of the University of Waikato undertook to check the poll. He conducted a random survey of 667 people in Hamilton East on 19, 20, and 21 September. His results showed that only 37 percent signed the petition. An editorial in the Dominion commented in the large divergence between the numbers claimed to be in favour of the petition and the numbers claimed against the petition. However, the final comment in the editorial was most important. It posed the question, “What is the use of determining the question on a number-crunching principle?" I accept that, even if 40 percent of the signatures are genuine, 8000 people in my electorate are opposed to the reform. That ought to give weight to the position 1 take and the attitude I adopt towards the Bill. However, I do not accept the article in yesterday's Waikato Times, which stated: “M. P. s unmoved by call”– Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but it is appropriate for me to point out - with some regret, because I do not want to interrupt his flow - that Speakers’ Rulings state several times that members may not quote newspaper comments on a measure before the House. The member may paraphrase, but he must not quote directly from the material he has in front of him. BILL DILLON: I have been moved by the call; I have been moved by the number of letters; and I have been moved by the number of people who signed the petition, even if the number has been reduced to 8000. However, I put to one side the extremists on either side of the debate. Extreme positions are not consistent with the Gospel or with Christian tradition. I agree with the member for Porirua who, when the Bill was first introduced, said that tolerance and understanding were needed. The people of Hamilton East need to have that tolerance and understanding in accepting the way that I propose to consider the Bill, having had an opportunity of going through all the submissions that were put forward. I am supported in that by an announcement from the New Zealand Interchurch Council on Public Affairs that represents 11 Christian denominations, including the Catholic Church. The middle ground is the area where people ought to see my vote being cast. The member for North Shore has very accurately described the three issues - the decriminalisation, the age of consent, and the human rights issue. On the first of those issues there are those who seek to promote homosexual behaviour and life-styles as desirable alternatives to marriage and family life. At the other extreme there are those whose disapproval of homosexual behaviour has become distorted into a cruel rejection and disparagement of homosexual persons. I reject both of those views. I suggest that the enlightened understanding is that while I approve and uphold moral norms, designed for the sanctity or wholeness of individuals, it is still necessary to be compassionate towards any form of human weakness and necessary for Christians to be ever mindful of the dignity of all persons. I believe that the arguments that have been put forward require the law to decriminalise homosexuality. The second question then is that of the age of consent. By logic and principle it would seem necessary to have a uniform age for both heterosexual and homosexual relations. There is no clear evidence that boys need a further period of protection in relation to homosexual acts, in comparison to girls. However, being a father, and having had two boys and two girls in my own family, I am aware, as most parents would be, of the differences in their maturity rates. I am also conscious of those people who have expressed concern that the age of 16 for male homosexual acts is too low and, accordingly, I am not yet convinced that I should not support the age of 18. I suggest that age would give some solace to those people who are so firmly-perhaps blindly-opposed to the reform. It is a question for me to determine in my own mind as to whether the age of consent should be 18 or a lesser age. I refer to the third section of the Bill, which deals with human rights. There has been some misunderstanding of this human rights proposal. It is as a shield, not a sword. It is not available for people to use to claim something; it is available to them to protect them from being discriminated against. Our history shows the position of Maoris, women, and Catholics. In the 1930s a ghetto mentality was adopted by Catholics and there was evidence of their being discriminated against in relation to jobs. If there were two people going for one job and one was a Catholic it was quite possible that that Catholic could be discriminated against. That is not so now and I do not believe it has been for the past 40 years. It hurts me to find, as seems to be the case throughout the world, that those who have been persecuted become, in turn, the first and the most vocal to persecute. I refer to those who now form that brave little nation of Israel. Forty years ago they were the persecuted; now they appear on the world scene as a very feisty nation. It seems odd, but with that ghetto mentality one finds a vociferous method of challenging, of getting out of that minority group. There are those in the United States who would remember the Jews who had all the “Chutzpah” - the bravado. There would be those who would remember the Negroes who were referred to as being uppity niggers. It is the way that those minority groups have traditionally fought back. Consequently, I ask on behalf of those who have fought for the law reform that they be forgiven if they appear to have gone beyond the bounds, because it is in the nature of people to fight back in that way when they are a minority. This is a conscience vote. I intend to exercise my conscience vote as I have described. I ask my constituents who have heard me tonight to recall what I have said and the explanation for the way I shall vote. Hon. JOHN FALLOON (Pahiatua): I did not come to Parliament necessarily to impose my views on moral issues on other members of society. However, I am not prepared to run away from the responsibility that a member of Parliament has in exercising the right to vote according to his or her beliefs or his or her electorate's beliefs. My decision has been made on the basis of personal experience and also on what I perceive my electorate believes. I am bound to say that personal experience is more important to me than what I have seen coming from the electorate. However, it happens to coincide with the views of correspondents and the people with whom I have discussed the matter. We cannot run away from the issue. I think my views would be somewhat different if homosexuals were being persecuted and confined to prison because of their sexual preference; but, given that that does not appear to be so, I will oppose the Bill in all its stages. The reasons were covered in part by the previous speaker when he said that the Kinsey report suggested that people could be graded on a 1:6 scale, and many could go either way. I do not perceive that as a society we are ready to accept that homosexuality is normal behaviour; I also do not see that as a society we would be prepared to accept that those individuals who, in the privacy of their own homes, in a relatively stable relationship, practise homosexual acts should be prosecuted. Like most members, given a choice I would back away from the issue and let society make up its mind according to its views. But, we cannot run away from what is happening in the community, and, in particular, the effects of a law of this Chamber on the vulnerable in our society. Parliamentarians have the unenviable task of making moral judgments on others by voting in the Chamber, and we are certainly not perfect. But, once again, we must take that responsibility and explain it to our electors. I said that I had had personal experience. I went to a boarding school where there was some homosexuality. I was one of a group of prefects who helped to remove from his job a headmaster, a man whom I respected. To this day I do not know whether we were right or whether what we did was just, but I do know the effect of the actions of that person on those who came to us and told us of the interference that occurred. Thai matter typifies why I am strongly opposed particularly to the age of 16 years - and, in fact, to the older age as well, for reasons I shall later discuss. I do not think the country is yet ready to see schoolmasters or headmasters with young vulnerable people, who may go either way, in a position in which they can be exposed to the kind of indoctrination so often espoused by the gay movement. Hon. RUSSELL MARSHALL: That will still be illegal. Hon. JOHN FALLOON: I believe that if the human rights part of the Bill is applied the Minister of Education will have difficulty in preventing the large number of active gays from being recruited in such schools. It will put the individuals responsible for the recruitment and employment of the teachers in the unenviable position of having to oppose the law. I take that view after discussing the matter with the people concerned. It is not something I have dreamt up, but is as a result of discussion and analysis. I also consider that if society were mature and prepared to accept the different deviances with more tolerance, perhaps we could have a different view on the law that is before the House. However, when there is a lack of tolerance on both sides - but, more particularly by the activists in the gay rights movement - I do not think we should accept a law that encourages that kind of behaviour. A meeting held in the Hutt Valley was supposed to be started with a prayer. When the Salvation Army major stood up to say “Our Lord Jesus” the gay people chanted from the floor, “Don't give us that Jesus Christ garbage here. He sodomised his own disciples." I do not accept that kind of behaviour any more than I accept the extremists on the other side. But I do not think the extremists on the other side are 100 concerned about trying to change the sexual preference of 16-year-old boys. They may well be trying to help the moral standards as they perceive them, and those moral standards are generally accepted by the majority of our society, including some people in the gay movement. However, sexual preference is different from moral standards and values. I return to the point that we should ensure that those people who can enjoy a heterosexual opportunity in life receive the advantage of that, as opposed to the possibility of being indoctrinated by the alternative life-style of the gay movement. I believe that, because I believe very much in the family as the stable part of our society. I do not accept that the gay communities of the world are stable. They may well provide an opportunity for people with a certain preference to come together and do the best they can, and good on them if that is what they believe, but I believe that would cause great divisions in attitude and great stress on our kind of society. Because they become politically active in all respects I am sure that the next stage of that development in New Zealand would be that they wished to bring up children. I would oppose any opportunity for people who are not prepared to be involved in precreation having the right to bring up a family. [Interruption.] Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I have already said that people in the public gallery do not have any part in the debate. I am not sure whether the same people are involved, but I point out to them that the gallery will be cleared if there is a repetition of the kind of sniggering that has been going on. I hope that is clear. Hon. JOHN FALLOON: As I said earlier, the law must be a benchmark. The House must stand for certain standards of behaviour that we believe in. Many members who intend to vote in favour of the Bill say they find homosexuality repugnant. I must ask those members why, then, they wish to encourage it, because that is precisely what the Bill will do. They can still salve their consciences, if they want to be tolerant, by voting against the Bill, because the present law is being applied in a tolerant fashion. If we do not have that benchmark, the strong activist element in the gay movement will take it another step further and it will be the family and then the fabric of our society that will be under threat. I am not prepared to tolerate that when people are in such a vulnerable position in modern society, anyway, when so many of their options are not determined by a stable family background but by what people perceive as being the experimental society we are shaped in and exposed to. However, I am conscious of those people in the gay movement who feel strongly about human rights and attitudes. That is why, as I said earlier, if there were clear evidence of discrimination on the basis of those people being charged with offences, and if they had to meet jail terms or fines, I would have a different view, particularly about the age of consent. But at present I do not feel that either the gay movement or society is ready to be tolerant enough to accept the change to decriminalise homosexual activity in law, but not in practice. The behaviour of the camp in favour of the Bill has shown that this is only the beginning of the changes it wants to achieve in society and in society's attitudes on the issue. Being a politically active group, it is trying to increase its numbers. That illustrates to me that if the law is changed those vulnerable people will be more vulnerable than before. That condemns them to a position that the majority of our society would not ever accept as normal behaviour. I do not want more people in that group to be exposed to such a position. That is why I am opposed to all parts of the legislation. DAVID BUTCHER (Hastings): I want to congratulate most of the participants in the debate on the second reading of the Bill. It has been of a high standard, with only one or two people descending to a narrow, partisan level; most people have seriously debated the issue. There are several reasons why I have not previously contributed to a debate on one of the personal morality questions that come before the House. One is the innate reluctance of many of us to discuss private and personal matters in public, even when they relate to other people. I also have a disinclination to preach or lecture others on how they should behave. As one who has never been blessed with a family, I am reluctant to parade my beliefs on this kind of issue in public at any time. However, on the present Bill I feel I owe it to my constituents to put my views on record. I intend to support decriminalisation of consensual homosexual activity. I believe that is the weakness in the argument of the member who immediately preceded me, in that the Bill refers only to activities that are consensual. I intend to support the greatly strengthened penalties against indecency with young children and the great improvements the Bill represents in that respect. I also intend to support the same age for males and females in activities with people of the same sex. At this stage I am inclined to oppose the human rights clause in the Bill, because of what I perceive to be the potentially divisive diversions that could be created if there is decriminalisation. I am prepared to listen to argument on the matter, and I look forward to that debate at a later stage of the Bill. The main issue, therefore, for me, turns on the vexed question of the age of consent. My initial preference was for an age of at least 18 for both males and females. However, experience has surely shown us all in recent history that the present age of 16 is breached more than it is honoured, and I believe it would be unfair for the age to be different. Reluctantly, then, I have come to the view that if the Bill is to be passed, the age of 16 is probably the only logical age to be incorporated in it. In fact, I believe that because the Bill relates only to consensual activity, there would be very little practical difference, irrespective of the age written into the Bill. Originally, like many members, I felt obliged to make an effort to sound out the views of my constituents. I published my views in a local newspaper that circulates to every household in my electorate and I received a number of letters and telephone calls as a result. However, over the years - and I have held these views for many years, I have entered into commitments based on my beliefs and the evidence I have seen. In those circumstances I believe that a poll of the kind many members have conducted could confuse people into believing that numbers would decide the issue. I do not think that is so. The validity of polls can always be questioned, as my colleague the Minister of Internal Affairs pointed out in his eloquent speech earlier this evening. In addition, many polls have been conducted by reputable polling organisations, and their conclusions have been very similar. If one is to support a measure of this kind it is important to put on the record how one came to that point of view. Many of my age group became involved in politics in the mid 1960s because of an abhorrence of persecution of the few by the many, and of the weak by the strong. We were involved in issues such as the war in Vietnam, apartheid, and corruption and dictatorship as they appeared around the world. That led us to a concern for issues closer to home, such as poverty, exploitation, and discrimination. That state of affairs leads naturally to opposition to laws that mark a minority of the population as being different because of matters beyond their personal control. For that reason, since the 1969 election - the first I contested - I have always said that I would support a law aimed at decriminalising homosexual acts between consenting adults. Following the reiteration of my views to the electorate I received many submissions both for and against. I believe that most of those submissions were made with the highest of motives and expressed sincerely held views. They certainly challenged my beliefs and required me to detail my views in my replies. I enjoyed the vigorous debate the letters engendered. I would not vote for the Bill if I did not think that the very real and sincere fears expressed by many people were groundless. I resented the threatening tone of some of the communications I received. I do not respond favourably to political threats. I believe firmly in a pluralistic society, and that involves several aspects, including the whole issue of religious freedom and the laws that apply to all religious faiths. I believe that an attempt to impose one set of beliefs on the entire population is a threat to a pluralistic society. Three arguments against the Bill have been mounted by many of its opponents. I shall mention briefly those arguments and what I think about them. The first has been that the Bill is against God's law. Frequently cited in support of that contention was chapter 20 of Leviticus, particularly the contents of verse 13 stating that if a man has sexual relations with another man both shall be put to death. However, those who drew that verse to my attention did not as enthusiastically draw to my attention verses 9 and 10, which refer to rebellious children and to adultery. Under our law none of those things attracts the death penalty prescribed by the scriptures. Only one attracts a criminal sanction under our present law. To those who say that the Bill is against the law of God, my reply is that that may well be so. The House has no capacity to change the law of God, but it does not imply that we have to write that into our criminal law. Many people say that the Bill is immoral because homosexuality is immoral. I would be quite prepared to accept the proposition that many people find homosexuality immoral; many others find it distasteful. I certainly find some of the practices described by the member for Hauraki very distasteful, but neither of those is a sound ground for making homosexuality illegal, because those practices are not confined necessarily to homosexuals. If it is the practice that we consider distasteful or destructive, it is the practice to which we should direct the attention of the law. That leads to the third argument, that homosexuality is unnatural - and that can have two meanings. The first meaning can be that it does not occur in nature. Certainly that is not so, as has been pointed out already. It attracts mention in the Bible. The best evidence available indicates that at least 5 percent to 10 percent of the population are that way inclined. Much evidence points to the determination of sexual preference occurring before the age of five. I ask those heterosexual people who believe that homosexuality is a matter of choice how they chose their sexuality. An argument based on unnaturalness in that sense cannot be sustained. The second context in which the word “unnatural” can be used is that certain parts of the body are designed for certain functions and should not be used for any other. As I have said before, the member for Hauraki and others have described some practices as distasteful, but certainly they are not confined to homosexuals, and, if it is the practice the member wants to proscribe, it is the practice that should be made illegal, and not the practice of it by only some people. All those things having been said, I point out that as a member of Parliament one does, of course, become involved in the personal affairs of many people as they come to make representations and to seek help. One of the representations I have received over the years illustrated dramatically, as much as anything, the reason the Bill, or something similar to it, should come forward. A young professional person from Hastings came to see me. He said he had discovered in his early twenties that he was a homosexual. He revealed that information to his parents who promptly threw him out of the house and wanted nothing more to do with him. He went to England on a scholarship, and in the course of his work there he met a man with whom he subsequently became very intimate. Shortly afterwards he had a major accident resulting in a prolonged period of hospitalisation. The only person in the world who was interested in him, and was prepared to look after him at the time, was his male friend. After making a partial recovery he was required to return to New Zealand because his British visa had expired. He wanted to bring his friend with him but was unable to do so, because his friend did not qualify under the immigration policy. Had his friend been female, and had they been married, the friend would have qualified automatically for admission to New Zealand. As the law stood then I could not approach the Minister of Immigration to exercise his discretion, because the very act of their living together was illegal under the law. No other person in the world was harmed by their relationship; it was a very sincere and meaningful relationship, and both of them gained a great deal from it. A law that creates such distress cannot be fair. A further case brought to my attention concerned a person who told me that as a 14year-old in the 1950s he knew where his sexuality lay, although he had never heard the word “homosexual”. He said he still remembered the agony as a 16-year-old after a school dance when he escorted his partner home. He was expected to kiss her goodnight, or even to hold her hand, and he could not do so. But he said that during his first brief experience at 17 with a homosexual, his body and his whole reactions were totally different. He said that after many years he reconciled his sexuality with his religious beliefs. He is now a lay reader in the Anglican Church and his lover is an elder of the Presbyterian Church. He said they have lived together for 10 years as happily fulfilled criminals. I do not believe that a law of that sort is fair. As somebody said earlier, the whole matter is really one of community attitudes. I do not believe that the Bill will make much difference to community attitudes, but in this House we pride ourselves on democracy. What is democracy if it is not the absolute right to be different and, in some circumstances, the absolute right to be wrong in the eyes of everybody else? I intend to support the Bill for that reason. Hon. JIM BOLGER (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): I rise to speak on this important issue. I know there are many other important issues out in the community, whether the level of interest rates, the debt of the nation, the value of the New Zealand dollar, the crisis in farming, or the problems of exports - all of which are important. But tonight we are seized with the responsibility of discussing a private member's Bill, the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. It is a private member's Bill, but I think it is fair to observe that many would see it as a Labour Party Bill, inaccurate though that description is in technical terms. In most matters that members speak on in the House we have, as it were, the support of our colleagues, the support of a caucus position, a consensus that has been reached. We speak and vote in general and, almost universally, according to that consensus. On this Bill, as with a few others, we have no such support. Members individually have to make their own judgment, do their own research if they are of a mind to, take their own counsel. Some canvass the views of their electorates. Some gather their thoughts together in other ways. However, finally we have to stand alone in the Chamber, make a judgment, and vote according to that judgment. Some find making a judgment extremely difficult, and I cast no aspersions on them because of that difficulty. Others find it much more clear-cut, and their views are perhaps more firmly held. Pressure is the norm with legislation of this type-pressure from those in favour and pressure from those against. Lobby groups emerge. Issues are promoted, some with great vigour and some with a complete lack of subtlety. There is concern at times at the tactics of some of the enthusiasts, whether they be for or against, and that tends to obscure the real issues. As I have said before publicly, all should display tolerance in dealing with issues such as this. It is not consistent with the views of either side or the views of anyone that there should be a lack of tolerance for the views of others who may have a different viewpoint on homosexual law reform. I do not believe that any member's view will be changed because of abuse or threats. I do not believe that on a moral question members will be so easily dissuaded. That undervalues the integrity of members. I was one of the few members at present in Parliament when my colleague the member for Waitotara proposed reform in a much more modest fashion than the proposal at present before the House. On that occasion I spent some time with him and talked to those he believed it would be beneficial for me to talk to in order to give me a fuller understanding of all the issues involved. I welcomed that opportunity to listen and to assess, and I finally voted against my colleague's Bill. It is also my intention, despite the passage of the years, and despite all that has been written and said and stated and commented on, to vote against the Bill before the House. Much has changed. Attitudes have certainly changed in the community on several issues, and it would be correct to observe that what is termed a more liberal view - although some would dispute the word “liberal” - has now a greater measure of support than before. But one other issue has changed dramatically in the specifics of the debate and the Bill that we have before us at present, and that is the emergence of what was then unknown but is now known-the deadly disease of AIDS. AIDS is a fatal disease. It cannot be wished away. It cannot be pushed under the carpet. We cannot presume that it does not exist. It does. It kills. There is no known cure. The most common way to catch AIDS is through male anal intercourse. That is a statistical fact that no one is the Chamber can deny. The importance of that in terms of the Bill cannot be overlooked, because the first part of the Bill seeks to legalise male anal intercourse. It is as simple as that. It does not consider the issue of whether people can have homosexual love, because there is no law against that. What is against the law is the act of sodomy. The act of sodomy - to use a word that was for many years outdated but is now more commonly used - is the means by which most people will contract the killer disease AIDS. Others may be persuaded, but I am not persuaded, that Parliament can lightly put that matter to one side when considering the Bill. That is one reason, at least, why I am not persuaded to support the Bill, even though I have listened carefully to the argument that by legalising anal intercourse the control of AIDS will somehow be facilitated. I cannot, by the application of any logic, come to that conclusion. I cannot see how making something legal will prevent that disease. Again, there may be others who can so persuade themselves. I am not one of them. If more people were encouraged to engage in the act of anal intercourse, inevitably there would be an even wider spread of AIDS. That, again, is logical. That is the experience, according to the statistics that I have read, of other societies in which there has been legalisation or practice. AIDS is a major health threat, and while I do not want to put a financial sign on a moral question I must observe the financial aspect as well. The Chamber must very carefully consider that aspect before it votes on the issue. A major argument in favour of the law change is the simple proposition that the law has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. That has been said on many occasions with conviction. On first hearing, it has a comfortable ring about it. It sounds a comfortable notion, and one that perhaps one should be persuaded to accept until one thinks a little more deeply and finds that the law states very precisely that in many circumstances it has a place in the bedrooms of the nation. It certainly states that it has a role when dealing with the young of the nation. It certainly states that it has a role in the bedrooms of the nation if one is dealing with heterosexual sex with girls under the age of 16. So there is no basic proposition that the law has no place there. We are then left with a qualified statement that the law from time to time has a place in the bedrooms of the nation. Therefore, it is a question of whether it has a place at the present time or in the present issue. I do not believe that any member would dispute the belief that young people should be protected. It must be said also that there are people active in promoting the acceptability of homosexual acts who dispute that. Some people believe that sex between a man and a boy is normal. I say that to illustrate the point that there are other reforms - if I may misuse that word - that some people would want Parliament to approve at a later date. I am sure it will not approve such reforms in my time, and I hope it will never approve such reforms. The House must make a quite simple decision on a complex matter: does it legalise, and thereby give some public sanction to, homosexual acts between consenting males over the age of 16 years, 18 years, or 20 years, depending on which viewpoint is accepted? I add here that one of my colleagues has told me that he is prepared to accept the Bill if the age is 94 years, though I doubt whether that amendment will be put. Members must accept that if they vote in favour of reform they are giving sanction to homosexual acts. We must not mislead ourselves by saying that we would simply be ratifying the status quo - and, to some extent, we would be; but we would be going one step further and saying that it was normal in the eyes of the law, and that, of course, would widen the occasions when homosexuality could be promoted as a normal and acceptable life-style. Many New Zealanders who have great sympathy for active homosexuals would not want anal intercourse to be promoted, or be seen to have been promoted, by Parliament as normal behaviour. I am one such person. Another argument that is advanced is that the law must be amended to prevent harassment because harassment is wrong, and the only way to prevent it is to amend the law and, therefore, to give a cloak of normalcy to what is presently proscribed by the law. Again, it sounds attractive to say that if Parliament makes the practice normal the harassment would not take place. The first question that must be asked is whether the level of harassment makes that a major issue. I know that an earlier speaker tonight drew on some historical evidence and reminded the House that perhaps it did happen in an earlier time. I have not read, heard of, or been presented with any case of recent times in which the behaviour of adult males in the confines of their bedrooms has been brought to the attention of the courts. The harassment argument tends to fall down on the ground that it did not have substance in the first place. In deciding whether or not I want to put my name beside the legalising and, therefore, the normalising of anal intercourse, I cannot persuade myself that it is a biologically normal function for the human body. Some may be able to, but nothing I have read or seen suggests to me that to engage in that activity is a normal biological function of males. Therefore I would have to say that I have listened; I have been sympathetic to those who have seen me to talk about the issue; I have tried to understand their views; I have tried to see the issue from their point of view, which, I believe, one must do; but, having done all that, I have to inform the House that I shall vote against the Bill. FRED GERBIC (Onehunga): I propose to vote for the second reading of the Bill. I believe that adult homosexuality should be decriminalised to the extent that the Bill proposes. The fact that the law has not been enforced in relation to homosexuals indicates that it is unenforceable, and that it is, in itself, an ass. The law has been no restraint on the development of homosexuality in society. In my experience, homosexuals are in general good citizens. They do a lot of good work in the community, in social welfare and for voluntary organisations, and they should not be classified as criminals or subjected to the criminal law. Other members have covered that point more eloquently than I could. I have some concerns about the Bill. I have to report to the House that I conducted a survey in my electorate. I sent out 1000 questionnaires to randomly selected electors, and the result was that the electors in Onehunga are roughly equally divided on the subject-in fact, within seven votes. Like other members of the House I have received much correspondence on the subject, and a substantial majority of those letters from the electorate favour the Bill. Members of the House have made some very eloquent and sincere speeches. Like every member I have been subjected to submissions from electors, but I have not had the benefit of attendance at the select committee hearings so I have had to rely on the evidence that has been presented to me. I shall refer to the submission from the Department of Justice to the select committee, which was sent to each member - and I refer particularly to a section of it that deals with a policy advisory committee on sexual offences that was convened in the United Kingdom in 1980. It stated that a majority of 10 members of that committee considered that the age for consensual homosexual relations should be reduced from 21 to 18 years. It went on to state: “It is our experience that between the ages of 16 and 18 girls are on the whole more mature than boys in their approach to sexual relationships and that in so far as it is possible to generalise boys have caught up with girls in the process of maturing by the age of 18." The report stated that the majority expressed some doubts about contemporary medical opinion that a young man's sexual orientation was fixed by the age of 16, although it was accepted that sexual orientation was firmly established by the age of 18. I noted also in the report that in England, Scotland, and Wales the age of consent for homosexual activity is 21, compared with 16 for heterosexual activity. In New South Wales the age of consent for homosexual activity is 18, compared with 16 for heterosexual activity. The report advises that, from a pragmatic point of view, to make the age of consent 18 would be likely to lessen what appears to be the genuinely held concern of a considerable number of people in the community, and would also place the Bill in the mainstream of overseas reforms. The survey conducted in my electorate proved that a substantial majority preferred the age of either 18 years or 20 years. When I considered the Bill at the outset I used a simple yardstick: I am satisfied that adult homosexuality should be decriminalised. I then considered the question of adult age, and I believe that the age of 18 is appropriate. I believe that 16 is too young, although I know that whatever age is fixed will be an arbitrary figure. I believe there is a need to establish a differential between homosexual activity and heterosexual activity. Despite hundreds of years of homosexual practice, I cannot accept that homosexual activity is a normal activity. Some people have said that the age of consent should be equal between the sexes, and that to have a higher homosexual age would be to discriminate against young men. They questioned why young men need more protection that young women. In fact, discrimination is already practised against young women in regard to heterosexual activity, which is prohibited under the age of 16. Young men do not have any restrictions in law - they can practise heterosexual activity from capability. The age of consent is an arbitrary judgment. However, considering all matters, I believe that 18 is the appropriate age for homosexual activity. I am also concerned about the amendment regarding human rights. I have not heard any evidence to support the need for that amendment. I have not heard of any cases of discrimination against homosexuals in housing or employment. I question the need for the amendment. If I were the owner of a house property for rent, I should be delighted to let my accommodation to homosexuals. I think they are careful, fastidious, and proper people in a tenancy. I also note that the Residential Tenancies Bill, which will be passed in due course, provides protection for tenants who are evicted from their homes, or who are under threat of eviction. They can appeal to a tenancy tribunal. Members will know that I have had considerable experience in the employment area-not less than 23 years in the industrial field. During that time I did not have referred to me, or have occasion to take up, a case of discrimination relating to the employment of homosexuals or the dismissal of a worker because that worker was a homosexual. I believe that with the passage of the amendment homosexuals would be given a privilege that no other person holds. A homosexual worker, covered by an award, who was dismissed from employment, would have the same right as every other person to go to a personal grievance hearing and have his case against the dismissal appealed or determined finally by the Arbitration Court. Every worker is entitled to make such an appeal. I am willing to be convinced on those issues. I have a relatively open mind, but I must say that I have not heard any evidence so far to convince me that I should change my mind about the age of consent and the amendment to the human rights legislation. I should like to hear a response by the sponsor of the Bill to the issues I have raised. In conclusion, I compliment her on introducing the Bill to the House and on placing the issue before the House and the people so that the people can have a voice, through us, on the subject. She has done the work with dignity and courage, and I certainly compliment her. BILL SUTTON (Hawke's Bay): There is no doubt in my mind that the matter we are debating is of great importance. It raises fundamental issues, many of which have been adequately debated already. I am sure it will play a part in determining thousands of votes in the next election. I congratulate most of those members who have already spoken on their sincerity and restraint. However, I find myself with a great deal more to say on the matter, and some of it has yet to be canvassed in the debate. I wish to speak as a scientist and to make some comments on the biological evidence relating to homosexuality. I wish to report the views of my Hawke's Bay constituents in so far as I have been able to determine them, and, finally, to foreshadow certain amendments that I intend to move in the Committee stage. The widespread occurrence of male homosexuality is a matter of common knowledge, and also a matter of scientific record. Barrett et al. have stated that homosexuality is one of the oldest and more commonly indulged sexual behaviours. They refer, as many members have, to Kinsey's report and to later reports that confirm all the main conclusions of Kinsey. They state that most children pass through a stage of homosexual exploratory activity that is not considered to be either criminal or deviant. They further point out that oral-genital sexual practices are no longer considered deviant, and marriage manuals now include those behaviours in their normal list of precursors to sexual intercourse. They also refer to the fact that a smaller proportion of men persist with exclusively homosexual behaviour throughout their lives. The biological basis of that behaviour is still a matter for scientific debate. Barrett et al. hold the view that it appears that neither genetic defects nor hormonal influences play a part. Other scientists who have studied the field come to different conclusions. Money and Erhard hold the view that gender identity is critically determined by levels of hormones, particularly sex hormones, during either the pre-natal stage or the early post-natal development of the brain. In other words, their view - and it appears to be a strongly held view among scientists who have studied the field - is that there are actual changes in brain structure during development as a result of the hormonal environment that determine gender identity. If that view is correct, it follows that homosexuality is not a chosen behaviour; nor is it likely to be curable. That is the view strongly put forward by the Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, which stated in its submission to the select committee that the notion that homosexuality can be treated as a disease is inappropriate and unacceptable. Many homosexuals lead well-adjusted lives and have no need for medical treatment. If I turn from matters of scientific record to my own personal observations, it is apparent that male homosexuality is widely prevalent in New Zealand. Like some of the other members who have spoken in the debate, I attended a boys' boarding school for 5 years. I observed several instances of adolescent homosexual behaviour, such as mutual masturbation. When I was at school a small group of boarders openly adopted a homosexual behavioural pattern. They were, by and large, tolerated by the majority. I have since been told that that is a most unusual occurrence in New Zealand high schools. Several members of the group were involved in a scandal in which they were discovered engaged in sexual activities with boys who had not previously been suspected of having homosexual inclinations. Interestingly enough, it was the latter group, not the former group, that was regarded by most of the boarders as being disgraced. Some of those involved have since attained responsible and respected positions in New Zealand provincial towns. With respect to broader fields of homosexual behaviour, a men's discussion group that I joined in the late 1970s included two adult male homosexuals, one of whom introduced me to several of his friends. In that way I learnt that many practising homosexuals lead outwardly normal lives in our provincial towns. The question of the basic human dignity of male homosexuality has received little attention in the debate. Nobody who values literature could fail to be aware that the world of homosexual love is seen as being as rich and multifarious for homosexuals as the world of heterosexual love is seen as being for heterosexuals. One of the finest love poems I know was written by a practising male homosexual, W. H. Auden. I will quote it in its entirety because it is a reasonable antidote to some of the long descriptions of homosexual behaviour made by people who regard such behaviour as disgusting. The untitled poem reads: Lay your sleeping head, my love, Human on my faithless arm; Time and fevers burn away Individual beauty from Thoughtful children, and the grave Proves the child ephemeral: But in my arms till break of day Let the living creature lie, Mortal, guilty, but to me The entirely beautiful. On the stroke of midnight pass Like vibrations of a bell, And fashionable madmen raise Their pedantic boring cry: Every farthing of the cost, All the dreaded cards foretell, Shall be paid, but from this night Not a whisper, not a thought, Not a kiss nor look be lost. Soul and body have no bounds: To lovers as they lie upon Her tolerant enchanted slope In their ordinary swoon, Grave the vision Venus sends Of supernatural sympathy, Universal love and hope; While an abstract insight wakes Among the glaciers and the rocks The hermit's sensual ecstasy. Beauty, midnight, vision dies: Let the winds of dawn that blow Softly round your dreaming head Such a day of sweetness show Eye and knocking heart may bless, Find the mortal world enough; Noons of dryness see you fed By the involuntary powers, Nights of insult let you pass Watched by every human love. Certainty, fidelity. There are many testimonials in literature to the profound loving feelings that some male and female homosexuals experience. We should treat those feelings with the respect we accord to all human love. Anal intercourse has occupied the attention of a number of members who have spoken in the debate. I believe it is a minority practice for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. The anus is anatomically placed close to the genitals, and some anal stimulation is virtually inevitable during sexual activity. Anal touching and other forms of behaviour are said to be experimented with by many heterosexual couples. Anal intercourse is perhaps less common. However, I note that in many of the rape trials reported in the New Zealand news media there are also charges of heterosexual sodomy. There were 331 charges and 46 incarcerations for sodomy in New Zealand between 1973 and 1983. Although there is no record of how many of those sodomised were female and how many were male, it is my impression that most of the victims were female. Those numbers are dwarfed by the reported sexual crimes against children. In 1983 alone there were 549 reported sexual crimes against girls under the age of 16 years, and 153 against boys under 16 years of age. Only 11 of those involved sodomy. My personal view is that homosexual law reform is overdue. However, as the member for Hawke's Bay I have tried to ascertain the views of my constituents. The number of people who signed the petition against the Bill was 4849, or 15 percent of the total electoral population in Hawke's Bay. That was a lower proportion than in many provincial seats. There is evidence that that number may be underestimated, and that many of those who are opposed to the Bill would probably not be prepared to sign a petition. In April and May I had a telephone survey carried out in Hawke's Bay using 120 names selected at random from the electoral roll. Eighty percent agreed to answer; of those, 57 percent agreed that homosexual acts between adult males should be permitted, and 43 percent were against. Only one of the respondents did not know. In other words, the majority were in favour of decriminalising anal intercourse. The majority of those who were in favour supported either 18 years or 20 years as the age of consent. Similar answers were given in respect of lesbian acts. When asked whether it should be illegal to discriminate against homosexuals as in the provisions of Part II of the Bill, 68 percent were in favour of making discrimination illegal. Those figures are in good agreement with Heylen polls that have been carried out in New Zealand. The most recent poll showed that 61 percent supported law reform and 34 percent opposed it, but that only 22 percent would support 16 as the age of consent. Therefore the majority view appears to be clear enough. However, I must report that this has been a bitterly divisive issue in Hawke's Bay, as it has been in other parts of the country. I have received 117 letters and telephone calls on the subject; 59 percent of them were opposed to the Bill, and 41 percent were in favour of it. Some of the views on both sides were highly extreme, and I felt that they revealed a frightening depth of hatred. One constituent declared that the passage of the Bill would condemn more souls to hell than 1,000,000 nuclear bombs. Another constituent described homosexuals as arrogant, vicious liars, and stated that he would not want them in the school, the office, the factory, or the services. On the other side of extremism one woman declared that heterosexual men were responsible for rape, incest, venereal disease, and unwanted lives, and that those opposed to the Bill were a radical fringe of inhuman religionists. I am glad to report that I also received many sensible and sincere letters from people holding both liberal and conservative views on the matter. The most moving messages I received came from adult male homosexuals. I shall not read extracts from them because without the personal human details they would lose their impact, and I do not want to risk revealing their identities. Finally, of the six personal letters I received from Hawke's Bay ministers of religion, two were opposed to the Bill and four supported it. Coming to the proposed legislation, it is clear to me that I must support reform of the law as a matter of conscience and in response to the majority view of my constituents. As there is such extreme division, I believe that it is necessary to try to reach some pragmatic stance that will broaden the agreement and reduce the division. I see no valid reason for criminal law to be invoked against adult male homosexual acts when similar heterosexual or lesbian acts are permitted. Other members have spoken adequately on that matter. However, I do not support the full provisions of Part I or Part II, and I serve notice that I shall move several amendments in the Committee stage. In Part I, I believe that 16 years as the proposed age of consent for anal intercourse is unacceptable to most New Zealanders. If that provision were to be passed it would move substantially ahead of public opinion, not only in Hawke's Bay but also throughout the country. Therefore I shall move an amendment to the proposed new section 142 suggesting 18 years as the age of consent. That would have the purpose, first, of making the Bill more broadly acceptable, and, second, of reinforcing the current medical opinion that anal intercourse is a dangerous practice. I shall speak at more length on that in the Committee stage. The suggested age is the same as the voting age. Finally, if that amendment to the proposed new section 142 were confined, there would be no discrimination between homosexual and heterosexual practices. The proposed new sections 140 and 140a, which relate to indecency with boys, should, in my opinion, remain unchanged, as they would bring that section of the Crimes Act into line with sections 133 and 134 relating to indecency with girls. I propose to put forward several amendments to Part II of the Bill. First, the definition of sexual orientation in clause 9 should be amended to read “sexual orientation in relation to any person means that heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual preference of that person". Second, I believe that sections 15(3)(c), 15(6), and 21(2) of the Human Rights Commission Act should be amended to permit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation as well as on the grounds of sex. Those provisions relate to domestic employment in a private household and to any position, authorisation, or qualification that is for the purposes of an organised religion and is limited so as to comply with the doctrines or rules of the religion or to avoid offending the religious susceptibilities of the adherents. Provided those or similar amendments can be passed, I intend to support both parts of the Bill. I believe that the amended Bill will be acceptable to most of my constituents in Hawke's Bay. DEREK ANGUS (Wallace): First, I congratulate the four members who have given up so much of their family life and spare time to campaign against the legislation in order to preserve and maintain some kind of decent order in our society. On behalf of the many good and well-meaning New Zealanders who worked to solicit support, I also congratulate the organisers of the largest petition to be presented to Parliament. It could be argued whether the numbers are 800,000 or 500 000; it is still the largest petition to be presented to Parliament. It was amazing to see the mover of the Bill appearing on television on the same day as the petition was presented to Parliament, looking like a startled hen that was being chased off her nest - and well she might! She looked startled, confused, and shocked because many New Zealanders had spoken clearly in that petition. She was in a state of shock because it was clearly shown that the legislation is not needed, supported, or wanted by most people. The Government and the member for Wellington Central are clearly trying to destroy the normal strong structures and the very fabric of family life. Clearly the Bill was brought in to create a smokescreen to divert people's attention from the failure of the Government in the economic field and from the real issues of inflation, interest rates, and the cost of living. To try to legalise homosexuality for 16-year-olds spells disaster, and I certainly will not support any part of the Bill - nor would most people in my electorate want me to do so. I would go so far as to say that there will be some members in the House who will even regret their support for the Bill at the next election. Members should think for themselves and vote with their own consciences on this particular issue. Homosexuality is a complex issue, which must be considered with compassion and concern for the individuals involved. However, in the long run, society and many individuals in it will be worse off if the Bill is passed. The argument is frequently put forward that homosexual practices are not immoral, but are an alternative sexual orientation that is as moral and normal as heterosexual practices. It is certain that if Parliament passes the Bill homosexuality will eventually become acknowledged as a morally accepted sexual practice. That is certainly the expectation of the so-called gay rights movement. What then is morality? Are moral values merely relative to the present social mores? On what ground can homosexual practices be moral and, say, violence be immoral? A popular concept is that any action is O. K. as long as it does not harm others - we should live and let live; we know the sayings. If that is so, then practices such as orgies, prostitution, pornography, polygamy, adultery, incest, sodomy of animals, drug abuse, and so on, should not be interfered with by law or condemned by intolerant objectors, as long as all parties involved consent. Is that not what some of the supporters of the Bill are saying? Surely it is inconsistent to say that violence in society will always be wrong, whereas homosexual practices may be regarded now as an acceptable moral standard. We are talking about violence. I was disappointed to read today in an article in the Tablet that supporters of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill have savagely attacked church leaders. The latest attack is made in the most recent issue of Out, in which it is stated: “The. language used shows that whatever happens in the Bill the gays plan an aggressive strategy against all opposed to them-churchmen and politicians." The article also warns that “if the Bill does not pass, the active element of the gay movement could become very active indeed in spite of the law. It would be unrealistic not to expect a reaction against supporters of the petition who may have been seen to be unwise in identifying themselves. However wrong it may be, gay bashers and their families could well find themselves and their property at risk.” Do the people who make such statements deserve any compassion or support? I have been reliably informed that the gay task force around the world is watching the progress and, it hopes, the passage of the Bill. I wonder why? For many years many homosexuals have remained in the closet, so to speak, concealing their behaviour from employers, from friends, and even from spouses. Many wrestled against their impulses in much the same way as an exposer wrestles against the compulsive behaviour that makes him feel guilty and ashamed. But they are not the people for whom the gay rights laws are primarily designed or who lobbied for them, because they keep their sexuality private and they are seldom if ever discriminated against. I really do not argue against that group. However, members of the militant homosexual community have sought to overcome the natural revulsion against their behaviour by making largely successful efforts to polish their image. That group has won the support of many people of good will, including prominent religious and political leaders, and then its members make statements such as those published in the Tablet. What spill over effects does homosexuality have on society? Homosexual behaviour leads to problems far beyond the circles of homosexuals themselves. As a group, for example, homosexuals release both disease and crime into our society to an extent far in excess of their percentage of the population. Research around the world confirms that. The connection between homosexuals and health has been underscored more recently by the rise of AIDS. The medical community has long known the medical facts of homosexuality. Medical specialists have known about the disproportionate impact on the sick homosexual community of diseases such as syphilis, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, and so on. Although homosexuals may be small in number - some estimate 1 in 10 or 1 in 20 of the United States population - they carry more than 44 percent of that nation's cases of syphilis, 51 percent of gonorrhoea of the throat, and 53 percent of intestinal infections. Forty percent of homosexuals in the United States admit to that infection. One survey in Amsterdam showed syphilis in about 34 percent of homosexuals who were attending saunas in that city. In San Francisco and Minneapolis, diseased homosexual food handlers in public restaurants have been responsible for major outbreaks of serious diseases such as hepatitis A. Unfortunately, homosexuals have a rate of infectious hepatitis B that is 20 to 50 times greater than that of heterosexual males. It is no wonder that Dr Seymour Dritz, an official of the San Francisco health department, wrote that special precautions are required to protect the public from carriers who work as food handlers, bartenders, attendants in medical care facilities, or as teachers and aides in day care centres for infants and young children. In the last decade, since gay rights laws have been in effect in San Francisco, there has been a sharp increase of venereal disease in that city-22 times the national average. Infectious hepatitis has increased by 100 percent. Infectious hepatitis B has increased by 300 percent in other large areas. In San Francisco there are 75,000 patients each year, of whom 80 percent are homosexual males. It is interesting to note that despite efforts by the South Australian Government and agencies, and the AIDS task force, to alert homosexuals to the dangers posed by AIDS, a survey in South Australia has found that most have not changed their sexual habits to prevent the spread of that horrific disease. In Adelaide, more than 300 young homosexuals were interviewed in city bars and discos where homosexuals are known to meet and most said they had not changed their life-style or sexual behaviour because of the threat of AIDS. There is another constant question: are homosexuals born that way? Although gay rights laws customarily speak of the affectional preferences, homosexuals on the defensive frequently say they have no choice. Debate interrupted. The House adjourned at 11 p. m.

IRN: 3857
PRIDENZ URL: https://www.pridenz.com/hansard_homosexual_law_reform_bill_report_of_justice_and_law_reform_committee_5_november_1985.html
TITLE: Homosexual Law Reform Bill - Report of Justice and Law Reform Committee (5 November 1985)
DATE: 5 November 1985
LOCATION: Parliament buildings, 1 Molesworth Street, Wellington, New Zealand.
TEXT: TREVOR MALLARD (Hamilton West): I am directed to report that the Justice and Law Reform Committee has carefully considered three petitions praying that Parliament vote that the Homosexual Law Reform Bill does not proceed and 31 petitions praying that the House reject the Homosexual Law Reform Bill, and has no recommendation to make. I move, That the report do lie upon the table. The collection of signatures for the petition and its presentation have been controversial. The member for Manawatu has said that the rally outside Parliament resembled a rally at Nuremberg, and there is probably not much need for debate on that subject. There were 91 boxes sitting in the House. They were covered in slogans. What we were not told was that none of them was more than 50 percent full and that many were less than 25 percent full. The overstatement involved in the presentation of the boxes and the overstatement about numbers, to which I will refer later, do no credit to the petitioners. They debase to the level of unbelievable propaganda the strongly held views of many thousands of people. The committee hearing itself was relatively exciting. It went from the morning until after 7 p. m. The petitioners had seven witnesses, including a laboratory technician who presented the medical argument. All witnesses were subjected to extensive questioning, except the witness who ordered the petition's collation. He shot through before all members could question him. All questions apart from that one were answered, including those supplied to the member for Hauraki by his question writer, Barry Reid, the public relations officer for Mr Hay. WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It will have occurred to you, as it has occurred to the rest of the House, that the reporting back thus far has been purely outrageous. The member, who is required to report back accurately what went on before the select committee, is reporting pure hearsay, supposition, and guesswork on his part. I ask you to bring him back to the purpose of the debate, which is to give an accurate report of what went on. TREVOR MALLARD: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I was referring to a sheet of questions that was given to me instead of to the member for Hauraki. Hon. JIM MCLAY: Whichever side of the argument members are on, they expect that the reporting back of a petition signed by a large number of citizens, whatever argument there might be about the actual number, will be treated seriously and with some dignity by the House. We have not heard much about the petition hearing itself. We have heard some derogatory comments about those people who assembled outside Parliament for the presentation of the petition; we have heard derogatory comments about some of the people who appeared before the committee; and we have heard derogatory comments about some of the members of Parliament who served on the committee. At a certain stage the dignity of the House demands that you draw members' attention to the Standing Orders, particularly those dealing with the narrower purposes of this debate. MICHAEL CULLEN: This is a debating chamber in which members have the right of free speech within the confines of the Standing Orders. The petition is being reported back with no recommendation. As the matter is a conscience matter, all members have the right of free speech. If the member, though he be chairman, wants to comment on the nature of the petition, the evidence presented by the petitioners, or the attitudes they adopt, that is his choice. As this is a conscience issue, members on either side have the right to respond in the way they see fit. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Two points have been made, and they both have equal weight and importance. The point concerning relevance is an important one. Speaker's ruling 27/5 states: “Only those matters that were dealt with in the select committee and were in the Bill may be discussed on the report of a select committee. The appropriate time for a wider discussion of the principles of the Bill and what is contained in the Bill is during the second reading." The member for Hamilton West has conformed to those requirements as far as he has gone. I shall allow him to continue, but I remind him that we must remain narrow in our consideration of the petition. We are debating what went on during the consideration of the petition by the select committee. It is worth noting that the member for St. Kilda is correct also when he says that other members who want to reflect upon the proceedings of the select committee are free to take part in the debate. TREVOR MALLARD: The member for Invercargill also played a prominent part in the committee. As well as telling of his experiences in Cairo, he tabled a long list of practices adopted by some people promoting the petition that led to a questioning of the validity of some of the signatures. I carefully examined the petition as it related to my electorate. The petitioners claimed that 17,000 electors had signed it. In fact, their coding showed that only 12,000 were claimed for the Hamilton West electorate, of whom only 3,188 are on the electoral roll. There are more than 100 cases in Hamilton of multiple signatures and many cases of the same handwriting being used for more than one name. The petitioners' witnesses said that it was thought acceptable for one person to sign for a family, workmates, or persons in a hotel too inebriated to sign. It is the role of the House to deal with the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. In dealing with it members should carefully consider the actions of the petitioners. It would be inappropriate to refer the report to the Government, as the Bill is a private member's Bill. Therefore the committee made no recommendation. NORMAN JONES (Invercargill): I move, That the motion be amended by adding the words: " and be referred to the Government for most favourable consideration”. I do so because this petition of 817,000 signatures is the largest presented to a Parliament of New Zealand. It far exceeds the " Save Manapouri” petition of 260,000 signatures, which I was responsible for starting, and it also far exceeds the Maruia “Save the Beech Forest" petition of 314,000 signatures. This petition has 817,000 signatures and it was started only 7 months ago. Since it was presented to the House, further signatures have been coming in at the rate of 1,000 a day. I have here another 18,000 signatures that I cannot present to the House because the petition has been presented. However, I produce them here, and they bring the total to 835,000 signatures. Irrespective of what the member for Hamilton West says - and he was the acting chairman of the committee before this major petition was presented-on 18 September he sent a memorandum to all Government members and others. He was supposed to be impartial. I should have expected it from the member for Wellington Central but, to her credit, she did not do it. His memorandum stated: “We have reasons to believe that the total figures of the Keith Hay homosexual law reform petition should be challenged" - that was before it was even presented to the House. “We have written personal letters to the following in the name of the chairman of the committee” - and he goes on to say, as he did today, that schoolboys said they had signed it 27 times. If a schoolboy lied and said he had signed it 27 times who would believe him on the twenty-eighth time, when he told his own member of Parliament that he had signed it 27 times? We presented this petition to Parliament in good faith. We put it into electorate form, not because it was necessary - that is irrelevant. This petition of 835 000 signatures speaks for itself. It needs no explanation. It comes from many hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders-yes, they are probably aged from 12 upwards, because the Bill affects 12-yearolds, but not 6-year-olds. We are quite prepared to concede that people below voting age signed the petition, although we will certainly not concede that numbers of children did so. I can prove that quite conclusively and can produce another petition, if necessary based on the computerised electoral rolls, and I intend to do so. Whatever the fate of the petition, the issue will not go away. It will remain with the country up to and including election year. On behalf of the chief petitioners I tell members that we will computerise the electoral rolls and will put 500 people into every electorate. We will give the member for Hamilton West and the member for Wellington Central a computerised electoral roll petition for the repeal of whatever Bill is passed. We will give them an electoral petition of each of the rolls, with the particulars of every voter. The names and addresses will be printed and there will be provision for the signature. We will give each of those 400 to 500 people 50 names to contact within the next 12 months, and I will personally move a homosexual law reform repeal Bill at the appropriate time. At that time we will make it an election issue. If the member does not believe we can do that I tell him that we will. We produced 835,000 signatures in 7 months, so we have the support and the money. That kind of petition will not go away. Hon. ANN HERCUS (Minister of Social Welfare): I must challenge the reported figures for the Hay petition in relation to evidence from my own electorate of Lyttelton. When I was given, through my office, a report of the Hay petition divided into electorates I naturally looked up the electorate of Lyttelton. The claim was that 5,139 people had signed the petition and were identified as coming from within the boundaries of the Lyttelton electorate. I chose to take a very large team of workers over a period of several days to the room in this building where that petition was lodged. Every single sheet in every one of the 92 boxes containing the petition sheets was searched, and each sheet that contained a Lyttelton address was put aside and xeroxed. Those xeroxed sheets were taken back to my electorate where a second team of workers examined each of the signatures in relation to each one of the addresses. I was, first, extremely puzzled to find not 5,139 signatures but 1,500 signatures a very small proportion of the larger number claimed. JOHN BANKS: Did you go through the sheets? Hon. ANN HERCUS: I went through every single sheet in the whole 92 boxes over 3 days, not alone, but with a team of helpers. There were only 1,500 signatures and addresses that related to addresses in the Lyttelton electorate, not 5,139. My team of helpers in the Lyttelton electorate then checked each of those 1,500 names, and I have to report to the House that most of those 1,500 names appeared to be genuine. There were signatures which, although they were illegible, were able to be checked against a habitation index and judged to be appropriately the signatures of those persons. Most of the addresses were correctly in the Lyttelton electorate, but there is substantial evidence from the Lyttelton electorate that the Hay petition has somehow totally overrepresented and misrepresented the number of signatures claimed on the petition to have come from the Lyttelton electorate. There is a double check on this that I find fascinating. As the House will know I recently held a referendum in the Lyttelton electorate with ballot papers delivered to every single household. WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Nothing that members have heard so far relates in any way, shape, or form to the reporting back from the select committee. While I respect what the member is saying about how she feels about the petition, we are talking about the petition's course at the select committee. I ask you to ask her to address her comments to the matter before the House - the reporting back from the select committee or the amendment. FRAN WILDE: The member is indeed speaking to the evidence given to the select committee. The witnesses who appeared before the committee to present the petition were examined at length about the method they had used to ascertain the eligibility of the signatures, whether the signatures were genuine, and how they had been collected. That is exactly what the Minister is addressing in her speech. She is sticking very closely to the discussion of the select committee's hearings of the petition. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Speaker's ruling on this subject is clear enough: Speaker's ruling 27/5 states that only those matters dealt with in the select committee and in the petition may be discussed on the reporting back from a select committee. I understand that the material being presented by the Minister was not heard in the select committee. At the same time, I understand that she is introducing a critique of the material that was heard by the select committee in a form that was pursued at the time that the select committee sat. For those reasons I have to allow what the Minister is proceeding to do; although I must caution her that she must continue to refer to the proceedings of the select committee and make her material relevant to that consideration. Hon. ANN HERCUS: I am doing exactly that, because my understanding of the report of what happened at the select committee was that the petitioners indicated that, in terms of overall counting and checking, they had insisted that at least six different people had minimised discrepancies. I am giving evidence of my independent checking, which contradicts that suggestion. I was saying that the material I am producing for the House was double-checked, and that the return from a referendum I held recently in the Lyttelton electorate showed that 1,736 people opposed the Bill. I suggest that that figure is remarkably close to the figure of 1,500 who said they signed the petition. Its closeness is even more remarkable when it is taken into account that a couple of hundred of the 1,500 people who said they signed the petition have to be disallowed because their names, for instance, were the names of people who were not found on the roll, the names of people who were signing phoney names, and so on. I suggest that whatever the Hay petition represents it does not represent more than 5,000 people from my electorate who have signed the petition. At most it represents a few more than 1,000. WINSTON PETERS (Tauranga): There are people in this country who would have heard that speech with some amusement, as I did. I know all about the constitutional purity of certain members. When the Minister of Social Welfare witnessed the greatest constitutional outrage this country has ever seen she remained silent. Dead people voted, as did people from Piedmont in California and people who did not live within cooee of my electorate, yet she remained silent. Today she is as pure as the driven snow on the matter of whether somebody can sign something as innocent as a petition. She claimed to have held a referendum. Does she know what the word means? Will she still claim that she held a referendum in her electorate? Of course she did not. So why did she falsely claim that she did? The petition speaks for itself. More than 817,000 people signed it. It does not matter about their ages, their addresses, or who or what they are. What matters is that they are following the century-old tradition that gives them the right to petition their Parliament. That is the nub of the matter. Those people want Parliament to do something, and it does not matter what side of the issue they are on. It is wrong to try to deny and discredit the petition, because even if 500,000 signatures were incorrect it would still be the biggest petition in the history of New Zealand and no amount of electoral gerrymandering in the mind of the Minister of Social Welfare would change that. I speak in favour of the amendment and against the reporting back. The chairmanship of the committee was, frankly, not within the traditions of this Parliament. It was abysmal. The chairman declared his position. He was biased, impartial, and prejudiced, and he sent out a letter to his colleagues attempting to damn the petition before it came before the committee. If there is one thing the Standing Orders must be used to rule on it is that kind of behaviour on the part of a committee chairman-breach of privilege, you name it, the member for Hamilton West was involved in it. And he has the audacity to try to damn members who hold a different point of view. He said that some school children signed the petition 27 times. Here is a fair challenge-let him name one schoolboy who signed the petition 27 times. If he had conducted the thorough analysis on the Bill that he claims to have conducted he would be able to stand up right now and say, “I know who that boy is”, because he said that many boys signed it. Can the member name one? Of course he cannot and will not. That is the reason the member for Hamilton West will go. He cannot get away with that patent falsehood on a matter about which so many people are sensitive. Hon. ANN HERCUS: A conscience vote. WINSTON PETERS: Truth is not a matter of conscience. Our consciences can differ, but we are talking about truth now, and that is what separates the member for Hamilton West from those who want veracity in the debate. The petition, which was signed by more than 800,000 New Zealanders, received but a few hours' hearing before the select committee, and those few hours belie everything the Deputy Prime Minister has ever said about how he was going to hold select committee hearings. If ever we have seen just how shallow that man is, we saw it today with the petition. In all the debates he has said absolutely nothing. His record of speaking engagements at the Rotary clubs about open government and reforming the select committee system are but lies before the truth of the committee's experience. ACTING SPEAKER (TREVOR YOUNG): Order! I ask the honourable member to withdraw that reference. He knows the words to which I refer. WINSTON PETERS: I withdraw. ACTING SPEAKER (TREVOR YOUNG): I have just taken over the chair, but I am having difficulty relating what the honourable member is saying to the reporting back of the committee on the petition. WINSTON PETERS: I shall separate the difficulties. The petition was twice as large as any petition that has ever come before Parliament, yet the select committee treated it in a cursory, cavalier, and arrogant fashion. The Deputy Prime Minister should explain what he meant about giving Parliament real control. He said that on 2 April 1984. Of course, that was before the election. He talked about giving select committees the quality of democracy. What was he talking about? It is high time he explained himself, because frankly - and I do not care what side of the issue people are on-those people were treated in a cavalier fashion. GEOFF BRAYBROOKE (Napier): The right to petition Parliament is an ancient right throughout the English-speaking world. It is a means by which citizens can bring before their member of Parliament-or even before a queen or king in old times - their belief that something is wrong, and can demand justice. There was an almost instant reaction to the Bill when it was introduced. It came as a surprise to many people, and to many politicians as well, because neither members nor parties had a mandate for the Bill. The petition was a reaction to the introduction of the Bill. It also showed the genuine concern and fear of many of our citizens. It was obvious when the petition was launched that those who promoted the Bill in favour of homosexual law reform would have to pull out all the stops to try to degrade the petition, by whatever means, true or false. They knew that everything they could do would have to be done, because a petition of that magnitude would have huge punching power in the Chamber. Today we have heard about people who cannot be named, and who signed 27 times, and we have heard about other people signing from the tomb. Even if only half the signatures were genuine the petition would still be huge. The citizens of New Zealand are expressing a very strong concern about the introduction of the Bill. I know that the Bill will be debated tomorrow night and that it will be put to a vote during the Committee stage. However, the petition is the way in which citizens have told members of Parliament to go no further. It is their right to do that, and I respect that right. During the reporting back of the Bill I was disappointed to hear my colleague describe in an insulting manner what happened on the steps of Parliament when the petition was presented. I was present at the time, together with other caucus colleagues. I did not think of Nuremburg, and I cannot understand how anybody could say that unless from a warped mind. People sang the national anthem and then recited the Lord's Prayer. That is not an insult. We say a prayer in the Chamber-does that remind anybody of Nuremberg? If church groups were present and girls and boys dressed in Brigade uniforms carried the flag of their country would that represent Nuremberg? It is an insult even to suggest that. I defend the right of any citizen to present a petition to Parliament: it is a right, and members should respect it. We have heard a lot about human rights. I wonder if that same concern for nan rights will be expressed when a Bill is presented dealing with the human rights of the unborn child - I bet we will hear a different story then. I support the amendment moved by the member for Invercargill. It is cavalier to reject the largest petition in the history of New Zealand without making any recommendation whatsoever. I am sad that those who have objected to the petition and have promoted the Bill - and they have every right to do so - should have sat in judgment on it. I believe that was wrong. Justice must not only be done; it must also be seen to be done. I believe that that important consideration was lacking when the petition was presented, and I sincerely regret that. I end by saying that the issue will not die. It will not go away, even when the Bill to which the petition refers is voted upon. Even if the petition is committed to the archives I believe that there is an overwhelming desire in the hearts and minds of the citizens of New Zealand that the Bill should not proceed. The petition echoes those thoughts. The only way to settle the matter is by a referendum. I am convinced that the people of New Zealand should decide the matter. By presenting the petition the people have already spoken, and it belittles members to jeer at, sneer at, or degrade an honest petition that many thousands signed in good faith. ACTING SPEAKER (TREVOR YOUNG): Order! I am in a quandary. I normally move from one side of the Chamber to the other, and I believe that that would be the best way to handle the debate. However, I realise that there are members in the Chamber who, irrespective of the party to which they belong, have different views. At this stage I believe I know the views of various members. If I take a call from a person who has a contrary point of view to the member who has just spoken I must call a Government member. If I call an Opposition member, I know that he will express a view similar to that of the member who has just spoken. I am in the hands of the Chamber. I think it would be fairer to go from side to side of the Chamber, although it could mean that there could be a preponderance of speakers on one side of the debate. For that reason I feel justified in calling on the member for Nelson at this stage. JOHN BANKS (Whangarei): I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. Of course I support your ruling. However, I make the point that the member for Nelson will have an opportunity to speak later, because I understand that it is your intention to call as many members as want to speak. ACTING SPEAKER (TREVOR YOUNG): No, the debate is a 1-hour debate. JOHN BANKS: In those circumstances I believe it is only fair that you should take calls in sequence from Government members and Opposition members. MICHAEL CULLEN (St. Kilda): I believe that you are in a quandary because it is a conscience vote and there are no party lines. In calling the member for Napier the Deputy Speaker called two members consecutively to speak on the same side of the issue. Were you now to call the member for Hauraki, that would mean we would have three members speaking consecutively on the same side of the issue. The sides are not marked by a neat line down the middle of the Chamber - they are sides in terms of how members view both the Bill and the amendment. I suggest that there are strong arguments for opposing the amendment, even if members oppose the Bill. The matter is not quite as simple as some members have suggested, because the amendment touches the heart of a conscience vote. There is good reason for suggesting that the member for Nelson should have the next call. Indeed, there is reason for suggesting that two members who are opposed to the amendment should be called consecutively, since two members who were in support of it were called consecutively previously. In terms of the balance within a 1-hour time-limit debate, it would be quite unfair to call three members consecutively on one side of the issue when I believe that all members recognise that the House is fairly evenly poised between the two sides on the issue, which runs across party lines. GRAEME LEE (Hauraki): I believe that the ruling given during the second reading debate - that the debate should favour those against and those for in alternate form-was appropriate. The debate is a 1-hour debate, and it is appropriate to call alternate speakers from the Government side and the Opposition side. In a limited-time debate that is the only reasonable and fair ruling. ACTING SPEAKER (TREVOR YOUNG): I am concerned that no Government or Opposition Whips are operating at present. I draw the attention of members to Speaker's ruling 51/2. When the Whips are not operating the Speaker has several criteria for calling members. First, he tends to call senior members; second, he tends to alternate between the sides of the House, although not knowing which side of the argument individual members are on; third, he must note the length of time a member has been seeking the call - and that is relevant; and the fourth consideration is the member's involvement with a subject. Those are the points that are guiding me and have guided Speakers in the past. As I am aware of the involvement in the matter of the member who last spoke and the member who would now seek the call from the National Party rather than the Opposition side, I feel that in view of that Speaker's ruling I should call the member for Nelson. PHILIP WOOLLASTON (Nelson): It has properly been said that the presentation of petitions to Parliament is an ancient and important right of the people, and it has a central place in our democracy. That places a solemn duty on members of the House to consider seriously petitions presented to the House. It also presents an equally solemn duty on those seeking to have petitions presented to the House to ensure that what they say about those petitions is correct and, as far as it is within their power, to make sure that the petitions accurately represent the names on them and the views of the people whose names appear on them. In that context I shall comment on some aspects of the petition and the evidence that was given to the committee. The two principal petitioners, Mr Hay and Sir Peter Tait, said in presenting their submissions that the fact that the petition had been broken down into electorates demonstrated the bona fides, or good faith, of the persons promoting and administering the petition. They said: “If the petitioners had felt they had anything to hide the petition could have been presented in any order, which would have made it almost impossible to criticise the logistics, statistics, and inferences drawn from it.” Certainly it did appear when the petition was presented to members of Parliament on the steps, and brought into the Chamber shortly thereafter, that it had been sorted into electorates. The 92 boxes brought into the House had the names of electorates on them. I went to the strongroom in which the petition was kept, expecting to find the box that contained signatures from my electorate. I found that not only were the boxes about seven-eighths empty - they were large boxes - but also that the impression that had been given to the television watching public of a petition presented by electorates was not correct. The claim made by the chief petitioners to the select committee, which they said indicated the good faith of the petitioners, was, in fact, totally void. The petition forms had not been sorted into electorates. With the time and resources available to me I was not able to check fully to find how many signatures there were from my electorate. I did go through about half of the boxes and from them I took a sample of forms bearing the parliamentary code for my electorate. That presumably meant that those names had been entered on to a computer to turn out the number of signatures that were purported to be from Nelson. I received a document from the petitioners that claimed that 12,142 people residing in the Nelson electorate had signed, and that was compared with the number of electors in my electorate. The suggestion was made that a majority of Nelson electors are opposed to the passage of the Bill. In fact, at least one-third of the names purporting to come from my electorate were not correctly attributed. I have photocopies of a sample of petition forms that I am happy to table. One contains 23 names, all attributed to Nelson. None of the people on that sheet gave addresses in the Nelson electorate. Another sheet gave 26 names, of which 25 are attributed to Nelson. Of those signatures, 16 came from other electorates and 2 were not on the roll. Only seven signatures were correctly attributed. Another sheet contained the names of six people from another electorate, all encoded for Nelson. Of four people listed on another sheet, only one came from the Nelson electorate. Perhaps the most interesting of all is a sheet that contains 25 names, 21 attributed to Nelson. Of those, only two were actually on the Nelson electoral roll. The others gave Nelson addresses and appeared to be in the handwriting of children. Many of them appear to be in the same handwriting. One of those people was known to the person who checked the signatures, and was contacted. She is a college pupil in Nelson, and she stated that she had never seen the petition and had certainly not signed it. I am not saying that none of the signatures purporting to come from Nelson is valid, but certainly a significant proportion of those signatures that are claimed to be from the Nelson electorate are from other electorates, have been wrongly attributed to my electorate, or are in some way those of minors or even of people who did not sign the petition. Some people complained to me about coercion to sign the petition at the work-place, and that they were subject to the censure of their workmates if they declined to do so. I have also heard of an instance of a child of about 10 years of age being pressured to sign the petition on the main street. That calls into question the good faith of the petitioners. GRAEME LEE (Hauraki): I endorse the amendment moved by my colleague that the petition be given most favourable consideration. It is an insult to the intention and integrity of more than 817,000 New Zealanders that the petition should have been reported back with no recommendation. From the outset, let the House be reminded that the acting chairman on that day - the member for Hamilton West - sought to restrict the opportunities of the petitioners to give evidence. The acting chairman used all kinds of unprincipled and partial behaviour to restrict the opportunities for the petitioners in presenting the largest petition in the history of New Zealand and of Parliament. As a result of the debacle that ensued, I felt it necessary to move a motion of no confidence in the acting chairman. However, because of the predominance of Government members on the committee, the motion was lost. But it was not lost on the public. The petitioners presented a professional submission. It was a compilation of the evidence of several people. In his evidence Mr Keith Hay spoke about the family breakdown that would result if the Bill became law. Sir Peter Tait commented on the need to keep the present law as a buffer. He also said that everything had been done to ensure that the petition was correctly handled. Mr Alan Anderson, a former senior laboratory scientist, stated his belief that AIDS would escalate if homosexuality were decriminalised. Mr Peter van Rijs, a solicitor, said that the legislation was a pace-setter and the most progressive of its kind in the world. He said that New Zealanders were pawns on the world's gay scene, because Parliament was being asked to pass legislation that had not been passed anywhere in the world. The Rev. Phillips gave evidence that the Bible was clear in its teachings and that it spoke against homosexual practices. Mr James Bacon, a university professor, also gave clear evidence about the implications in the classroom and the way the Bill would damn the children of the nation if it became law. The petition was the largest ever presented to Parliament. It would have achieved the 1,000,000 target set by the petitioners if there had been more time. The signatures were gathered in just over 6 months, which is a remarkably short period. According to the petitioners, everything was done to ensure that the petition was conducted with integrity, care, and caution. On the bottom of the petition form it was stated that only people above secondary school age should sign the petition. It was also noted that, per capita, the petition was the largest ever presented to a Western Parliament. Of course there were allegations about the petition, and attempts to deny and discredit it, because that was the only way the proponents of the Bill and the opponents of the petition could make their case valid. However, that was not achieved, despite the comments made in the House tonight. The comments made by the Minister of Social Welfare hinged on the examination by her people of the contents of the petition boxes. I challenge her to provide evidence that her people went through the boxes systematically, page by page. The member for Hamilton West knows that his claim is wrong. It depends on the opinions of a group of people, and he knows that it is far from accurate. He also knows that the petition was presented to Parliament, and not to individuals. FRAN WILDE (Wellington Central): I want to comment on some of the activities that took place during the committee hearings, because it is important that the public knows what the petitioners told the committee when they were asked about the integrity of the petition, as mentioned by the previous speaker. They brought a Mr Wilding to the committee; he had been the petition scrutineer in Auckland. He told the committee that each sheet had been examined carefully, probably about six times, that the names had been coded according to electorates, and that the results had finally been written down and allocated. The result was the gold-covered book sent to all members. The committee asked that man and other witnesses how they came by the figures in the book that purported to show the percentage of the electoral population that had signed the petition in each electorate. The replies were interesting. I particularly asked whether there had been a habitation index for each electorate to check the names and streets of the people who had signed. Mr Wilding answered, “What's that?” He did not know what a habitation index was. I asked him whether he used the electoral rolls. I said, “I presume you used the electoral rolls.” He replied, “No, we didn't use electoral rolls. We do not have access to that sort of equipment as do members of Parliament.” I asked, “How then did you know which electorate people lived in?" He said, “Well, our people who were checking just put them into the electorate that they thought they lived in.” He was asked, “For example, if they wrote the name of their street and simply ·Hamilton', how did you allocate the electorate?" Mr Wilding replied, " Is it important?" I suggested that it was important, because the committee was presented with evidence from the petitioners stating the proportion and the number of electors in each electorate who had signed the petition. The integrity of the petition was in question. The committee was told that the names were allocated according to what electorate the sorters thought they were in, and those left over were put in a pool and allocated out on a pro rata basis. In the case of Hamilton City they were allocated among only two Hamilton electorates, not the four electorates that cover Hamilton. Unfortunately for the petitioners, some academic demographers at the University of Waikato went to the trouble of examining the Hamilton samples. They pulled out all the Hamilton sheets from the petition-a task that took several helpers a number of hours. They found that 22. 4 percent were validly on the role in the electorate claimed by the petitioners. We had been assured by the petitioners that the signatures were thoroughly checked and were all valid. After hearing that evidence I was concerned about how valid they were, and I produced some photocopy sheets of some pages of the petition. This page has a number of signatures from Wainuiomata. On the bottom line are six signatures, all in the same handwriting. I asked one of the petitioners, Mr Roest, how that came about. He said that often in Maori families one person would sign for the whole lot. It is a very interesting Maori household! The names are Conlan, Patterson, Thompson, and Campbell. All those people with different surnames live in one house in Wainuiomata, and have the same handwriting. I suggest that that was a racist statement for Mr Roest to make, and it clearly indicated that the petition did not have much integrity. The member for Hauraki has claimed that they presented professional witnesses. He quoted a Mr Anderson. I received a letter from the University of Auckland after the hearing, from Dr Paul Goldwater, a senior lecturer in virology, who said that it was important that he commented on the validity of Mr Anderson's submission. He said Mr Anderson was not correct in calling himself a medical laboratory scientist or an immunohaematologist. He was a medical laboratory technologist, and although he had a very good knowledge of hepatitis viruses he had not kept up with the current knowledge about AIDS. His professional qualifications were certainly in doubt, as was the factual evidence he gave to the committee, which was wrong. Mr Anderson told us that the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists was wrong and he was right, that the American Psychological Association was wrong and he was right, and that the long list of doctors from the Wellington region who signed a statement in favour of the Bill was wrong. JOHN BANKS (Whangarei): I rise to support the amendment that the House should give most favourable consideration to the petition. Over the past few months matters relating to the Bill have been handled with obscene haste by a committee of Parliament. The principal petitioners and others feel cheated by the manner in which a committee of Parliament has treated them. Having read most of the submissions to the select committee - although I was not a member of it, I know that the thrust of the argument of the petitioners opposing the Bill was simply that it was designed to destroy the fundamental building block of the nation - the family unit - and, ultimately, democracy itself. According to the principal petitioners the Bill is, in simple terms, just another Exocet accurately aimed at the crumbling house of Christianity. The petitioners opposing the Bill and other so-called social reforms believe that it will have a devastating medical, social, and moral impact on the future of the country. The 800,000 people who signed the petition have that simple message, and I am giving that message to the House tonight. They are concerned that they have come to the highest court in the land and been cheated by a select committee of Parliament, of which the member for Hamilton West was the chairman at the time a vote of no confidence was moved in the chairmanship. On the day I attended the committee his colleague the member for Hamilton East was the chairman, and I have never seen such a sycophantic performance. Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Evidence on the petition was heard on 1 day. The member for Whangarei was not a member of the committee. SPEAKER: That is not a valid point of order. Any member may comment on the proceedings of the committee. JOHN BANKS: The member is correct about the evidence on the petition. I was referring to the submissions made on the Bill by 800,000 people, some of whom will be listening to the radio tonight. I am concerned about the cavalier manner in which the member for Hamilton West treated the people who, because of their concern, turned up at their own expense to present submissions to the select committee. They were treated badly. The 11,052 people in Whangarei who signed the petition said, “Mr Banks, we don't want you to support the Bill but to support the petition.” That is what I shall do. I support the representatives of the 800,000 New Zealanders who came to Parliament to show they were outraged at this initiative and wanted it stopped. That is why I rise to speak to the amendment my colleague has moved. Even if only 10,500 people signed the petition in Whangarei, that number is still enough. In a recent radio poll conducted in my electorate by Radio New Zealand - which be checked by the member for Wellington Central who is the architect of the Bill - 80 percent of Whangarei people said they did not want the Homosexual Law Reform Bill, basically because they also believed that the family unit is sine qua non. They have asked me to speak clearly to the House about their opposition to the legislative initiative and they want me to support my colleague's amendment to give the petition most favourable consideration. It is outrageous that the Government member for Wellington Central should have been a principal participant on the day the petition was heard, because I saw her performance on the day I was present at the hearing of the submissions on the principal Bill. The manner in which she manipulated the sycophantic member for Hamilton East who was the chairman on that day had to be seen to be believed. It was sickening. It was a conspiracy such as I have not seen before by members of a committee. The standing of Parliament has gone down in the public's eyes as a result of the obscene way the concerns of 800,000 New Zealanders have been treated. MICHAEL CULLEN (St. Kilda): I want to make only one point about the hearing on the petition, and that is that all Opposition members who were present were given a full opportunity to ask questions. The member for Wellington Central asked her questions only when every committee member had finished. The amendment moved by the member for Invercargill is very dangerous, and even members who oppose the Bill should think very carefully before they support it. The amendment refers the petition to the Government for most favourable consideration. NORMAN JONES: That's right. It's your policy to bring it in. MICHAEL CULLEN: If the member for Invercargill would just listen he would learn that neither the Government nor the Opposition has a policy on the Bill. NORMAN JONES: The Labour Party has one. It's in favour of it. MICHAEL CULLEN: It is absolutely inappropriate for an amendment to be moved that undermines the very basis of conscience voting. I remind the member for Napier that at least twice I have stood up before a Labour Party conference and supported his right to a conscience vote on an issue on which most of the delegates, including myself, took an opposing view to the one he took. GEOFF BRAYBROOKE: That's right. MICHAEL CULLEN: I believe that members have a right to a conscience vote on certain moral issues, but the amendment moved by the member for Invercargill undermines the basis of that conscience vote, because it states, that the Government should have a position in opposition to the Bill. NORMAN JONES: So it should. MICHAEL CULLEN: The Government should not be for or against the Bill. I do not question the integrity of the 7,700 people it is claimed signed the petition in my electorate. Some of them have some very strange connections, but I know that most of them are honourable and decent voters, and many of them belong to my own Labour Party branches. My electorate is a rather conservative electorate, but that is not the point. The point is that the consciences of members should not be open to barter. On this kind of issue members must look inside themselves without the aid of Whips and decide what is right. When they have decided what they think is right they have the responsibility to vote accordingly. The only action that can trammel that freedom-and it is a very precious freedom-is a commitment to their electorates to abide by a poll taken on a specific issue. Like many members I have come to resent the quite improper pressure that has been brought to bear from both extreme sides of this argument. Attempts have been made to blackmail members in terms of votes at the next election and in terms of certain connections, and to turn members into puppets. I accept the fact that the member for Invercargill opposes the Bill, and I respect his right to oppose it. I do not agree with him, but I acknowledge that he is utterly sincere in his views. However, he should not come to the House and say that a petition on the Bill should receive favourable consideration from the Government. That is wrong, and undermines his own case, to which the member for Napier, the member for Southern Maori, and other Government members will give their support. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON (Papakura): The member for St. Kilda, like the proponents of the Bill and the opponents of the petition, protests too much. I have not heard the member for St. Kilda so much on the defensive as he was during the last 5 minutes. His only defence was to say that the Government does not have a policy on the issue. If that is correct, why was the Bill introduced by the member for Wellington Central, the Junior Government Whip? The member for St. Kilda knows the long established conventions that, although they do not prohibit such action in a technical sense, do, by custom and form, frown upon such a divisive measure being introduced by a Whip, whether a senior Whip or a junior Whip. For him to say that the member for Napier is opposed to the Bill and that therefore the Government does not have a formal position on the matter is to protest too much. He said that his electorate was conservative. The base of his political support in his electorate is the Castle Street branch, which includes the university. I repeat that the member does protest far too much. If he is right, why is it that so many of his colleagues, particularly the Wellington based members, have had polls in their electorates and, having had those polls, say: “But of course my electorate supports me in this stand, supports the Bill allowing homosexual activities amongst young people of 16.” Where is the evidence on the polls they have conducted in their electorates? Have they been tabled in the House? How genuine were the surveys in the electorates of the member for Ohariu, the member for Miramar, and the member for East Cape, which moved one way, another way, and then came back again? Those polls would not hold a candle to a petition from people who have common sense, are practical, and hold strong views on matters of this kind. To say that a petition of unprecedented numbers and magnitude-nearly 1,000,000 signatures-does not count in the councils of this country is manifest nonsense. That is why the member for St. Kilda protests too much. For the Deputy Prime Minister, the great apostle of constitutional purity, to sit there and listen to it all and say, " Well, of course, I shall vote for this, and the petition means nothing”, and to be a member of a Government that says that petitioning Parliament on the issue is not an exercise the House should listen to, is an outstanding example of his double standards in matters of this kind. We have not had consensus in the country since his Government came to power, and to ignore the genuine voice of the people expressed in this manner is wrong. I have not counted the number of people from my own electorate who signed. I have not had to; I know what they think. The House divided on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 34 Angus, Austin, H. N.; Austin, W. R.; Banks; Birch; Bolger; Cooper; Cox; Falloon; Friedlander; Gerard; Gray; Kidd; Knapp; Lee; Luxton; McClay; McKinnon; McLay; McTigue; Marshall, D. W. A.; Maxwell, R. F. H.; Morrison; Muldoon; Peters; Smith; Storey; Talbot; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Townshend; Wellington; Young, T. J. Tellers: Braybrooke; Jones. Noes 39 Anderton; Austin, M. E.; Boorman; Burke; Butcher; Clark; Colman; Cullen; de Cleene; Dillon; Douglas; Dunne; Fraser, Gair; Goff; Gregory; Hercus; Hunt; Jeffries; Keall; King; Matthewson; Maxwell, R. K.; Neilson; Northey; O'Flynn; O'Regan; Palmer; Prebble; Richardson; Shields; Shirley; Sutton, J. R.; Terris; Upton; Wetere; Woollaston. Tellers: Mallard; Wilde. Majority against: 5 Amendment negatived. Motion agreed to.

IRN: 3858
PRIDENZ URL: https://www.pridenz.com/hansard_homosexual_law_reform_bill_second_reading_continued_6_november_1985.html
TITLE: Homosexual Law Reform Bill - second reading continued (6 November 1985)
DATE: 6 November 1985
LOCATION: Parliament buildings, 1 Molesworth Street, Wellington, New Zealand.
TEXT: DEREK ANGUS (Wallace): Today there will be many New Zealanders who will be disappointed about the cavalier fashion in which the largest petition ever to be presented to Parliament was reported back to the House by the member for Hamilton West. The people will not forget that. This is the Government that was elected to discuss and to take note of the people's views. I suggest that the people have spoken. Before the debate was interrupted I had spoken about the danger of homosexual activities on the health of our people. If the Bill is passed there will be a large increase in the number of people affected and hospitalised with, in many instances, quite unfortunate results. Those facts cannot be denied. The perilous combination of a disease-ridden population and increasing promiscuity led to the recent worldwide epidemic that has brought those facts to public attention. AIDS burst into prominence in 1981, and soon had more fatalities than Legionnaires disease and toxic shock syndrome combined. Fewer than 14 percent of AIDS victims around the world have survived more than 3 years, and no victim is known to have fully recovered. Responsibility for sexual practice is shuffled to one side by the claims that homosexuals are born that way or merely discover and affirm their natural tendency, and that they cannot change their nature. On that point the factual evidence is increasingly clear and well documented. Although there were early studies that suggested a biological reason for homosexuality, nearly all modern analysts support the conclusion that homosexuals are not born that way; they learn to be that way. A professor at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine recently said: “Homosexuality - the choice of a partner of the same sex for orgiastic satisfaction-is not innate. There is no connection between sexual instinct and the choice of sexual object. Such an object choice is learnt, acquired behaviour. There is no inevitable, genetically born propensity towards the choice of a partner of either the same or the opposite sex. Homosexuals do not simply discover an alternative, perfectly normal form of sexual behaviour somehow natural to them. They acquire it through a variety of decisions, a variety of influences, and a choice and orientation towards a behaviour and later a pattern of behaviour that is disordered and dangerous.” Dr Armand Nicholai of Harvard University recently said: “I have treated hundreds of homosexuals. None of them deep down thought he was normal. Simulating eating is not eating; simulating being female is not being female; simulating sex is not sex.” Another frequent comment is, “I am for more rights, not fewer.” Giving special rights to homosexuals takes away the rights of others, and, once a homosexual makes an accusation, can even make those others guilty until proved innocent. That shift of the burden of proof is made as a typical privilege given to classes protected by homosexual rights laws. Another common saying is that we should show compassion. I certainly do. The homosexual is without doubt a proper subject for the exercise of compassion, but compassion is not shown by pretending that homosexual behaviour is normal or healthy, any more than by pretending that an alcoholic should celebrate his alcoholism. Compassion for the homosexual comes from treating him as a responsible moral being who can and must change his behaviour. Compassion must also be shown to the innocent victims of homosexuals, such as those who have been medically or psychologically damaged by them. To give homosexuals special treatment or to accept their life-style as healthy is compassionate neither to homosexuals nor to society at large. Most leading psychologists now agree that homosexuality is not innate and does not have any genetic connection. Dr Charles Socrates, author of papers most frequently used by medical scholars on the subject, has pointed out in a leading work on homosexuality that homosexuality is learnt, acquired behaviour. Other studies have demonstrated that homosexuality has nothing to do with hormones or hormonal imbalance. Another saying is that homosexuals cannot change. I have spoken to two people in the House in the past fortnight. I admire them for coming forward to members within the House who wanted to discuss with them their decision to leave the group. Recent evidence has shown that the homosexual can be changed, and they proved that to me. Another saying is that a person should be able to do what he wants to do in the privacy of his bedroom. That is simply not true, and were it to be codified society could not protect itself from incest, child abuse, bigamy, prostitution, and a host of other private acts that have more severe social consequences. Another saying is, “I am against discrimination in any form." Everyone is against discrimination. The word has a connotation of prejudice and bigotry. However, there is a difference between permitting discrimination on an irrational basis and permitting employers, landlords, or others to exercise a sound discretion based on a legitimate factor. Refusing to pass laws giving special privileges to homosexuals is not discrimination. In fact, it would be discriminatory to do so. Important decisions in life such as the decision about who may associate with one's children must naturally turn on considerations of moral character. Moreover, deep-seated religious convictions that homosexuality is wrong ought to be respected. Hon. RUSSELL MARSHALL (Minister of Education): I say at the outset that I support the Bill in its entirety as it was introduced, and I congratulate the member for Wellington Central on at last enabling the House to have the opportunity to discuss these matters. I have personally supported the proposal for reform ever since I have been in the House, and I shall go into the reasons for that shortly. I shall begin my speech with a brief recapitulation of the history of this matter in my time since 1972. When the Labour Government took office at the end of 1972 there were high hopes that some homosexual law reform legislation would be introduced. Several people were approached and names were canvassed, but unfortunately our collective caution prevailed, and before we had time finally to resolve the matter, whereby somebody in the Government ranks would introduce the Bill, the member for Waitotara, as he is now, introduced the 1974 legislation. I commend the member for his courage at that time. I know something of the travails he went through. I suspect that it is a little easier for people in metropolitan communities, although I doubt that the member for Wellington Central would agree with me; but I know that the West Coast of the North Island would not be the most popular place for a private member's Bill such as this to be introduced. However, although it was a cautious Bill the House did not have sufficient courage to pass it and it was declined. Although there were various discussions in the intervening years about the possibility of reintroducing legislation, it did not happen until the present Bill appeared. I was one of those who was involved in discussions on a number of occasions with members of the Homosexual Law Reform Society about the form of legislation that could be introduced, and who might introduce it. For example, some members will remember that when the Labour Party was in Opposition the Hon. Warren Freer was close to introducing a Bill. During those discussions it became clear that the proposal to introduce a Bill with the age of consent at 18 years did not have the support of the gay community, and that if a Bill were to be introduced the job should be done properly and the age of consent for homosexuality should be the same as for heterosexuality. I was one of those who took some time to work my way through to that view, and I shall return to my reasons for that later. I am now strongly convinced that we ought to have the same legislation across the board. I am also strongly persuaded that sexual determination is made long before anyone reaches the age of 16 years. People will not be turned into homosexuals at the age of 18 years, 17 years, 16 years, or even some years before that. I pay tribute to the efforts Marilyn Waring made during some of those years, when she was a member of the previous Government, to try to get legislation through. I remember that one of the people with whom we had discussions from time to time was the present Leader of the Opposition, who was then Attorney-General and Minister of Justice. He was encouraging to us about the manner in which we might introduce the legislation. I have been surprised and very sorry to hear the attitudes now expressed by him in the House, which are very different from the attitudes he expressed during the discussions that several of us took part in over the years. The first set of issues to which I want to give my attention arise from my position as Minister of Education. Several questions have been raised. Some have been genuinely responsible, but there has been a good deal of grossly irresponsible scaremongering. People have asked questions about the impact on schools and children if the legislation is passed. I want to answer some of those questions to the best of my ability and with the briefing I have received from my staff. The first set of questions arise from the fact that a health education syllabus has been introduced with a component that is sometimes called sex education, but is really puberty information. It also gives teachers the right to answer questions openly and honestly as they arise. There have been suggestions that, now that the syllabus has been approved and some schools are giving it a trial, homosexual teachers might seek to influence the attitudes and behaviour of students through the teaching programmes based on the revised health education syllabus, especially in discussing aspects of sex education or family life. I assure members that the contents of the programme of the health education syllabus for junior, middle, and senior primary classes do not support that claim. The suggested programme for health education is clearly spelt out at every level, and it does not include any topics that would open the way for discussion of sexual preferences. Up to standard 4 we have allowed teachers to answer questions as they arise, but not to go on at any great length. At forms I and II we are talking about coping with bodily pubertal change - nothing to do with relationships whatsoever. There is no room in the new syllabus material now prescribed for promotion of either heterosexual or homosexual attitudes or points of view. Homosexuality could arise as a topic for discussion, but all the evidence is that sexuality is determined in the earliest years of a child's life. In all aspects of the health syllabus teachers are expected to be sensitive to the parents' views and to cultural and community values. Guidelines to this effect have been drafted, and will form part of the resource materials to remind teachers that their personal viewpoints should not be promoted either through formal programmes for sex education or in answering students' questions. I have had a further briefing on this matter from officers of the curriculum development unit of the Department of Education in response to allegations made by the Concerned Parents Association and others. In replying to my queries they pointed out that the Concerned Parents Association made several references to difficulties that parents, school authorities, and employing bodies might have in taking disciplinary action against individual teachers. I am advised that the passage of the Bill would make no difference when a justifiable complaint is made about either the conduct of a teacher or a teacher's advocacy of particular values or life-styles. Parents will still have the right to complain about the actions of teachers whether the orientation is heterosexual or homosexual, and they will be able to complain to the principal of a school or to the employing authorities. The passing of the Bill will make no difference to the present position - that disciplinary proceedings cannot be taken against a teacher solely on account of his or her sexual orientation or private life-style. The memorandum goes on to point out that the Concerned Parents Association sought to raise parents' fears that homosexuality could be presented to students as “normal”, and it urged parents to require schools to uphold heterosexuality as normal and natural. Given the likely proportion of homosexuals in the community, I am informed that there could be several students in a class for whom at least one close family member will be homosexual. I am responding to remarks made in a paper, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I want to give the lie to some of the charges that have been made, in case you are uncertain about the outside comment on the legislation. I am making the point that I have been advised that some sensitivity has to be given to the number of homosexuals in the community. The chances are that at least one child in a class will know somebody, even be related to somebody, who is a homosexual. For those students the suggestion that homosexuality should be labelled as deviant behaviour is clearly an insensitive response. Students wishing to discuss their own emerging sexuality with a counsellor will also feel inhibited in doing so if such labels are rigidly applied. As the law stands at present, school counsellors experience difficulty in being able to assist those students - a difficulty not dependent on the counsellor's own sexuality. This difficulty would be removed by the passage of the Bill as it stands, as it would remove the threat of criminal proceedings in regard to a student's possible future life-style. The Concerned Parents Association also suggested that there was a possibility that children would have the act of sodomy explained in class. The excessive use of that term and the apparent view that homosexuality is principally, even exclusively, to do with sodomy reflects a very narrow view of homosexual conduct. In view of the widespread use of that word it would not be surprising if children were curious about the term. Teachers in primary schools other than those designated to use the revised syllabus would not, at present, be entitled to answer any questions relating to the term. Even in designated schools it is hard to envisage a situation in which the term would arise other than in response to questions. Neither with the health education syllabus in place nor with the passage of the legislation is it likely that there will be demonstrations or comprehensive discussions about acts of homosexuality, any more than under the new terms of the health education syllabus relating to heterosexuality. One other matter of concern raised by the proprietors of integrated schools was that teachers could promote or affirm the morality or acceptability of homosexual activities or practices, and that teachers, and pupils over 16 years of age, might be able to engage in homosexual activity on school premises. I took advice on those matters also, and have been informed by the officers of the Department of Education that the promotion of the acceptability of homosexuality is outside the curricula and syllabuses prescribed by the 1964 Education Act, and is contrary to the special character of Catholic integrated schools. Teachers would leave themselves open to disciplinary proceedings under the Act if they engaged in such promotion. If teachers were discovered on school premises engaged in sexual activity, whether heterosexual or homosexual, they could be charged with a disciplinary offence of conduct unbecoming to a teacher under section 158 of the Education Act. Pupils over the age of 16 who engaged in sexual activity, either heterosexual or homosexual, could be suspended under section 130 of the Education Act. The controlling authority has the ultimate say as to whether the suspension is lifted or the pupil is expelled. I am satisfied, both personally and as Minister of Education, that the fears - and I acknowledge the genuineness with which some of those fears have been expressed-raised about the impact of the Bill and the coincidence of the health education syllabus are entirely unfounded. I now want to refer to the major constituency that has opposed the Bill. As many members are aware, before I was elected to the House in 1972 I served for some years in the Methodist ministry. I must say that I have had some difficulty in accepting some of the people who have claimed to speak for the Christian faith and for the Christian community over recent weeks. I hope that members on both sides of the argument will at least accept that there are sharply divergent views within the Christian community about the legislation - and I shall go into some of the reasons later. The church to which I belong, and joined as long ago as 1960 - 25 years ago-decided in the aftermath of the Wolfenden report in Britain that it would, as a matter of Christian conviction, support homosexual law reform. That view was shared at the same time by the Presbyterian Church, although I am bound to say that some of its members seem to have resiled from that somewhat in the past few days. Several other Christian groups went to the select committee, and some of them spoke officially on behalf of their churches. We all have miles of paper on this matter, but amongst the papers that came in were statements from the Anglican provincial and social affairs committee, the Methodist Church, the joint Methodist-Presbyterian public questions committee, the public questions committee of the Religious Society of Friends, and the National Council of Churches general meeting. One of the things that concerns me about the debate and about the criticism of the Bill is the preoccupation with sexual activity of a rather narrow kind, and the way that it, rather than relationships, has been described. Surely it ought to be a matter of our most fundamental concern to make people whole, to liberate people, and to help to set people free--all of which are phrases that most of the churches use from time to time. We ought to be concerned about the acceptance of people for what they are. I want to tell honourable members who might be concerned that in voting for the Bill they are acting contrary to the Christian gospel, contrary to the scriptures, and contrary to the wishes of the church, that is not true. There is a substantial body of theological opinion within the Christian community that thinks we ought to take our major lead from the gospels, that we ought to recognise what the attitudes of Leviticus were, and recognise them for what they are. WINSTON PETERS: Is that the gospel according to Marshall? Hon. RUSSELL MARSHALL: No, I am concerned about the Christian gospel. I am not concerned about the Book of Leviticus. I quote two or three points that have been made to us by the churches on this matter: “As Christians we are on more reliable ground when we go back to the teachings of Jesus. In terms of proclaiming the Kingdom of God and identifying the obstacles to membership of the Kingdom, Jesus had vastly more to say about the dangers of wealth than the dangers of sexuality, and while he comments frequently on the character of loving relationships he offers no word on personal sexual orientation.” Again: “God places a unique value on each of us, and that includes homosexuals. When heterosexuals learn to value homosexuals both as persons and for the contribution they make to our communities, those devaluing myths and stereotypes which have no place in Christian witness will disintegrate.” If we are so utterly convinced of the remarkable rightness of our own point of view we are bound to be led to judgmental attitudes that make real understanding and sympathy for other people impossible. If we are so convinced of our own moral rectitude that we cannot see other people as human beings, but only their defection from our own standards, whatever they may be, I suggest that we have become very sorry specimens. Contrary to some of the impressions that are given, homosexual people are no more promiscuous than heterosexual people. Contrary to some of the things that are said, some of the most sensitive, gentle, caring people in our community are amongst the homosexuals. Contrary to what some people opposing the Bill would have us believe, all members of the House, whether they are aware of it or not, know people who are homosexual. Many people, wittingly or unwittingly, are related to them, and every time we are so rigidly judgmental in terms of our criticism of that community we are saying things about people who are closer to us than we realise, even within these buildings. It strikes me as utterly inconsistent with the spirit of the Christian gospel that we should try to put people within our own strait-jacket, and I cannot begin to comprehend those people who, in the name of the Christian gospel above all, would seek to cast these people to one side. There is nothing of Christ's spirit in that attitude. There is not one word in the Christian gospel that justifies it. I must say that I have been pained, hurt, and angry at the arrogance with which some people have sought to hijack the scriptures to their own use, purporting, by taking texts out of context, to be speaking for God himself. I am sure that the implications of the Christian gospel of the loving God, with which the member for Hauraki was brought up, as I was, are that we ought to accept people as they are; that we ought to encourage them to develop their own full personalities as human beings; and that we ought to accept that we should not try to change people to our standards and practices when they are adult and when those characteristics were formed in early childhood. I very much hope that we pass the Bill in this form. Finally, I urge those members who are nervous about the age provision to accept that heterosexual preference and homosexual preference are both determined long before the age of 16. There is no valid argument that says we should pass it half-pie. It should be left at 16. I support the Bill. ROGER MAXWELL (Taranaki): I agree with some of the statements made by the Minister of Education, particularly his statement that it is a controversial matter. It is a matter of widespread interest and there has been a good deal of debate. Some extreme views have been expressed on both sides of the argument. Before speaking about the substance of the Bill, I shall reflect on the submissions made to the committee. I remind the House of the responsibility of the committee that was charged with hearing those submissions. Its responsibility was to convey a balanced view of the evidence put forward. I shall have to put to rights some of the impressions given by the member for Hamilton West in his reporting back to the House. I remind members once again of the depth of evidence that came forward. There were 1,096 submissions, 903 of which were written; 111 oral submissions were heard, but 85 oral submissions were not although requests were made for them to be heard. There were 1,138 supporting letters. Of those, 379 were for the Bill but 759 were against it. The statistics are huge and there was a great deal of evidence to be absorbed. People were genuine in their submissions. I was embarrassed by the way some of the Government members on the committee dealt with members of the public who came forward in good faith to put their points of view. There was much intolerance, and I apologise to some of those people. Unfortunately, the same members who had illustrated that intolerance in the committee initiated the cut-off of the submissions put before the committee. I refer to the submissions of 85 people who had requested to be heard orally but were not given the opportunity. The initiator of the Bill, the member for Wellington Central, produced several telegrams indicating that people who were in favour of the Bill were prepared to forgo that opportunity; she did not produce the telegrams from people who indicated their desire to be heard on this important public issue. That was undemocratic. The chopping of the hearings while they were incomplete constitutes grounds for not supporting the Bill at this stage. People who genuinely wanted to put forward their points of view were not given an opportunity to do so. I produce the evidence of one individual who dearly wished to have the opportunity to put forward that evidence but was not able to. It related to a health worker's point of view - a point of view expressed by my colleague the member for Waikato - and to the threat perceived by many people, certainly many hospital workers, of the likelihood of an AIDS epidemic, and the account that should be taken of that when considering the passage of, or voting against, the Bill. That evidence and the evidence of my colleague was denigrated at the time by a person supporting the Bill, but there has since been further supporting evidence from several senior health officials on hospital boards. I am sure that evidence would have come forward if that individual had had the opportunity to express his point of view to the committee, which could have duly reported it to the House. I shall quote from his submission, and want the supporters of the Bill to deny its accuracy if they can: “The Wolfenden report, which was the origin of the gay liberation, stated in paragraph 52: ‘We do not think that it is proper for the law to concern itself with what a man does in private unless it can be shown to do so is contrary to the public good, that the law ought to intervene in its function as a guardian of the public good.'” The point is made that had an AIDS epidemic, for example, been concerning health authorities at the time, the Wolfenden report might well have produced a different final report. In the reporting back from the committee the point was made and the impression given - and I was in the House and heard it - that the churches were in favour of the Bill, but for every church group that came before the committee there was an opposing faction within the church group that opposed the Bill. Once again members can see the division. It is not correct for the chairman of the committee to mislead the members of the House in his report by saying that churches support the Bill. The evidence was detailed and came from a wide spectrum. The submissions illustrated much compassion and acceptance of the homosexual orientation. I accept the evidence that came forward for the work by Kinsey. That was one of the strong submissions that affected my view of whether or not to support the proposition in the Bill. I believe that the supporters of the Bill are working from a flawed proposition. The evidence given on the Kinsey work was aptly described by one of the supporters brought in from overseas especially to encourage support for the measure. That individual explained that there was a spectrum of heterosexual and homosexual orientation within individuals in a community. That could be drawn as a bell-shaped graph. If a line is drawn down the centre dissecting the bell, there would be 50 percent of people with a homosexual orientation of varying degrees on one side, and on the other side a heterosexual orientation. On both sides there would be extremes of people who might not be able to have much control over their orientation. The evidence went on to show that, while it affected both females and males, a concern expressed by many in other evidence was that male members of the community could well be more easily diverted than females from their orientation by their peer groups and the ruling social environment and attitudes. That means that if the Bill is passed and homosexual activity is given some kind of public approval, certainly more than at present, according to Kinsey a large group of people would be likely to be influenced by homosexual activity. I believe that increased activity in what could be described as a bisexual group would have an adverse effect on adolescent youths, the most vulnerable group in our community. That is one of the central points I must consider before deciding whether to support the Bill. The other important matter is whether society will condone the formal expression of individual sexuality. Many arguments have been put forward that the Bill should allow people to express individual sexuality. The record shows that society in the past has not allowed that, and that a bias has often been shown. I accept that there has been some persecution, but I suggest that that is not so now. Society has shown a better understanding of people's sexual orientation, and there will be a much better understanding overall as a result of the submissions received and of the present debate. The present legislation reinforces society's attitude by imposing quite severe legal penalties. Under sections 140 and 142 of the Crimes Act, a maximum penalty of 5 years' imprisonment is set down for any male of any age convicted of an indecent assault on another male of any age, and the consent of the other person is no defence of the crime. In the case of consenting adults I accept that that might be looked upon as a severe penalty, but during the Committee stage there might be an opportunity to consider reducing it. I cannot support a complete abolition. The existing law provides for a penalty of up to 10 years' imprisonment in some circumstances, and I understand that such penalties have been extended in the present Bill. That is a positive move that has come out of the changes. No evidence was presented to the committee that the penalties in the present law are being vigorously enforced, and people would presume that to be the case if there were a need to change the law. I have no knowledge of any person being persecuted by the law. On that basis, what is the justification for seeking the change? The important provisions in the Bill, which should be spelt out but have not been yet, are central to my conclusion that I cannot support the Bill. Clause 5 changes the circumstances under which an offence occurs. The explanatory note states: “... the new section 142 is limited to consensual anal intercourse, and then only where it is committed upon a person who is under 16 years of age or is severely subnormal. As with the new indecency provisions, a distinction is drawn between the case where the person upon whom the act of anal intercourse is committed is under 12 years of age, and the case where that person is between 12 years and 16 years of age. In the former case, the maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years, and consent is no defence." It goes on to say - and this is very important, given Kinsey's work, which I have accepted - that: “Where the person upon whom the act of anal intercourse is committed is between 12 years and 16 years of age, the maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term of 7 years. It is a defence if the defendant proves that the other person consented (unless the prosecution can show that the consent was improperly obtained), and that he is younger than that person. It is also a defence if the defendant proves that the other person consented (subject to the same qualification as above), that he himself is under the age of 21 years of age, and that he believed on reasonable grounds that the other person was of or over the age of 16 years." That is probably one of the most important points on which members have to make a judgment, and I believe that these provisions build in some protection within the law for those charged. Indeed, it places the onus of proof that anal intercourse took place without consent on the victim, and that is very important. If the victim is older or if it is believed that consent was given, the practical application of the law creates some real problems. Unfortunately, the number of assaults has increased, and the proposed legislation provides a ready-made defence for the perpetrators of those assaults. The proposed legislation conflicts with the provisions of the Rape Law Reform Bill, which proposes that the stress faced by victims should be minimised. This legislation increases the stress on the victim and therefore would seem to contradict what is being proposed in other areas. The laws of the land by their very nature restrict people's freedoms, and freedom is one of the reasons given for this Bill. The fact that freedoms are curtailed is the price society faces for an orderly society in which minority groups are often disadvantaged. We are talking about society's morality, and, although I accept that it is very difficult for society to regulate morality, we have taken that opportunity in other laws and I am not convinced that we should not do it this time. If we decriminalise sexual intercourse between homosexuals we will be condoning it in law and I believe that would be a retrograde step. The Bill does not set out to legislate against the affection that exists between homosexuals because of their orientation. I stress that it makes anal intercourse between consenting adults legal and I believe that many members of our community are not prepared to accept that provision. One of the unfortunate aspects that was brought out by the submissions was that not much help has been available for those who have some form of homosexual orientation, and, indeed, evidence was given that many groups in our society will put a great deal more effort into that. As has already been pointed out, there is evidence that people can be helped-steered in a different direction, if one likes to put it like that. Given that that is so, the reason for implementing the legislation is lessened. I bring to the attention of the House the view of a former gay activist, Noel Mosen, who maintains that homosexuality is a learnt habit that can be reversed. I believe that as time passes there will be increasing evidence that that is so, and I applaud those who have said that they will continue to put more effort into counselling. That has not been given sufficient attention in the past. I shall go on to Part II and say that I cannot support the restrictive nature of that provision. It creates problems for the armed forces, for institutions such as boarding schools, and for landlords. I believe it should be the individual's right to choose his tenants. I do not believe that denying the rights of one group and giving dubious benefits to others is sufficient reason to change the law. I do not believe that trying to legislate people's attitudes will work, and if there has been persecution of homosexuals in the past that, unfortunately, might well continue. The Bill and the discussion and debate that followed its introduction will help the understanding of the problem in the community. In rejecting the Bill we are not abandoning the 5 percent to 10 percent of people who have a strong homosexual orientation. It is much better that we understand the problem. It has been an educational exercise for me, but I have not been convinced that I should support the Bill. Numerous amendments have been put forward, but they do not change my view. I do not believe that the Bill was handled in the way it should have been in the select committee. I have some sympathy with the suggestion put forward that a commission should be a forerunner to this kind of legislation. A great deal of sympathy has been expressed for people with a strong homosexual orientation, but I believe that there is still insufficient evidence to allow me to support the Bill, and I shall vote against it. DENIS MARSHALL (Rangitikei): The issue of homosexual law reform is certainly one of the most controversial debated by the public in New Zealand for many years. Unfortunately, much of the debate in the public arena has been somewhat uninformed, but over the three successive evenings the House has debated the issue there have been some excellent speeches by members, and they have expressed many and varied points of view. Some of the more technical information such as that provided by my colleague the member for Waikato has been relevant, particularly in today's society when the issue of AIDS is a new one and is of real concern to all. Six months ago I replied to many of those who wrote to me on this issue in the following manner: " I am totally opposed to the Bill in its present form, which in effect legalises homosexual activity between consenting males over the age of 16 years. However, because of the fact that society does not enforce the present law, which imposes a term of imprisonment for up to 5 years for homosexuals, I believe there is a case of reviewing the law and decriminalising homosexual relations between consenting males at the age of 20." I consulted my constituents on that matter. " I do not believe in fact that we should have laws that are not enforced, and this change could put the law on a similar basis to that in England when it was amended some 18 years ago. Nevertheless, I believe it is absolutely essential that adolescent males must be protected and that the change and the increased penalty in the proposed legislation to 7 years' imprisonment for indecent assault in the proposed law is an example of such protection. In the Bill which is before the House the age limit for decriminalisation is unacceptably low and the clauses amending the Human Rights Commission Act is unacceptable also in my view. I will be recording my vote against the second reading of the Bill.” I consulted my constituents widely, and without a doubt the majority opposed the Bill on the grounds of their disapproval of homosexuality. However, even the strongest opponents of the reform do not want the position whereby consenting males could be convicted as criminals for homosexual acts and face a term of imprisonment of up to 5 years. That is the difficulty in which most members of society find themselves: they disapprove of homosexuality, and, of course, they should always remain free to do that. However, they do accept that the criminality accorded to homosexuals today is inappropriate. Even some of those church groups that have taken a strong stand on the issue, such as the Salvation Army, have said that imprisonment is inappropriate. I understand that the Presbyterian Church has also expressed that view during the past few days. There has been much speculation about the effect on society of any possible reform in the present law: There have been descriptions of societies centred on gay bathhouses, as in San Francisco, and references to the law as it stands in the United Kingdom. Frankly, I am attracted to the degree of reform that has existed in the United Kingdom for the past 18 years. Having spent some time in the United Kingdom 20 years ago and again 2 years ago I could not identify any particular moral deterioration in that society, which, apart from our neighbour across the Tasman, is the society with which we most closely relate. After studying the Wolfenden report the British Parliament decriminalised homosexual acts between consenting adults from the age of 21. In today's society we could, perhaps, support decriminalisation from the age of 20. However, the new disease of AIDS, which was not apparent 20 years ago, undoubtedly clouds the issue. I believe we need the medical profession to alleviate strongly the widespread public concern about that disease. Many constituents who contacted me expressed their abhorrence of homosexuality. It certainly does not appeal to me, either, but I must say that some of the most highly respected members of the community came to me and revealed that they are, in fact, homosexuals. I certainly feel for them, because they have undoubtedly lived under tremendous pressure. As a member of the Church of England I want to dwell for a moment on the issue from a Christian point of view. From the many letters I have received expressing different interpretations of the Bible I know that Christians are deeply divided on the issue. The Council of Churches supports reform, while other churches are opposed to reform. However, the prejudice, bigotry, and intolerance expressed by many certainly have no place in my understanding of Christianity. Personally, I agree with the view that the Bible is a standard for moral and ethical behaviour-it is not a legal code. It is a guide to direct us how best we can reflect Christ's life within our own culture and our own experience. I also believe that society wants to express its disapproval, and I do not believe that we should necessarily treat homosexuals as criminals. Most of us would condemn adultery, but few would want to see it lead to arrest and prosecution. One religious forum that expressed its views on the issue was the Inter-Church Council on Public Affairs, which believes that extreme positions on both sides of the debate are not consistent with the gospels or Christian tradition, nor are they helpful to homosexuals or society. The council called for tolerance and understanding among those who hold sincere and deeply felt differences of opinion on the issue. It said that at one extreme are those who seek to promote homosexual behaviour and life-styles as desirable alternatives to marriage and family life, while at the other extreme are those whose disapproval of homosexual behaviour has become distorted into a cruel rejection and disparagement of homosexual persons. Neither of those positions is consistent with Christian tradition now, and the council's view was that they were particularly unhelpful. It felt that it was necessary to look more deeply into the complex issues involved. However, as with most people in New Zealand today, the council stopped short of commenting on the provisions contained in the proposed legislation, because its members were divided on the Bill. The Church of England has also had difficulty in reaching a common view on an acceptable degree of reform. As far back as 1981 the diocesan commission on homosexuality reported to the Dunedin Synod, and that report was generally a cautious document. There was unanimous agreement that homosexual acts in private between consenting adults should not be the subject of police investigation or criminal prosecution, but, once again, the commission could not agree on the exact nature of an acceptable law reform. I shall deal with the section of the Bill that seeks to amend the Human Rights Commission Act. Would any reform of the present law in relation to that Act change people's attitude to one another? I do not believe it would. We have heard many personal stories during the debate relating to the degree of acceptance or non-acceptance of homosexuals. I can think of people who have been ostracised by their families and friends as a result of their homosexual orientation. Will a degree of reform to a particular age change the attitude of such a person's family or friends to his orientation? I think not. I should say that the family or friends of that person who want to ostracise him should have the right to do so. If an employer does not wish to employ a homosexual, we cannot force the issue. On those grounds I cannot support the amendment to the Human Rights Commission Act that is contained in the Bill, because I believe that the ultimate human right is not to associate with a person, or not to employ a person if one has a moral objection to that person's activity or orientation. On those grounds I shall vote against that clause in the Bill. It is unfortunate that the need for homosexual law reform was prompted by such an extreme measure as the Bill. In its present form it has proved to be amongst the most divisive legislation ever introduced into the House. Unfortunately, it was introduced at a time when a new dimension of homosexuality became apparent because of the spread of AIDS and its effect on society. Some members have already given notice that further legislation will be introduced to repeal the Bill if it is passed. I think that is unfortunate, because it indicates that the matter has not been fully understood by the public and Parliament. It prolongs the argument. It could have been most beneficial to have the matter studied by an independent body and I certainly believe that the member for Napier made a reasonable suggestion when he proposed that a royal commission should study homosexuality and bring down a report such as the Wolfenden report that went before the British Parliament. I refer to the new dimension of AIDS that was not apparent when the Wolfenden report was introduced to the British Parliament. Whatever course of action is taken, I should have preferred the House to have such an authoritative document to debate so that the public could refer to it, and members of Parliament could certainly debate it. In those circumstances, although I support a degree of reform and I shall support an amendment to the Bill replacing the age of 16 years with 20 years if that amendment is moved in the Committee stage, I cannot support the second reading of the Bill as it is. At this stage it is far too extreme. NEILL AUSTIN (Bay of Islands): I say at the outset that I oppose the Bill in all its forms and with whatever amendments may come before the House. I cannot find it in my make-up to support any aspect of it. I reached that conclusion the day the Bill was introduced. I appreciated the letters of support I received from within my own electorate and from many areas of New Zealand when the public learnt by way of the newspaper that I opposed the Bill's introduction. It has not taken public comment, private letters to me, or any other form of communication-spoken, written, or whatever - to persuade me that no good will come if the Bill is passed in whatever form. I am my own best friend and also my own worst enemy. I have to look at my image in the mirror every morning when I shave. Sometimes that image is a little clouded, but never have I been afraid to look at myself and say that I believe I have not done so badly the day before in the stand I have taken on a particular issue. On this moral issue I can say quite truthfully that the mirror I look into each morning is as clear as I would hope it to be. I regret that I cannot quote the scriptures at length and cannot quote chapter and verse to support my reasons for opposing the legislation. There has been much talk in the Chamber-well meaning and sincere - from both sides of the argument. I too am sincere and well meaning when I say that I shall not support the legislation in any form. It is comforting to me to know that I have made that decision without pressure and without advice from any person in my electorate. I acknowledge that subsequent to my making that decision I had dozens of letters from people throughout the country. The ones I value particularly are those from my own electorate that support my stand in opposition to the Bill. At public meetings I have attended and spoken at, not only in my electorate but also in other parts of New Zealand, on topics that have no relationship to the legislation, the question has inevitably arisen of what the public's attitude is to a lowering of the moral standards of the nation. I am not prepared to be party to going below the imaginary code or line of moral conduct beneath which I believe we as a nation and as individuals dare not fall . None of us has exactly the same argument or exactly the same opinions about that imaginary line. I have attended public meetings in my electorate on many topics. I am proud to say that not once did I receive threats or any adverse comment about my judgment on the matter from any person attending those public meetings. However, I am rather distressed to report that I have received letters from people who suggested that if I lend my support to the Bill my political future could possibly be in jeopardy. I say to those people about half a dozen at the most - who wrote to me in that vein that I value my integrity, for whatever it is worth. I shall not subjugate my moral standards, which have been imposed upon me by no one, to the demands of those people who suggest that I will be out of public office unless I support their particular point of view. I have said to my electorate, and I say to the House, that I would far sooner be out of public office than not to be able to look at myself in the mirror in the way I mentioned a few moments ago. An individual's stand on a moral issue is his decision, and his alone. Some members have been assisted in formulating their opinion by taking opinion polls. I make no criticism of them for that. However I did not find it necessary to do so. I took my stand before the pressure built up by way of petitions to the House or by the progression of the Bill through the House. My decision was made without the need to conduct opinion polls. I am pleased to say that I have received many letters of support from my own electorate. I have one here that I value as much as I value letters of support received from individuals. It is from my own home town of Kaikohe, from the Kaikohe Union Parish Church, which conducted a survey amongst its members. The letter from the session clerk stated: “The response to our circular requesting opinions we consider was significant, and also the resulting correspondence is very interesting and indicates that many people and congregations have given a lot of consideration to this subject.” I am not a particularly good church-goer, and I say that with a degree of sorrow. If I wanted to I could make all kinds of excuses about why I do not attend a church regularly, but I do not propose to do that. I have to live with myself, and I do not have to attend church and prayers to know that in my own estimation I am conducting myself as I would wish. My wife and family accept that that is my moral standard of conduct. I have also received letters from almost every locality within my electorate supporting my decision, which was made in isolation away from the pressures and advice of good and well-meaning people. Having made my decision I was encouraged by the 8,742 people who signed a petition that was circulated in my electorate opposing the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. Only one person who signed that petition has written to me and said that the signature on the petition was not supported, and asked to have it removed. I wrote back to that person and said I was more than happy to tell the organisers of the petition to have the name removed. That means that 8741, not 8742, citizens in my electorate signed the petition opposing the Bill. I was also particularly pleased and humbled to receive letters from the Maori people within my electorate. I might add that they were not on my electorate roll, but on the Northern Maori roll. They supported the decision I have made before any pressures built up. I shall quote from one of the many letters I received from my good friends the Maori people of Tai Tokorau: “So many of our Maori folk and pakeha folk feel about this Homosexual Law Reform Bill, which we believe if passed could spell disaster to this small country of ours, New Zealand-most Maori folk feel that this Bill, if passed, would negate many of the teachings that we have learnt in this last 150 years from the Christian faith.” It goes on to state that if their Maori ancestors who signed the Treaty of Waitangi had realised that there would be legislation before the House to lower the moral standards and the moral teachings that they were taught by the Christian faith, many if not most of them would not have signed the Treaty of Waitangi. That is how many of my Maori friends regard the prospect of the lowering of our moral standards if the Bill is passed. In conclusion I repeat to any who may wish to take note of what I say that I would much rather be out of public life than lower my moral standards by supporting the lowering of the morality of this country if the Bill is passed. I oppose the introduction of the Bill and I propose to oppose the legislation every step of the way. PAUL EAST (Rotorua): I have listened with interest to the speeches made on the second reading of the Bill and I have to say that Parliament hears some of the best speeches from members on these vexed conscience issues. I do not doubt for one moment the sincerity with which the speeches on both sides of the argument have been delivered. I shall not speak at any great length, but I feel that members should explain to the House and to their constituents why they have reached certain conclusions on the legislation. I voted for the introduction of the Bill because I believed - and I still believe - that the decriminalisation of homosexual acts is a subject that Parliament should properly consider and study, and that we should all inquire whether those acts should be legalised. I sat on the Justice and Law Reform Committee-formerly the Statutes Revision Committee-month after month, listening to the submissions made on the Bill. During the whole time that the legislation was referred to the committee I was the senior Opposition member present, and having heard all the evidence I believe there are grounds for the decriminalisation of homosexual acts. TREVOR MALLARD: The member came 9 times out of 26. PAUL EAST: We are getting the immediate reaction one would expect from the more vociferous proponents of the legislation. I want to set out my views clearly, irrespective of their behaviour, which, now they have raised it, is a matter that I feel I must deal with. At the appropriate time I shall seriously consider supporting the amendment that my colleague the member for Fendalton proposes - that homosexual acts between persons of 20 years of age be decriminalised. It is my personal view that homosexual acts should not be punished by the law, but I must say that the legislation the select committee studied and that was brought before the House goes much further than that. There are two points on which I disagree strongly with the legislation. First, in my view the age limit of 16 years is far too young. Boys of 16 years are still struggling with maturity. I believe they are not of an age at which they can properly consider whether they should indulge in homosexual behaviour. I disagree strongly with the provisions in the Bill that would enable youths of 16 years of age to engage in homosexual practices. I also strongly disagree with the human rights provisions contained in the legislation, which imply total acceptance of homosexuality by the public. I, for one, am not convinced that New Zealanders totally accept homosexuality, and I do not think that Parliament should, by legislation, force that acceptance on a society that is not ready for it and does not want it. At this stage, New Zealand society is not in a position to accept such a dramatic change to the law. In this legislation we are not seeking just decriminalisation; we are seeking acceptance by society, and in that respect the legislation goes too far. I have to say that it goes much too far when one considers the other human rights legislation and realises that there are discriminations in relation to age, race, religion, and sex. The police service, the armed forces, the prison service, and churches are not required to comply with human rights legislation in certain areas, but there are no exceptions in this legislation. That means that the police service, the armed forces, and the prison service will be required, by law, to accept in employment active, visible, practising homosexuals. It also means that organisations such as the boy scouts will be required to accept into full-time employment active, visible, practising homosexuals, and that schools run by churches that can have very strong fundamental beliefs about homosexuality will be required by this legislation to accept into employment active, visible, practising homosexuals, when that would obviously cause considerable problems for those organisations. We are not aware of any normal human rights exceptions that relate to race, religion, creed, and sex. The debate has covered extreme points of view on both sides of the argument, and that has not helped Parliament reach a conclusion on the legislation. On the one hand extremist statements have been made in the name of religion, and on the other hand there have been the activities of the homosexual community, and we have witnessed on television members of the Salvation Army being abused and molested on the way to church. Those on both sides who have acted in that manner have done their cause and Parliament a grave disservice. They should know that their actions have not convinced any member of Parliament that their cause should be supported, but in many cases have driven reasonable, sensible members to think again about the legislation. For those reasons, when a member finds himself in agreement with perhaps 25 percent of the Bill but cannot support 75 percent of it, I believe he should vote against the second reading. I shall be doing so, and I am particularly reinforced in my view by the manner in which the select committee handled the Bill. I take the strongest exception to the manner in which the Government members of the Justice and Law Reform Committee dealt with the Bill. I refer particularly to the select committee hearing on Wednesday, 2 October, which must be regarded as a black day in the history of Parliament in relation to a select committee hearing submissions from concerned members of the public. It was on that day that the two Opposition members of the Justice and Law Reform Committee came to that select committee hearing, prepared to hear evidence from the considerable number of people who still wanted to make their point of view known to Parliament on this very important Bill. I have to report that it was obvious to the two Opposition members present - the member for Waipa and me - that the Government members had already decided how best the Bill would be disposed of. They moved a motion that the committee deliberate immediately on the Bill, although some 70 or 80 groups, organisations, and individuals had taken the time to present submissions to Parliament and still wanted to make sure their point of view was made known to that committee. That was an affront to our democracy. Government members, by exercising their majority and overruling the two Opposition members denied those citizens, groups, and organisations their democratic right to come to Parliament and present their views to a select committee. Not only did the committee do that, but the Government members, again by weight of numbers, again over the vigorous protests of my colleague the member for Waipa and me, moved that a large number of parliamentary petitions on the issue of homosexual law reform-about 34 petitions - be dealt with in that cavalier fashion. It is one of the most ancient rights of a citizen to petition Parliament and to present one's views. I do not mind what side of the argument those petitioners are on; the simple fact is that it is their right so to petition Parliament, and they have been denied that right. The submissions were dealt with in a disgraceful way, and as a parliamentarian I was ashamed that a select committee dealt with the matter in the way it did. When I put the issue to Government members they could not produce one valid reason why the committee should stop hearing evidence and report back. The only reason they could produce was that it was a matter of convenience to the committee, that it had been sitting for 5 months, that that was long enough, that it might as well pack up the hearings and report back, irrespective of the people who had taken the trouble to prepare submissions and who still wanted to be heard. What made matters worse was the move to deliberate after hearing only part of the evidence. The committee did not discharge its duty to Parliament. When a Bill is sent to a select committee it is sent there for all the evidence to be heard, not just the evidence decided on by a gang that jacks up the committee and wants to steamroller its views over those of other members. The committee was given a job by Parliament that it did not fulfil, because it did not consider all the evidence. Not only did the committee deny an opportunity to many worth-while organisations and groups - and the National Council of Women was one organisation whose views I would have liked to hear but which was denied the opportunity of being heard on the matter - but it denied the departmental advisers of the Department of Justice, who had been sitting through committee hearings for 5 months, the opportunity of discussing those matters with the select committee. The Department of Justice reports were prepared. The committee received one, on the first half of the Bill, at the time it moved straight into deliberation, and it had no opportunity to consider it. The second Department of Justice report on the Bill came to members of the committee after the committee had already been forced to deliberate and to report back to the House. What use is it to have Government officials sit on the committee for 5 months and then deny them an opportunity to discuss those matters with committee members? The advisory officer to the committee then prepared a massive report, which again the committee members had no opportunity to consider before deliberating. I would also have liked to have the opportunity to seek the advice of the Human Rights Commission and to ask it to come before the committee, to explore with it the commission's views on the second part of the Bill dealing with human rights. But no, the committee was denied that opportunity. To make the position even worse, half way through that charade the Government members realised the damage they were doing to their cause so, in the interests of open government, they ordered the press from the room and took a vote to exclude the news media from the consideration of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill before the Justice and Law Reform Committee. The consideration was effectively held behind a shroud of secrecy because the Government members insisted, over my wishes and those of the member for Waipa, that the press should not remain. As a only now do we have the opportunity to inform Parliament of the disgraceful way in which the Justice and Law Reform Committee was forced to deal with the matter by weight of numbers of Government members, who had obviously come to the committee with a predetermined course of action on Wednesday, 2 October. It is an affront to Parliament that the Bill should proceed further in those circumstances. I hope that members will vote on the measure by saying to the sponsors of the Bill, who have a considerable measure of public support, that they should go away, start again, and do the job properly in the proper, traditional, democratic way, and not try to force the Bill through the House as they are doing. Having said that, I think I have outlined to the House and to my constituents the reason for the stand that I am taking on the second reading of the Bill. CLIVE MATTHEWSON (Dunedin West): During the election campaign before the last election I was asked several times what my reaction would be to a Homosexual Law Reform Bill, and I replied that I would vote for reform but that I did not consider it a pressing issue beside such matters as the economy, justice, and so on. Since that time, however, some water has gone under the bridge, a Bill has been introduced, members have all received a lot of mail, and I have done much study of the issue. I end up with no question about how I want to vote; but I end up also wishing to speak. I am speaking because I now consider the issue to be more important than I did at the time of the election. I consider the issue to be that of tolerance versus a morally judgmental view; of the role of the law; of rationality versus fear, and of sexual equality. I shall argue rationality, I hope. However, I have acquired strong feelings on the issue since the election. Those feelings came to a head when the petition against the Bill was presented. I watched the presentation of that petition, and I was offended by others taking over God, family, the country, and the national anthem to their cause, because I, too, feel some affinity with those items, and I do not believe that they belong to only one side of the argument. I found offensive the certainty, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that the view of those people was not only right but that it alone had moral force, and that it should be forced on others. I accept and respect the fact that many people in my electorate, and in other electorates, are opposed to the Bill, are genuine in their feelings, and have very real fears about it. However, there are not more than 9,150 of those people in my electorate, because of those issues that have been canvassed already about the method of counting. That is not the real matter as issue. I was surprised by the way the petition was presented on the steps of Parliament. The boxes that were brought up the steps were not full. Why would the presenters of the petition bring a lot of empty boxes up the steps unless they were trying to impress people about the number of signatures collected? None of the boxes was even half full, and many of them had only an inch or two of paper in the bottom. Anybody can examine them and verify that. What was the reason behind that deception? If the petition had the force of reason behind it, it did not need to be made defective in that way. The presenters of the petition have threatened those who vote for the Bill with electoral defeat. I resent the idea that I am here just because I want to stay here. I must take notice of my constituents, but in the end I must vote for what I think is right, and I resent the implied threat, and the suggestion that I should vote against what I believe just for electoral advantage - and I shall not. I believe that sometimes a law should not be there, simply because there is no consensus on that law. I think law is generally bad law if only 50 percent agree that such a law is needed, because if only 50 percent agree that such a law is needed then clearly it does not have the respect of the majority of people, as I believe laws need to have. We all agree that we should have a law against murder, but we certainly do not all agree that we should have a law against homosexual activity. I believe that the standard of consensus required for us to have a law on moral issues such as this needs to be a great deal more than 50 percent, and that is not so. More than 50 percent of people believe that the law against homosexual activity should not exist; nor do I believe that we should keep a law just because it exists already. We should start from scratch and decide whether we need a law that is on the books, which is what the debate is all about. My principal concern is that it is not the role of the law to tell adults what they can do in private with consent, when no one else is involved, let alone hurt, apart from those consenting adults. In that respect I shall quote from the report of the Department of Justice, which the previous speaker said had not been able to be considered by the committee. It could have been considered, because committee members had the report to read - as the rest of us had - and even though it could not be presented orally the fact remains that the report was there. I quote from the report about the role of the criminal law: “By and large the criminal law of countries such as New Zealand does not intervene in the private lives of citizens to enforce any particular moral viewpoint. In a democratic and pluralistic society it is generally accepted that the law ought to recognise individual freedom of choice in matters of private morality, except where it is necessary to prohibit behaviour which occasions identifiable harm to others. “Broadly speaking, New Zealand's criminal code is concerned with restraining conduct which causes harm to others, protecting public decency, and maintaining public order. There are very few offences contained in the Crimes Act of which it could be said that the principal purpose of the prohibition is to enforce a moral standard. This approach is not really surprising. There are few moral issues on which society at large would be capable of reaching substantial agreement. To the argument that the criminal law is an appropriate instrument for enforcing one particular code of behaviour, the question then becomes which or whose morality should prevail. It would be quite inappropriate to expect the State to make such a choice. " If public debate on the Bill illustrates nothing else, it illustrates that there is no consensus in the community about the morality of homosexual conduct and the proscription of such conduct by criminal means. In these circumstances it would be normal for the criminal law to stand aside. To that extent the continued prohibition of consensual homosexual acts is an exception to traditional concepts about the proper scope of the criminal law.” That is a clear statement about the criminal law and I believe that an understanding of that is necessary for members of Parliament, who must examine the arguments for and against the legislation in a rational way. We do not have the luxury of having a view that can be held against the evidence. We must examine the arguments for and against the Bill and examine them in the light of the evidence. I shall refer to the arguments that have been advanced against the Bill. The first is that it is against Christian values. We have already canvassed whether one morality should be enshrined in the law, but also there is the question of what the Christian view is. I, like other members, have had many letters and communications from Christian people who favour repeal of the law as it stands. When I look at both sides of the argument I see the logic of decriminalisation from a Christian viewpoint because of the tolerance expressed on the side of reform. One of the other arguments against the Bill is that homosexuality is “curable”. That should not matter, even if it were, but the evidence is that that is not So-that homosexuality is fixed as a sexual orientation in people well before they reach the age of 16 years or, indeed, puberty. That is the overwhelming weight of the evidence and that is what we should listen to. To do anything else ignores that evidence. The third argument against the Bill is that homosexuality will cause the break-up of the family. I find that argument hard to follow, because the first element of it is that a change in the law will create more homosexuality and more homosexual activity. That is simply not the evidence from countries overseas that have changed the law. The second point is that I cannot see the mechanism for the break-up of the family in the passing of the Bill. Homosexuals are born into families, and decriminalisation of homosexuality will surely not cause them to lose their mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters. If they are not going to lose their mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters because of the Bill, perhaps it is because homosexuals generally do not have children. Surely that could not be a reason to rate them as criminals, because celibacy is accepted as a valid life-style if it is chosen, and celibates do not have children and we do not decide to make criminals of them. Perhaps it is thought that husbands will all suddenly rush off and become homosexuals? That simply does not accord with the sexual orientation of heterosexuals, who will not suddenly decide to become homosexual when the Bill is passed. That argument is not rational. The argument that the Bill will break up families is not logical. The fourth reason advanced against the Bill is that homosexuals indulge in child abuse and homosexual rape. I have received a letter stating that there will be hordes of homosexual gangs sodomising innocent citizens if the Bill is passed. The answer to that is that countries that have already decriminalised homosexual behaviour have not seen the kind of behaviour described in that letter. I would like to list some of the countries that have decriminalised homosexual acts. The idea has been advanced that we should have an inquiry. However, we are not exactly trying something new and radical. The United Kingdom has been mentioned, and homosexuality was decriminalised there many years ago. In Sweden the age of consent is 15, the same as for heterosexuals; in Norway the age of consent is 16, the same as for heterosexuals; in France the age of consent is the same as for heterosexuals; in Denmark the age of consent is 15, the same as for heterosexuals; in Austria the age of consent is 19; in the Federal Republic of Germany the age of consent is 18; in Italy the age of consent is the same as for heterosexuals - in Italy there has never been a criminal law against homosexuality; in Switzerland a commission has been established which recognises a liberalisation of the law, in the Netherlands the age of consent is 16, the same as for heterosexuals; in Belgium the age of consent is 18, and for heterosexuals 16; in Spain the age of consent is the same as for heterosexuals. JOHN BANKS: This isn't new! CLIVE MATTHEWSON: If it is not new, and the member for Whangarei knows it, why does he seem to think that we are doing something strange by introducing such a Bill? I am emphasising that New Zealand is not doing something new, strange, or radical, compared with other countries. In 1981 the Council of Europe, in a committee on social and health questions, adopted a draft recommendation on the elimination of discrimination against homosexuals, and particularly recommended that criminal liability for homosexual behaviour between adults should be abolished. More than half the states in the United States have decriminalised homosexual conduct in private. In Australia, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory have done the same. South Australia decriminalised homosexual conduct in private in 1976. It is interesting to note that up to a month ago not a single case of AIDS had been reported in South Australia, and that state has had decriminalisation of homosexual activity since 1976; whereas Florida, where it remains criminal, has the third-highest level of AIDS in the world. Those facts are contained in the Department of Justice report, so they are well documented. New Zealand is not doing something strange. The fifth argument advanced against the Bill relates to AIDS. I do not expect that any member would argue against the need to contain AIDS. However, one should consider the evidence about whether AIDS will increase with decriminalisation, or whether it will decrease. I have already noted the cases of Florida and South Australia, and the Director General of Health in New Zealand has said that there is no reasonable correlation between the incidence of AIDS and the law, and I accept that to be an authoritative opinion. I am not sure that the Bill will reduce the prevalence of AIDS, but I believe that it will certainly not make the position worse. If the threat of AIDS itself will not cause people to refrain from anal intercourse then the existence of an Act that is hardly enforced surely will not do so. That is a logical argument, and I invite members to try to argue with it. The only question that really must be decided is that of age, accepting that consenting adult behaviour should be decriminalised. It is logical to have the same age as for heterosexuality, or there is a discrimination between homosexual and heterosexual behaviour and between male and female persons. I believe that 16 is the age that should apply. I understand the reasoning of those who support the first part of the Bill but not the second. I understand their idea that personal freedom is the motivator-the freedom to hire whoever one likes, and so on. However, personal freedom must sometimes be curtailed. For example, we do not have the freedom to drive on the right-hand side of the road, for obvious reasons. I regard discrimination against homosexuality as no different from discrimination on the grounds of race or sex. People who apply for a job have a right to be treated according to the characteristics relevant to the job and not according to prejudice against what they do privately. Therefore I shall vote for the second part of the Bill. Morality has been mentioned tonight and on other nights. I regard values such as honesty, justice, caring for others, and intellectual honesty as moral values. That indicates to me that the moral position to take on the Bill is to support it, and I do not regard my view as being less moral than the view of the Bill's opponents. They are entitled to the view that they are more moral than I, but I certainly do not accept that. The Bill will be passed and it will lift a weight from perhaps 10 percent of the male population. Perhaps even more important, it will signal maturity and tolerance in our society. I am pleased to be able to endorse the Bill, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. NORMAN JONES (Invercargill): We have heard the story about homosexuality and AIDS being prevalent in Florida, where homosexuality is still illegal. That has happened because Fidel Castro got rid of 207,000 of his prisoners and criminals, including 72,000 homosexuals whom he let out of communist Cuba into Florida, and that is why AIDS is prevalent. I give notice of an amendment at the second reading stage under Standing Order 213. I intend to move that the question be amended by omitting the word “now” and adding the words " this day 12 months”. It opens up the second reading debate for anyone who wants to have a second go, and that will give all the members who think it is a good idea the opportunity to continue. I shall give the reasons that I think the Bill should lie on the table for another 12 months before the House does anything further with it. I am sure that many members will rise to keep the debate going. The homosexual community received one hell of a shock in March. When the Bill was introduced the homosexual community thought that it would go into Parliament and be passed. It did pass the first reading by 51 votes to 24 votes, with 20 members absent. They had planned to bring the Bill in with the connivance of the Labour Government caucus as a diversion. TREVOR MALLARD: Rubbish! NORMAN JONES: There is no question about that. Not one voice was raised against the Bill in the caucus. The member for Wellington Central brought the Bill in as a diversion 8 months ago. The Government thought that it would pass through the House in a few weeks, but here we are, 8 months later, and we are still not through the second reading. Those people who are missing out on something outside the House and who have come here for the past three Wednesdays had better all go back to work, because they are missing out on their money and will not make any here. They did not expect the tremendous opposition that would be generated by the Bill, and thought it would be passed through its introduction stage easily - as it was, by 51 votes to 24 in early March. But here we are in November and they are not overjoyed about that today. I will wager a dozen bottles of whisky with any member that the Bill will not pass through the House in its present form. I am confident of that, because I have been doing my counting. I have been in the House during the debate over the 3 nights, and I have done my homework. There are perhaps 36 members who will vote against the Bill at every stage. There are probably 34 or 35 members who will vote for it at every stage. The homosexual task force has given instructions that the Bill must be passed with the 16 years of age provision. I know that amendments are proposed to increase the age to 18 years or 20 years. I shall vote against fixing the age at 20 years or 18 years. However, the final voting will be for the age of 16 years, or nothing, and I pick that the House will vote against the Bill. It is not over yet. The Bill will receive another second reading, and members will be able to speak again. There has been an internationally organised campaign by homosexuals. JIM ANDERTON: Organised? NORMAN JONES: The member for Sydenham who is trying to interject is the buddy member for Invercargill. Every time he opens his mouth in Invercargill he puts another 500 votes in my pocket. He is the best buddy one could have, and long may he remain the buddy member for Invercargill. I assure members that if the Bill is passed in any shape or form the repeal referendum petition will start the next day. It will be based on computerised electoral rolls. Every elector will be given the opportunity to sign the repeal petition that I, or someone else, will present in the House in 12 months' time. The matter will not go away. I tell members that it can be done. CLIVE MATTHEWSON: The member's obsessed. NORMAN JONES: Well, if I am obsessed it is a magnificent obsession. I am a liberal person. I am prepared to agree to disagree on matters such as abortion and adult adoption. I can see both sides of an argument, but on this matter an argument is either right or wrong. I shall not be mealymouthed and say that I agree to disagree. The Bill is wrong. I do not distinguish between sinners. I am no table-thumping, Bible-bashing Christian. I probably represent three-quarters of the 835,000 signatories to the petition who, like myself, do not go to church. I shall go to my Lord on Judgment Day and say: “Lord, I drink whisky, I swear, and I used to chase women, but there is one thing for sure - I do not chase blokes." I do not go to church; I go down to the stables and watch my horses work out. I will go down to hell, and I will have the company of the Anglican parsons, the Presbyterian parsons, and the Methodist parsons who go to their congregations and say that sodomy can be condoned because it is not a sin. They are being paid to preach the gospel. They will have more trouble with the Lord on Judgment Day than I will. I would like to be a fly on the wall when they are making their excuses. I want to return to the seriousness of the matter. It is not a laughing matter when the whole of the heterosexual population-not only the 5 percent or 4 percent homosexual population-is deliberately at risk from the homosexually induced venereal disease of AIDS. There is an internationally organised campaign amongst homosexuals in every country in the world. Hon. BOB TIZARD: People like the member are more in danger of Legionnaires disease. NORMAN JONES: The Minister of Energy is more in danger of senility than anything else. Throughout the international homosexual community there has been a campaign to pressurise the non-homosexual population to legalise sodomy to prevent the spread of the homosexual disease AIDS. That is what homosexuals have been doing. It became obvious 5 years ago to homosexuals in the United Kingdom, Europe, America, and all over the world that they were killing themselves by the thousands with AIDS. It was obvious to them that no Government or major multinational corporation would spend millions of dollars on research on a homosexual disease when homosexuals make up only a small percentage of the population. They would not be able to get the kind of money spent on AIDS research to stop this fatal disease that other people were receiving to spend on multiple sclerosis, cancer, arthritis, and so on. Therefore, the only hope for the international homosexual community was for the world's blood banks to become sufficiently contaminated with AIDS and for enough innocent people, women and children, haemophiliacs, wives of bisexual men, and members of the heterosexual community-to become contaminated with the AIDS virus and be poisoned to death by that homosexual venereal disease. World Governments, corporations, medical foundations, and local governments are spending millions of dollars on research. The homosexual community is bloody minded. It has blamed the heterosexuals for the complaint, and has deliberately spread the AIDS disease into the world's blood banks. Until Parliament can assure the heterosexual community that the Department of Health and the New Zealand medical profession can protect haemophiliacs against the AIDS virus, and that the blood banks are not contaminated, we should not legalise sodomy at 16 years of age. If the Bill is passed, AIDS will increase, not decrease. Debate interrupted. The House adjourned at 11 p. m.

IRN: 3859
PRIDENZ URL: https://www.pridenz.com/hansard_homosexual_law_reform_bill_second_reading_continued_13_november_1985.html
TITLE: Homosexual Law Reform Bill - second reading continued (13 November 1985)
DATE: 13 November 1985
LOCATION: Parliament buildings, 1 Molesworth Street, Wellington, New Zealand.
TEXT: NORMAN JONES (Invercargill): Last Wednesday I moved an amendment that the Bill should lie upon the table for 12 months. I did that because if the Bill is passed in its present form, before the New Zealand Department of Health can guarantee that every blood donation throughout New Zealand is tested for the AIDS virus, it will accelerate the spread of AIDS from the homosexual community to the heterosexual community, and that is not on. Innocent people such as haemophiliacs will be at risk. It is interesting that the October report of the New Zealand AIDS Foundation, which is just out, states on page 41 that there were seven confirmed AIDS deaths in New Zealand as at 1 October. That will be news to the Minister of Health. The most recent figure he gave in the House was six. There are also 12 other confirmed cases of AIDS proper-my information is that there are 15 - and 6 of those are in intensive care at present and will die shortly. It is also interesting to note that on page 41 of the report it is stated that one locally transmitted case of AIDS has been confirmed. The Minister has never confirmed that there has been a locally transmitted case of AIDS. I refer him to page 41 of the October report of the AIDS Foundation. New Zealand now has its first home-grown case of AIDS. Hon. Dr MICHAEL BASSETT: Did the member expect anything else? NORMAN JONES: The Minister has expected it for a while. It is a pity he did not take the country into his confidence and announce that it has its first home-grown case of AIDS. It is also a pity he does not give the country the information that the AIDS Foundation can seemingly get with Government aid and support. It is stated on page 42 of the report that 100,000 New Zealanders are considered to be in the at-risk groups. That figure includes the wives of bisexual men and of homosexual prostitutes, the wives of haemophiliacs, and the wives of intravenous drug users. The homosexual group in this country admits that most of its members are practising homosexuality within marriage. For that reason 100,000 New Zealanders are at risk. On the figures of the AIDS Foundation we can expect that in 5 years' time 2,500 men and women will become infected with the AIDS related condition. More than 10 percent - the figure the foundation gives is 377 - will subsequently develop AIDS. The people who develop the full AIDS syndrome will die. Homosexuals in America, on the Continent, in Europe, in Australia, and throughout the rest of the world are killing themselves by the thousands with that homosexually transmitted disease. They do not give a damn whom they infect - and those are not my words. I draw the attention of the House to what the newly re-elected mayor of New York was quoted in the Dominion of Friday, 8 November, as having said: “New York Mayor Edward Koch, fresh from winning a third term with a record majority, yesterday vowed to shut down homosexual bars and bathhouses that allow open sex because ‘They sell death there and we don't want this to go on. They don't give a damn.'” It is also interesting to note that it was reported in the New Zealand Times of 10 November that 12 European member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation had agreed on joint preventive measures to stem the spread of AIDS in their armed forces. The article stated: “The Belgian Defence Minister said yesterday that the decision by the informal association grouping of NATO members, except the United States, Canada, Iceland, and France, involved the systematic screening of blood donors.” That is eight NATO countries. Tonight's Evening Post states: “Americans are more aware of the fatal disease AIDS than South African strife or the Star Wars space missile defence system, according to a television news poll. The NBC poll just released also said six of every ten Americans surveyed believed the Government should place restrictions on the sexual activities of known AIDS carriers.” If the Bill is passed in its present form, homosexuals from overseas will come to New Zealand in their thousands. With the Bill legalising sodomy for 16-yearolds, and down to 12-year-olds by consent with a 16-year-old, those homosexuals on the Continent and elsewhere overseas who know they are at risk with their abnormal sex practices will come to this country. New Zealand will be looked upon as the Mecca for homosexuality and sodomy. What an attraction it will be to them! They will be able to come here and legally sodomise 16-year-old boys. Hon. Members: Ha, ha! NORMAN JONES: It is no laughing matter, and 835,000 people signed a petition saying they do not want a bar of it. If members of Parliament think that is amusing I draw to their attention a headline in the Auckland Star of last Friday: “Gay petition ballot poll”. The Auckland Star has not been a friend of the anti-homosexual reform petition people. It interviewed 400 people who had signed the petition-probably to discredit it-and to its everlasting credit it did a good job and said that 375 people had said they had signed the petition without any stress or coercion. Therefore 93 percent of the people who signed the petition were verified as being valid petitioners, honest, and sincere. That gives the lie; I say that the petition can be taken anywhere. I repeat that it is no laughing matter, and if the House is prepared to go against massive public opinion by passing the Bill we are opening up New Zealand. No other country in the world has passed legislation to normalise sodomy under a Human Rights Act and make it an acceptable life-style. If the Bill is passed in its present form the country will become a Mecca for thousands of homosexuals from Australia, the Continent, and America, who will jet in here. Our 16-year-olds are virgin territory. The Minister of Tourism will be able to advertise New Zealand to homosexuals throughout the world: “Come to New Zealand for sun, for scenery, and safe sodomy.” Hon. FRANK O'FLYNN: Ha, ha! NORMAN JONES: The Minister of Defence laughs, but he will have to accept it in the armed forces - that will take the smile off his face. The Minister of Police will have to accept it in the police service, and all the church organisations, the boy scouts, and the girl guides will also have to accept it. BILL JEFFRIES (Heretaunga): I move, That the question be now put. Mr SPEAKER: The question was that the Homosexual Law Reform Bill be now read a second time. The question now is that the Homosexual Law Reform Bill be read this day 12 months. In considering whether I should accept the closure I am conscious that most members have spoken and that the Bill has been before the House for 3 nights. I have listened to the arguments put forward by the mover of the amendment and am still unable to find any new arguments that have not already been put forward in opposition to the passage of the Bill. At present I am not prepared to accept the closure motion. However, I remind members that there are rules in the House about repetition, and that because the matter has been well aired, and it has been moved in the present motion that we should hear the matter again, I intend to impose the customary rules relating to repetition. Hon. GEORGE GAIR (North Shore): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask for your thoughts, to clarify the matter. As this is a conscience motion, and as some members have not yet spoken and everyone has an equal right to seek your call, could some priority be given to those who have not yet had the call? Mr SPEAKER: It certainly will be. Mr TREVOR YOUNG (Eastern Hutt): Like all members, I have been giving deep consideration to the measure ever since it was introduced. I voted for the introduction of the Bill so that the matter could be studied in the House and we could receive a report from the select committee. I was disappointed in that report. I shall not be critical of the committee that carried out the investigation, as I know it was under time constraints, and that other work is before the House. However, I believe that the committee reported back on the Bill too soon. Like the member for Napier, I, too, believe that the matter deserves much deeper investigation than the House is able to give it. Knowing the pressures that members - who are elected to a democratic body - are under from people to vote one way or the other, I believe that, to get a balanced view of the problem, it would be preferable for an independent body such as a royal commission to study the subject and to report to the House. There is no other logical way in which the matter could be handled. I am concerned about the Bill, which I think is a bad one in the way it has been drafted and in some of the provisions it contains. At times I am at a loss to find the logic behind it. In order to establish that argument I have compared the present legislation with the Bill now before us. When the matter has been debated in the past decade it has been suggested that recognition should be given to the practice of homosexual acts by adults in private, and that they should not be subject to a sentence of imprisonment. However, the present Bill does not recognise the circumstances of adults but gives consideration to an age of consent of 16 years. From my soundings in the community-not only in my electorate and in the Wellington region generally, but also in other areas - it is obvious that there is objection to the age limit of 16 that is being applied in the measure. Apart from that, I am concerned that the Bill is an amendment to the Crimes Act. I think that at some stage it would be better for the House to concentrate on the whole Crimes Act and to weigh up the penalties provided in that Act and compare one with the other. Rather than deal with the matter of homosexual law piecemeal, as it is dealt with here, it needs to be considered alongside other provisions of the Crimes Act. It also needs to be considered alongside all of the law that applies to heterosexuals, for which the age of consent is 16 years. I am not convinced that what is provided for heterosexuals should necessarily follow for homosexual practices. However, despite what my prejudice might be, I think the matter needs further examination, and a report from people who are able to carry out forthright investigation. Members will know - and I am certain they have been subjected to the same sort of approaches as I have that there are variations of opinion between experts in the community, whether they be social workers, teachers, the police, medical authorities, and so on. There is no consistent attitude among the various professional groups we have approached. We have to be very cautious as we deal with the matter. It concerns me that, while under section 140 of the Crimes Act there is provision for a term of imprisonment for up to 10 years for indecent assault on, and indecent acts with, boys under the age of 16, the 10-year term of imprisonment will, under the Bill, relate only to indecent acts involving boys under the age of 12 years, and the term of imprisonment will be reduced to 7 years for indecent acts involving boys between the ages of 12 and 16 years. I do not think the community wants Parliament to reduce the term of imprisonment in those terms, because it suggests that the crime involving boys between 12 and 16 years of age is not so grave. It is a grave offence, and to reduce that term of imprisonment for indecency with boys between the ages of 12 and 16 is not warranted. I had hoped there would be a deeper report from the committee to justify the change in penalties, but there appears to be none. I am certainly not prepared to go along with the Bill in that respect. For the matter of sodomy-called anal intercourse in the Bill - the present law in the Crimes Act provides a term of imprisonment of 14 years if an act is committed on a girl or a woman, or if committed on a male under 16 years by another male who is 21 years of age or over. In the Bill the 14 years' imprisonment provision does not apply to any person between the ages of 12 and 16. That again is something I cannot endorse or accept. I am totally opposed to the variation in the penalty provisions between the present Act and the Bill. There is another matter in the Bill that really concerns me, and I think it needed deeper consideration by the committee. Clause 6 provides that keeping places as a resort for homosexual acts will no longer be an offence if the Bill is passed. In other words, the Bill will repeal that section of the present Act that states that, “Everyone is liable to imprisonment ... who keeps, or manages, or acts or assists in the management of, any premises used as a place of resort for the commission of indecent acts between males." I am concerned that we should remove that provision when considering any amelioration of the law in so far as it relates to imprisonment for acts by people in private by mutual consent. The Bill goes too far. Therefore I am not prepared to endorse it. When I read the provision contained in the Part II as it relates to the Human Rights Commission Act I find that many of the terms relating to sex and marital status are not defined in the legislation. If the House intends to proceed with the amendment to the Human Rights Commission Act to avoid the confusion that will arise between the definitions of “sex” and “sexual orientation", it would be less clumsy to define what is meant by “sex". The matter needs much deeper consideration than it has been given. Another matter that concerns me is whether the Bill should grant exemptions for certain organisations, on which the committee received some serious submissions from organisations such as the police, the military, and, to some extent, boarding or residential schools for young males. There has been no report whatsoever in relation to those very important submissions. Whether we agree with the submissions or not is one matter, but we cannot just cast them aside into the waste-paper basket and keep them out of sight. The Bill and the whole policy behind it need much deeper consideration. I agree with the suggestion made by my colleague the member for Napier, who has indicated what he will do in the Committee stage of the Bill in relation to postponing the Bill until proper investigation has been made, and even a referendum taken on the matter. The inquiry into the Bill was cut short for some of us for very good reasons. I agreed to accept the reporting back of the Bill on the basis that the select committee was not the appropriate committee to carry out a proper investigation of the Bill. Since then a very important submission has been made to all members by the Waikato Hospital. The Waikato Hospital is concerned about the consequences of some of the ill health that has been passed on to some medical practitioners when dealing with patients with hepatitis B, which has been associated with the practice of homosexuality in the past. The hospital indicates that while it seems that AIDS has been controlled and almost prevented in New Zealand because of restrictions imposed by the law, it foresees that health workers could be exposed to undesirable situations through their professional work. It believes that deep consideration should be given to the point of view of health workers. The hospital also refers to the Wolfenden report, the result of a royal commission of inquiry some years ago in Britain. Paragraph 52 of that report states: “We do not think that it is proper for the law to concern itself with what a man does in private unless it can be shown to be so contrary to the public good that the law ought to intervene." The medical staff of that hospital - and they are not alone in this - have underlined the words, “unless it can be shown to be contrary to the public good”. Members will know that that caution to us has been signed by the general and colorectal surgeon, by the superintendent-in-chief of that hospital, by the principal nurse, and by the senior supervisor of theatres, all in the interests of the staff. That is one item of evidence that was unable to be heard by the committee, or which the committee did not hear, and it is very important that that information should be examined. I am not happy with the Bill. It is a bad Bill. I fully accept that there are people with homosexual tendencies who are not of a criminal bent who live in the community. Some have confessed to me their homosexual orientation. They are citizens in the community who show no criminal intent and they live as peaceful and honourable citizens. There is an argument to reconsider the penalties provided in the legislation as they apply to adults, including the penalty of imprisonment. I intend to vote against the Bill. We do not want it. It is not the kind of reform that should go forward in the House. I hope that members will follow me into the lobby to vote against the Bill, to strike it dead at this point. If necessary, a committee or a commission should be set up to examine the matter fully and properly. Hon. WHETU TIRIKATENE-SULLIVAN (Southern Maori): I rise to support the amendment. In so doing I remind the House that there is no law against homosexuality, whether between males or between females. The law is against anal intercourse or sodomy, and indecent acts against males. Males may live together in private. Many do, as it is sensible and economic so to do. There is no law against that. There is certainly no law against renting a house to a homosexual male. I come back to the central and pivotal point in the Bill. The significance of the Bill is that it legalises sodomy. The significance of sodomy is that, whatever else, it is the principal means of passing on sexually transmissible diseases, particularly AIDS. In New Zealand we have had no option but to become aware of AIDS. The Government has funded AIDS prevention. AIDS is fatal. The Bill legalises the principal means by which people who do not have AIDS may become infected, and infected fatally. This is not the time for Parliament to legalise sodomy. It is grossly irresponsible for it to do so. The representatives elected by the voters must become accountable on this specific matter at this specific time in history. The Bill's coming in at this time must be seen in the light of the sexually transmitted disease, and it would be a selfish indulgence to take any other view. While it is a characteristic of the more elitist echelons in society to regard sodomy as the choice of those who practise it, parliamentarians, unlike the wider community reflected by the petition, cannot afford to be cavalier at a time when the scourge of AIDS is present. While the more highly educated, the academics, the more highly paid and affluent, and the more sophisticated in the ways of the world in any community are more prepared to regard sodomy as a normal and even acceptable behaviour, and while members of Parliament come into that élite category, we are the elected representatives of the people and must consider the Bill as one directly relating to social health. In all conscience, how can Parliament legalise the means of passing on a fatal disease? Strip the Bill down to its reality, and that is what it is about-seeking to legalise sodomy. I point out that there is not and never has been a law that criminalises homosexual orientation, friendship, partnership, or group membership; it is sodomy that is illegal. It is illegal because it is grossly unnatural, but also it has been the cause of sexually transmissible diseases-long before AIDS. AIDS is simply the latest addition to the known list, but AIDS is fatal and there is no known cure for it. That is the most valid reason for not legalising sodomy and for not regarding it as a legitimate option and a legitimate lifestyle. No one can suggest it is natural. However, the Bill seeks to legitimise it, and to vote in favour of the Bill means to vote in favour of legalising sodomy, right at a time when the AIDS epidemic has reached New Zealand. As I have said, that would be grossly irresponsible for Parliament at this time. In the last fortnight it has been suggested that there has been a breakthrough and that the drug cyclosporine-A, which was being used at the Laennec Hospital in Paris, would be the breakthrough against the killer virus AIDS. Only yesterday we in New Zealand learnt that that has already proved to be a false hope and that patients being treated with that drug have died. So the world still has not found a cure, and AIDS is fatal. I refer to my concern that during the select committee the only amendment made to clause 7 would have provided the defence for a 16-year-old who had committed sodomy against a 12-year-old. If the 16-year-old claimed that he thought the 12-year-old was also 16, that would be accepted as a valid defence. That would result in the possibility of 12year-olds being molested, and that it could be suggested that the 12-year-old not only consented, but that the sodomy occurred because the older person thought that the 12-year old was 16. I find that unacceptable and of much concern, and to think that that was the only amendment made when the Bill was before the select committee is one of the most curious things about the Bill and its passage through the House. I am concerned at the thought that a boy of 12 could be sodomised, yet the person who did that could have a valid defence by suggesting that he thought the boy was older. I shall refer to other research I have conducted, which highlights the importance of the man/boy homosexuality. It is the trend-which the committee's sole amendment to the Bill, as I said, could spearhead-towards a more popular and acceptable assumption in New Zealand. The problem of ageing male homosexuals who find themselves deprived of the family they have never formed is a crucial one. It is crucial for the homosexual political movement, which I referred to when I spoke in the House on 9 October. That problem, as much as the almost exclusive emphasis on sensual gratification, might explain the virtual worship of youth by homosexuals. That particular matter was researched by the American National Institute of Mental Health, which received a grant of $50,000. The research found that what I have asserted tonight was the case. It was proved that there is a particular interest in youth, by older male homosexuals in particular. Those who have researched the subject would be familiar with the North American Man/Boy Love Association, known as NAMBLA. I refer to that because before a select committee of which I was a member at an earlier time, and in connection with an earlier Bill on the subject, one of the principal witnesses supporting change said quite frankly to members of the committee that his aim was to see the age brought down because his particular interest was in young boys. That person is still active. He has been active in support of the Bill. He comes into the affluent academic category. It is well known that paedophile organisations exist in most English-speaking countries. It is sufficient for me to know that that is the particular preference of people who are still lobbying for a change in the law. I am particularly concerned because, should the Bill be passed in its present form, the board of a high school or boys' secondary school would have to establish house rules to prohibit homosexual practices, which would mean that the board could be placed in potential conflict with the law of the land. It would be intolerable if Parliament were to act so that a board of a boys' secondary boarding school would come into conflict with the law of the land because it wished to prevent homosexual practices within the school precincts. That would be an amazing feature of the Bill if it were passed as it is. I come to another aspect to which I alluded on 9 October. I shall speak about the legal protection of heterosexual relationships between a husband and a wife, as that involves a public judgment on the nature and purpose of sex, which is also implicit in the Bill. The judgment teaches that the proper exercise of sex is within the marital bond, because both the procreative and unitive purposes of sex are best fulfilled within marriage. The family alone is capable of providing the necessary stability for the profound relationship that sexual union symbolises and cements, and for the well-being of the children who issue from it. The legitimising of homosexual relations changes that judgment and the teaching that emanates from it. A so-called neutral attitude towards homosexual partnerships demotes heterosexual marriage. It is definitely demoted by an acceptance of homosexual partnerships and the legitimacy the Bill would confer upon them. It teaches and promotes an indifference where once there was an endorsement. If heterosexual sex is only a form of recreation, what could be wrong with a little sodomy, or even incest? The law of incest demolishes a suggestion made earlier by a group of doctors from Waikato Hospital that the law should not intervene over what a person does in private. That argument has no validity, as there are laws against consenting adults in private when the relationship involves incest. I come back to the so-called neutral attitude towards homosexual partnerships. It does demote marriage. It teaches and promotes an indifference where once there was endorsement, and far from not embodying any moral view, legal neutrality gives public status to and fosters a highly subjective view of love. One cannot abandon one standard without affecting all others. The Bill would do that. When we speak of man's nature we mean the ordering of man's being towards certain ends. It is the fulfilment of those ends that makes a man and a woman fully human. Since the time of Socrates we have called the good of mankind the state of the family. For Aristotle the good was happiness. Aristotle explained that happiness was achieved only through virtuous actions, the repetition of good deeds. Deeds are considered to be good and bad, natural and unnatural. For the Christ-centred believer, the New Testament is clear. The case for homosexuality is a vulgarisation of a philosophical anarchism that denies the existence of nature and therefore the ability to discriminate between the use and abuse of nature. Anthropology has invariably produced a group or two in which homosexual behaviour is accepted as normal-besides sodomy it includes incest - but mankind is unique in that we can affirm or deny our nature. That denial, however, in no way refutes its existence, any more than the denial of the law of gravity will keep one from falling. Socrates and Plato were unambiguous in their condemnation of homosexuality as unnatural. The intercourse of men with men or women with women is contrary to nature, and the bold attempt was originally because of unbridled lust. It is ironic that the proponents of homosexuality so often point to ancient Greece as their paradigm. The greatest contribution of ancient Greece to Western civilisation was philosophy. The very idea of nature and natural law arose as a product of that philosophy. Socrates and Plato were arguably the greatest exponents of natural law. The real crux of the natural law position is that, however many purposes an organ or any other natural object has, those purposes originate in nature and not in man's desires. The removal of the objective quality of human acts leaves the true reality residing in man's desires. That results in the reduction of morality to human intentions. А good intention-love-cannot change an unnatural act into a natural act. It will harm the nature of the person acting and the person acted upon, regardless of intent. Incest, pederasty, homosexuality, equated with heterosexual marriage is surely casuistry defined in human terms. Aristotle begins his Politics with the first condition for the existence of a polis as a man and a woman in the family. Try to imagine the essence of the political nation, the polis, composed only of homosexuals. Such a community would have to rely for its continued existence on recruitment alone. We cannot collapse the distinction between the nature of an act and the person performing the act. This critique is about the act, not the person. My argument on 9 October, and tonight, was a critique of the action and the standard if one legitimises that action and raises its moral level in the community. Each distinction we erase makes it harder for us to see or make other distinctions. Organised religion is not only the social institution to which the greatest number of people voluntarily belong, in New Zealand as in any other country, but it is probably the single most influential factor in the evaluation of behaviour. Some try to escape the influence of religion and even pretend to renounce its sway, denying that it provides its adherents with precise rules that enable them to ascertain the ethical qualities of their behaviour. It is not generally accepted that the attempt to renounce Christian religious tradition has been substituted with another religion: secular humanism is a religion. I make it clear to the House that the argument against Christian religion and the case mad in scripture is rarely supported even in the most ancient and noble philosophy that this country has accepted for some years in its academic institutions, with which many of us are familiar. The responsibility of the House to uphold those standards is so great that, limited though one's time is in the debate, it was important for me to choose that particular issue to fill most of my time this evening. I call on the sense of responsibility of the House to see the permutations of the Bill. I am particularly concerned for the young. My case-load, regrettably, makes me very much aware that the people I am most protecting are young boys. I shall say no more but that my case-load shows evidence of growing abuse since the start of the gay liberation movement. I have a particular concern about this subject, and perhaps that is why the Maori opinion that did not have time to express itself before the committee should be referred to. The hui amorangi expressed its strongest opposition to the Bill. NEIL MORRISON (Pakuranga): I rise to speak on the Bill because I believe in the first instance that it is basically a deception. As the member for Southern Maori has already said, there is no law against homosexuality; there never has been and there never will be. There is no law against two people of the same gender living together, there never has been and there never will be. This Bill is about anal intercourse, which is something different. It also has to do with the recognition of homosexuality as being natural and normal, and that came across in almost every submission to the Justice and Law Reform Committee on the 2 days I sat on it. I cannot support the concept that anal intercourse - or sodomy, as the existing law calls it-is normal and natural. I believe that is a biological absurdity, because it has no purpose and produces nothing, whereas vaginal intercourse produces life and creates life for an ongoing society. I would think that if we are here for anything else, the main reason is to build a healthy society, a prosperous society, a society that will continue on with strength and with ideas, and a society with a legacy to leave to our children who must look after us in our old age. I cannot support the idea that anal intercourse or sodomy is normal or natural and I find ludicrous the concept of having a law on the subject - with which 16-year-old and 12-year old boys could be involved in the heat of puberty. Everybody in every society needs some kind of guideline. One can go to the most primitive societies in the world - Papua New Guinea and societies in the middle of Africa where modern man has hardly ever been - and they all have some kind of structure, some kind of law, some kind of regulation, and some kind of tradition that people are expected to abide by. What concerns me in this aspect and in various other aspects of New Zealand society today is that we seem to be dismantling standards and casting them out of the window with nothing to replace them. That concerns me, as it concerns thousands of other people who, like myself, are not members of the so-called moral majority but are just normal, middle-of-the-road heterosexuals who want to see some normality and some reasonable standards in a society that prides itself on freedom. As I said in my speech this afternoon on law and order, freedom also requires responsibility. We cannot have one without the other. I find the idea of legalising sodomy-with the AIDS time bomb hanging over us - almost unbelievable. I could possibly go along with the legalising of homosexuality or anal intercourse at some other stage, but not at a time when there exists a literal time bomb that we cannot control, for which we have no cure, and for which there is not likely to be a cure in the foreseeable future. Here we are, as society's representatives, about to encourage further promiscuity, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual. Nature has a gruesome way of demanding a balance in life. It always will and it always has done. There has been a rise in promiscuity, both among heterosexuals and homosexuals, and nature demands a balance. I do not say that this is some kind of divine retribution. It is not - it is the normal law of nature that when there are changes of attitude on the part of human beings that come quickly, the laws of nature demand a balance. That is what they are doing now. The incidence of sexually transmitted diseases is rising around the world and spreading at a fearsome rate. I cannot see any point in encouraging that, whether it be by heterosexuality or by homosexuality. Like most people I do not stand here as a paragon of virtue, but it is different when we are legislating for the country and for future generations. I accept that there have been homosexuals for thousands of years and that there probably will be for the next few thousand years, regardless of what happens in the House. I do not know how a person becomes a homosexual - whether it is at the time of puberty, as some people claim, or whether it is because of some genetic difference at birth - and I do not really want to know. It is not of great interest to me or anybody else. The fact is that there are people who prefer those of the same gender as themselves. I know that a prosecution against a homosexual has not been brought for many years. I am aware also that there has been a dramatic change in public attitudes towards homosexuals, and that they have become more acceptable in our society. I recognise that, and think that few people would dispute it. However, the committee was told repeatedly that homosexuals do not really want the law to be changed but want to use the law as a means of changing society's attitudes towards them. I have not joined any travelling band to try to change people's attitudes one way or the other, because I believe that if people want to change their attitudes they can do that in their own good time. If the second part of the Bill is passed it will force a change on society, half of which does not want that change to happen. I have spoken to numerous people in my electorate in the past few weeks, many of whom were very disturbed at the way the petition was swept aside by the House. Over the past 8 or 9 years the Labour Opposition spoke a great deal about the terrors of government by the Executive, and told us how a Labour Government would bring democracy back into the House. Even if we accept that some of the signatures on the petition were incorrect - and let us put that figure at half - the petition with 400,000 signatures would still be the biggest in the country's history. I know of a few people who were distinctly disturbed that the petition received little or no recognition, and saw that as a betrayal of the lofty words spoken about democracy and the rights of little people to be heard in the House. I am disturbed by the second part of the Bill, and I find that, along with all the other things, there seems to be a slipping of standards or moral codes in our society. I accept that human beings, being what they are, will not all abide by all the standards and codes set, but as long as they are there everybody recognises that they are there and that gives society a track to move down and some guideline as to what is accepted and what is not accepted. I wonder if we are improving society by removing those moral codes, many of which are unwritten and many of which are not in law. I do not think we are. I have great reservations about a society moving in this direction. Along with many other people I also have some deep concern about the human rights part of the Bill. If that part of the Bill is passed it will be very difficult to administer any kind of discipline in the police service and the armed services. Further to that, thousands of parents send their sons to private secondary schools specifically to keep them away from homosexual behaviour. In a free society it is their right to decide what they believe is right or wrong, normal or abnormal. If the human rights part of the Bill is passed, parents would be powerless to do anything about anybody who might quietly coerce their children into what the parents consider to be an unnatural and abnormal way of life. We seem to be bent on dropping standards that have worked for us for hundreds of years. Surely one of the reasons we are here in this Chamber is to build an ongoing society. I find myself wondering what will come next. Will it be child sex? I cannot support the Bill. I recognise that there will be homosexuals who commit homosexual acts irrespective of the law. I accept that, but I cannot condone those acts, and I think that to condone them for an ongoing civilisation and for future generations would be a move in the wrong direction. I cannot support either the first or the second parts of the Bill, and I shall continue to oppose it. ROBIN GRAY (Clutha): Originally I had not much intention of speaking on the Bill, because I had made it perfectly clear in my electorate right from the start just where I stood on this issue. However, I am speaking tonight because the debate has been widespread throughout the community, and I feel I have a responsibility to put on record the reasons I am against the Bill. Having said that, I congratulate those on both sides of the issue who have seen fit to go out and debate their points of view in public. That is what democracy is all about, and I do not believe that we should feel any animosity towards those who take different points of view from our own. I say to those people who have been out putting forward their points of view that I do not think they have done too much harm to the debate. When I heard on a Thursday that the Bill was to be introduced the following day I went to my bed that night convinced that I should vote for its introduction. However, by 9 o'clock the next morning I had changed my mind. About 2 years ago it was suggested that this issue would be debated in the House. I set up a committee in my electorate of people who were on both sides of the issue, and people who, I believed, would give me a fair assessment of any investigations they undertook for me. As I said, I was determined to vote for the Bill's introduction. I rose at 5 o'clock on the Friday morning and tried to read the information I had been given, and by 9 o'clock I was convinced that the Bill should not be introduced and that I could not vote for it. Therefore I think it is right that I should say why I changed my mind. I changed my mind after reading what had been presented to me by people in my electorate. I became convinced that every male has a certain sense of homosexuality in him, and my reading told me that a young person does not become homosexual unless he has been in contact with a homosexual who has built up those feelings in him. If that is the case, I find it difficult to accept that a homosexual should be able to determine the future of another young person's life. That is why I cannot vote in favour of the Bill. Many people have said that Christians do their cause no good if they cannot accept another man's point of view. I say unashamedly that I try to lead a Christian life, and I say unashamedly that it does not give me the right to bring down sharp judgment on another person. However, I do believe that I must take a responsible attitude as I see it. I cannot place the future of young people at stake by enabling them to become homosexual when they were not really meant to be so. I have considered the arguments about AIDS and the dire consequences that disease could have on society. However, my real feelings on the matter are that New Zealand society should be built on a stable family relationship. I believe that the greatest pleasure any man or woman can share is a happy family marriage. That is still the cornerstone of our society, and I can find nothing to take away first place from the family home. I realise that not everyone will agree with me. However, I cannot see how that stable family relationship can be maintained if we allow homosexuality to spread throughout society. There are many people who believe that the moral standards of society are slipping. It is easy for politicians to stand in the House and say, purely for votes, that we should allow the Bill to proceed because it is popular. However, I do not believe that that is our role as members of Parliament. I believe that for occasions such as this I have been chosen to represent my electorate on the basis of what it saw in me, and the standards it expects me to uphold in the Chamber. When I return to my electorate I believe I can look my constituents in the face and say, “Ladies and gentlemen, I stood up at the time of my election and said that I would maintain a high standard of living for the people in my electorate." I will not bow to pressure groups or to people who think differently from me, just for the sake of a few votes. The decision to vote against the Bill was not made lightly. I have read a great deal on a subject the pros and cons of which I had no intention of studying. I have received letters from personal friends who have revealed to me that they are homosexual. Male constituents, aged 34 and 35 years of age, whose parents I know well have come to me and said: “Mr Gray, I want you to vote for the Bill, because I am a homosexual, but mum and dad do not know about it." I feel for those people, and I realise the responsibility they have placed on my shoulders as a member of Parliament. However, I cannot see anything for society other than a stable family home comprising mum, dad, and the kids. The Bill would ruin that. MARY BATCHELOR (Avon): It had not been my intention to speak in the debate again, because it is not the first time in the 13 years I have been in the House that this issue has confronted members. However, I am surprised that so much time has been devoted to the issue. I can think of other issues that are far more important to every individual in our society, rather than just to one group. It seems to me that an issue that involves a small group of people is taking precedence over issues that are more important to the majority of people. The Bill concerns the actions of consenting adults in private. I have debated the issue before during the 13 years I have been a member of Parliament, and I can remember saying at other times that heterosexual acts performed in the privacy of bedrooms might perhaps upset some people and even disgust other people. However, those acts are not known about. Why is a line drawn between the heterosexual and the homosexual in the matter of what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes? There is no law against one; why, then, should there be a law against the other? Why is one different from the other? I stress that I am talking about the behaviour of consenting adults in private, and it seems to me that that is the crux of the matter. I shall vote in favour of the decriminalisation part of the Bill. It appears to be a different argument when a person becomes an adult. As I understand it, the law recognises that a girl aged 16 has the right to consent, but it does not state at what age a boy may ask. It is illegal for a male to have a sexual relationship with a girl who is under 16 years of age. I cannot really agree with the many people who have written to me stating that, in fairness, the law must be the same for each. The idea in the Bill of setting the age at 16 just does not jell with me. It seems to me that, while the law states that 16 years is the age of consent, there is no responsibility on those of either sex to ensure that their actions will not have some reaction on society itself. I think that has been proved by the number of young people who are at present receiving the domestic purposes benefit. I have said before in the House-and members may be tired of hearing it - that with every right goes a responsibility also. I do not see that 16 is a necessary age to be included in the Bill , but I make the point that a law that is made in the House must be a law that is fair, just, and equitable to every citizen. I do not think that we should make laws that favour one group or give special assistance to a particular group of people, and I do not care how loud, vocal, or militant that group is. If we are to be a true House of Representatives and make laws that affect each individual fairly there should be no need for any special bodies to be set up to concern themselves with those particular groups. It is people, and the individual within society, who matter. The law we make in the Chamber should care about that. For that reason I am not happy that the second part of the Bill concerns itself with human rights legislation. I have never been a fan of setting up a Human Rights Commission that deals with certain segments of the population. Are we to make laws that are just and equitable to everybody? Surely that is our job and our first concern. Individuals within our society have the right to expect that they will be governed fairly. They have a right to expect that they will be given fair treatment by the laws made in the House. I do not favour that part of the Bill that will give to one section of society greater rights than any other section. I do favour decriminalisation, so that consenting adults who have a sexual orientation different from that which society has been educated to accept as normal will have the right to act in private as consenting adults in the manner that turns them on. I am also concerned that we have spent so much time debating the issue. I think of all the varied issues that affect every member of society, and that receive nominal opposition and are then allowed to pass, and I wonder why the prejudices inherent in all of us - and so obvious in many of us - are allowed to take precedence in the debating chamber. I have been away from New Zealand for 2 weeks. I must admit that, having listened to some of the debate on this matter in the weeks before I left the country, I had thought that at least the vote on the second reading would have been taken by the time I returned. Instead, I find that there are members in the House-mainly on the Opposition benches - who are prepared to spend the taxpayers' money in continuing to stonewall the legislation, and who are prepared to put up amendment after amendment to keep the legislation going. When those members return to their electorates they should answer for wasting taxpayers' time. There are few times in the debating chamber when individual members of Parliament have the right to stand up and speak according to what they believe, when members are not bound by a party line or by a manifesto given to the people before an election. That is something that I and many others in the Chamber believe to be an important right. I believe that it is right that the view of consenting adults in private should be adhered to regardless of whether they are homosexual or heterosexual, provided it does not interfere with society. Therefore the part of the Bill that provides for that has my full support. I am not at all happy with the rest of the Bill, and believe that we should move slowly in this direction. The Bill goes too far, too fast. I shall vote for the Bill only on the basis that changes will be made to it in the Committee stage. JOHN BANKS (Whangarei): The member for Avon complains that the House has spent a great deal of time on the issue during the past five, six, seven, or eight Wednesdays, yet she has the temerity to accuse the House of wasting time on a matter that is not very important to her. I serve notice on that member that the issue is one of the most important that the House will ever debate, because for some of us - and unfortunately we are in the minority - it means an erosion of the family unit, the most important thing in a democracy and the building block of society. This so-called social reform is a threat to the family unit and to democracy as I know it, and as my friends on this side of the House understand it. We would much rather be talking about the plight of farmers who are walking off the land, housewives and their daily costs, house owners and the very real cost they face in servicing their mortgages, and many other important economic issues. Nothing is more important than the total fabric of a society and, in simple terms, what is right and what is wrong. The Bill is wrong because we stand here tonight and will soon pass through into the lobbies to decide whether we should, by statute, legalise the act of sodomy for boys of 16 and males over that age. That is what members will vote for: whether Parliament should say that sodomy for boys over the age of 16 years is right or wrong. I say that it is wrong; my friends on this side of the House say that it is wrong; 800,000 New Zealanders who signed the petition say that it is wrong. That is why I support the amendment moved by my colleague the member for Invercargill. Perhaps time will bring some common sense to those members who want to make so-called social reform so quickly that they will do so much damage to the nation. During the past week an argument has been raised that homosexual practice is not immoral but is an alternative sexual orientation. It is said that it is as moral and normal as heterosexual practice. That is what those people say and that is what they believe. They believe that both the existing legislation against homosexual practice and the opposition in general are an infringement of human rights. They say they are discriminatory and show a lack of tolerance, and that the nation is intolerant. They put up the spurious argument that New Zealand, Ireland, a few other countries, and perhaps some states in the United States and Australia still make homosexual practice a criminal offence, and that that is bad. They say that homosexual practice is not harmful to others. They say that homosexual practice is not immoral, and they are certain that if Parliament passes the Bill homosexuality will eventually become acknowledged as a morally acceptable sexual practice. That is the expectation of the so-called gay movement. The international gay movement has been busy in this country in recent days. What is morality? Are moral values merely relative to present social practice? Are they here today and gone tomorrow? Is it O. K. for homosexual practice to be moral but violence to be immoral? A popular thought is that any action is O. K. provided it does not hurt anyone else. Is that what the Prime Minister thinks - that any action is O. K. provided it does not hurt or offend one's brother, sister, or neighbour? Proponents of the Bill say that both the existing legislation against homosexual practice and opposition to it in general are infringements of human rights. It is said that the prohibition of homosexual practice is seen as an infringement of human rights and as being discriminatory and intolerant of others. To them, it is morally wrong to impose one's views on others. That argument cuts both ways. They say: “It is wrong for you as a legislator to impose your views on me because of my sexual orientation.” Is the Bill not the product of radical, liberal, and moral relativists who seek to impose their views on me? It is argued that New Zealand is one of the few countries in the world in which homosexual practice is criminal. Many nations that have liberal homosexual laws engage in war. Does that mean that it is good and right and has a bearing on the matter before the House? New Zealand may just be the bastion of everything that is good in a democracy, such as the family unit, and that is under threat tonight. Tonight will prove to be one of the blackest for Parliament. That is what most New Zealanders are saying, and that is what most people in my electorate are saying. The day the Bill receives its second reading will be a black day. In a recent poll in my electorate 188 persons' views were sought: 156 persons - 99 women and 57 men - said they supported their local member of Parliament and did not want changes; only 32 persons, of whom 22 were women and 10 were men, said “Yes”. Most people in my electorate said “No” to the Bill, and I share their view. It is only because I share their view that I will walk through the Noes lobby with my friends. It is said that homosexual practice is a preference and not an orientation. It is said that it is not morally wrong and is not detrimental to society. I believe that it is harmful to others. It is socially false and incompatible with the natural family structure we should be promoting. If the Bill is passed it will have an evil, insidious consequence for future generations of New Zealanders. That is why the House should support the amendment to delay the second reading of the Bill in the hope that common sense will prevail amongst those members who fancy themselves as social reformers in the interest of the nation. My opposition to this reform is based on a wide range of arguments that are compelling when brought together. They all relate to the need for decent societies to maintain and set standards by which people should live. The great moral laws of the Christian world have their foundations in teachings that have come down over thousands of years. Those standards are not severe, bigoted, or censorious; they are basically and fundamentally decent. When we deliberately allow those laws or standards of behaviour to be compromised or diminished the fundamental fabric of society is weakened and undermined. Right now the fundamental moral fabric of the nation is weak, and tonight's action by some members will undermine it. There is no doubt that some of the laws we set ourselves, based on Christian ethics, are broken by some of us from time to time, and some are broken by all of us. That does not mean that the laws themselves are wrong or unsoundly based. The fact that laws are broken is no argument for society as whole to lower its moral standards, or for society to repeal those laws. Society must set standards of behaviour for itself. Just as it cannot allow general lawlessness and crimes of dishonesty against its citizens, it cannot condone the activities of people who would seek to damage or destroy themselves. The Bill will give licence to a large section of the community that would not otherwise have the opportunity to damage or destroy itself. For that reason we have laws against drug abuse, speeding, offensive language, prostitution, self-mutilation, suicide, and other acts of self-denigration. In my view the laws relating to homosexual behaviour come into that category. Society legislates against so-called victimless crimes-not only for the protection of the individual, but also for its own well-being. The resultant laws are not designed to punish; they simply seek to ensure that our community is safe. Laws are designed to seek security for our community and to ensure that it is a decent and healthy place in which to live and bring up a family. I believe in my heart-but the Prime Minister, who is trying to interject, does not - that the Bill will bring down some of the building-blocks that are the strength of the nation: a healthy and decent family environment. If we shy away from taking such a stand it will become impossible for society to accept any standard at all. I know that the Prime Minister could not care less about that. His greed and lust for power are obvious. If Parliament gives in and allows homosexual acts between consenting males aged 16 years of age and over it will eventually face the same demands in relation to the crime of incest between consenting adults. The Prime Minister probably supports that. Does he support the legalisation of prostitution, euthanasia, and other unacceptable practices? Will a private member's Bill be introduced this time next year to lower the age of consent for homosexual activities, including anal intercourse, to 15 years of age, 13 years of age, or 12 years of age? Society must take a stand somewhere. As the member of Parliament for Whangarei, this is the time for me to take such a stand, and I make no apology to the Chair, to Parliament, or to anyone else for adopting delaying tactics in an effort to stop this evil and insidious Bill from lurching into our society and usurping what is good. In taking that stand I am not suggesting that the present laws are perfect, but I do claim that they have benefited society far more than their critics would acknowledge. They have served to discourage people from promoting homosexual behaviour as a right and proper way of life. They have suppressed homosexual soliciting and the flouting of homosexual behaviour in most public places. They have been a source of support for parents of young families who are concerned about the level of depravity confronting children in society today. Above all, the present laws have been a clear statement by society at large that it wishes to maintain normal and acceptable standards of behaviour and decency. The Bill does not do that. My opposition to it relates to the need for all of us to maintain and set standards. In taking that position I do not disregard the very real difficulties facing homosexual people, nor am I lacking in compassion for their predicament, but the answer does not lie in society's weakening or lowering its standards of acceptable behaviour and morality by passing laws such as the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. PETER NEILSON (Miramar): I move, That the question be now put. Mr SPEAKER: When the motion was last put before the House I did say that I would be guided by the degree of repetition. I then heard two speeches in which new material was raised almost consistently, but the repetition has come back into the debate and I am not disposed to allow it to continue much longer merely to repeat arguments, contrary to the requirements of the House. I am also aware that there are some members who want to speak who have not yet spoken at all in the debate, but there are also others who are speaking for a second time. I am not prepared to accept the motion now, but I will weigh the matter up as the debate goes on. GARY KNAPP (East Coast Bays): First, I do not wish to be associated with the delaying tactics used on the Bill, and I will demonstrate that by opposing the amendment. I think Parliament should now vote on this matter. It has had ample time in which to debate it, and I think we know where we stand. Nevertheless, I will not support the Bill in the second reading, either. I say at the outset that I have not spoken on this matter until now. First, I congratulate the member for Wellington Central on having the courage of her convictions. It was a brave thing for her to do, and I suspect that she has come in for an inordinate amount of abuse and behaviour of the kind that members of the House will be familiar with from time to time. She would have had more than her share of it. Nevertheless, having listened carefully to elements of the debate in the Chamber, and taking into account the volume of communication I have had from people outside this place - both within my electorate of East Coast Bays and in other parts of the country-I have not been persuaded. I have encouraged members of the gay community to communicate with me. I have listened carefully to their points of view, and have put my own view to them in order to hear their answers to my concerns. The result is that at this stage at least I cannot support the Bill. I hope I can explain some of my reasons in the time available to me. As this has been my first opportunity to speak on the matter, I must say that I have been appalled at the arguments and the behaviour of extreme elements on both sides of the issue in the way they have conducted their case. I think both sides have done damage to themselves and have done very little to add real substance to the argument, or to help those of us who have a genuine concern to make the right decision for the community at large. I know that those opposed to the legislation have often relied on unsubstantiated prejudices of the most obtuse and ridiculous kind, and have damaged what I believe is a powerful argument. Those in favour of the Bill have resorted to threats and to other tactics that do them and their case no credit whatsoever. My difficulty with the issue has been to separate my personal affection for, and friendship with, individual members of the gay community, whom I have known and have had regular contact with for many years, from the case of the community and my own deep-seated abhorrence, as a male, of the homosexual act. That has probably been my greatest struggle, and I suspect it is a struggle that many members have had to cope with. The nature of the opposition to the homosexual act is deep-seated, and has been described by supporters of the Bill as prejudice. If it is prejudice it is a natural prejudice, and as natural as the prejudice against incest. It is not necessarily a prejudice born of ignorance, although I freely acknowledge that the argument is frequently surrounded by ignorance. Nevertheless, the prejudice is deep-seated and natural. To my mind, incest is another sexual preference. I am not sure how many members have had contact with adults who are locked into incestuous relationships that they consider to be deep and meaningful, but as a member of Parliament I have had some contact with such people. Their arguments for recognition of their position almost parallel those that could be made for the Bill. I have attempted to be fair to myself and to my constituents, who, I freely acknowledge, are split down the middle on the matter, as is my own family. I have tried to approach the matter as a father of a 13-year-old son and a 15-year-old daughter, with whom I have discussed the subject at length. I was interested to learn how well informed they were about the debate. When I was asked what my fatherly advice would be to my son I had some difficulty, but approached the matter in this way: I suggested to him that if he came to me as a young man of 17 or 18 and confided in me that he felt he was homosexual, and genuinely had that feeling, my reaction would be one of personal anguish and hurt. Some of it would be selfish because I would realise immediately that if my son was genuinely locked into that kind of sexual preference he would probably not produce grandchildren for me, and the things I would look forward to from having grandchildren. So that is a selfish motivation. But as a father I would know and feel deeply that he would not enjoy fatherhood and those things that, to me, are probably the greatest motivation for all of us, whatever status in life we occupy, or seek to occupy. I could not help myself; I would feel deep disappointment. I might try to hide it from him. It is not something that members of the gay community want to hear very often, and I can understand that, but for me it would be a thing of anguish, desperately disappointing in much the same way that, if his sister were to tell me that she could not have children for some medical reason, I would be desperately disappointed for her, and for myself. So if my son, who goes to a boys' boarding school, were to say to me, “What do you think, Dad? Is it on?”, my answer would be, “No, I do not think it is. I think you had better give it a miss." I do not know how I could handle it any better than that. We might discuss it in detail, but that is what it would come down to. That would be my summing-up: “I think you had better give it a miss. I don't think it is natural. I don't think it is something I would like you to get involved in if you are considering doing it just as a casual activity." The difficulty we have to grapple with is that the homosexual act has been sold to us on the basis that human rights elements are involved. The argument is that it should be reasonable to allow those persons locked into homosexual relationships to enjoy and live out a normal life. Why should they be labelled as criminals? Why should they be condemned by the Christian community or the community at large, because of a different sexual preference? People may want to call it by different names; I would tend to call it a biological difference. They argue a powerful case for being able to live out their lives normally, and not being treated as criminals in the community. The argument does seem to have some weight, except that if the Bill dealing with that element of homosexuality is passed it will create the new victims. Over the months in which the debate has proceeded it has confirmed for me that while some people are undoubtedly born to that sexual preference many are not. A great many people are influenced into homosexuality by the conditions of their environment. There is ample evidence that that is so. Therefore anything that we do in the way of allowing for the promotion of that activity is likely to draw in new people, young people unnecessarily destined to be locked into what I consider to be a terrible sexual condition, something I would not want to be involved in and about which I feel deeply. Even though homosexual people do not want my pity or my compassion, and would not thank me for it, they want me to recognise that they are no different from me. Yet they are different. The other victim is the one we have not heard too much about. It is incidental to the Bill; nevertheless, it should be mentioned. The Bill deals with an element within the Crimes Act and seeks to repeal the section that prohibits anal intercourse. That section of the Crimes Act prohibits anal intercourse for everybody, and not just for members of the gay community. I freely recognise that we cannot effectively police the law, but, nevertheless, it is a statement the community has made about that act. If we pass the Bill I believe that many women in heterosexual relationships will become new victims. There are many women who live in less than perfect home conditions, who live in less than desirable sexual environments, and who have to put up with all kinds of activities bordering on abuse. They are locked in. They have no way out for many reasons. As the law stands those women do not have to prove that they did consent-they at least have that protection against being sodomised or being submitted to anal intercourse by a belligerent or difficult mate. They merely have to show evidence that that has occurred, and their husbands, or whoever they are cohabiting with, will have some explaining to do. I shall be interested in the arguments if I am wrong, but it appears to me that the Bill will lock those women into having to prove that they did not consent to their husbands' sodomising them. The reality is that they will not be able to do that and they will become victims, silent victims like many who suffer from incest. My concerns have led me to oppose the Bill. It is only fair to say that if the present code of penalties were to be enforced by the police service, and if the community demanded that it be enforced I would be extremely concerned, because the criminal penalty is totally out of line with what I believe is the basic position of the community on this issue. It is a great pity the Bill had not been crafted in such a way as to take us to the very edge of decriminalisation but not quite across the line. My feeling is that society was proceeding in the right direction on this issue, with many people starting to break down their prejudices and attitudes to the homosexuals within the community as individuals, and it was probably in the best interests of the community that it should have continued that way. The Bill has brought the arguments into the open and has polarised the community. It has probably done no good. My personal view would be for a very severe reduction in the penalty codes that surround the act, but not to the point of condoning it or sanctioning it, which is what Parliament would do if it passes the Bill in any of the shapes or forms suggested so far. There is an element of homosexuality that members have not talked about very much. My contact with the gay community has given me two particular concerns. The first is that homosexuality is very commercial, and the second is that it is very trendy. The nature of the community is such that if the Bill is passed there will undoubtedly be an expansion of commercial activity surrounding homosexuality and the gay community, although I do not wish to be among those who are suggesting that the whole community is likely to go gay or that the whole of society will fall apart. More young people will undoubtedly be locked into a homosexual existence, for whatever reason. I know many gay people, some still within the community, who now consider themselves to be bisexual and some who have been gays and are now back into heterosexuality. They testify openly to an extent that I certainly cannot deny that young people, especially young males, are locked into the kind of society we expose them to as young boys - becoming young men, and trying to find their sexuality. Because of the nature of male sexuality, many get distracted and end up with the gay community. For many it is an absolute tragedy. I think the Bill will probably be passed. I suspect that the numbers are there. I should like the House to vote on it tonight. We have spent enough time on it and I think I have heard every argument that can be raised on it. I cannot support the Bill, but I have given the matter enormous consideration, and it would be fair to say that I have learnt a lot and have probably softened my position a little, but not enough. PETER DUNNE (Ohariu): I move, That the question be now put. Mr SPEAKER: I am faced with the problem of knowing that there are members who have not yet spoken, but I am aware that they have not been rising to seek the call. The position relating to whether it would be appropriate to put the question is very different from that which normally applies, as this is a private member's Bill. I therefore sought an opinion in Speakers' Rulings and I go back to the first ruling on the matter after it was introduced by Speaker Statham. He ruled: “It now devolves upon me to say whether I think that putting the question to the House as proposed would be an infringement of the rights of the minority of the House or do violence to the rules of the House. I think, under the circumstances, seeing that the matter has been before the House for practically two whole sittings, it would not be an abuse of the privileges if I allowed the House in its wisdom to decide whether or not the question should now be put. I therefore put the question (That the question be now put).” WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker! GRAEME LEE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker! Mr SPEAKER: I am in the midst of ruling. It is that ruling that has guided me. Two whole sittings were seen to be an appropriate time right from the beginning for the imposition of this ruling. I have been hearing more repetitive argument as the debate has gone on, and unless someone can convince me that there is another member wanting to speak who has not taken part in the debate I propose that the motion be put. ROGER McCLAY (Waikaremoana): I seek the call. Having assumed that my colleague who moved the motion you are now discussing had not spoken, and was seeking to speak, I was willing to listen. Therefore I seek the call, not having spoken. Mr SPEAKER: Yes; Mr McClay. ROGER McCLAY: Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Obviously most members of Parliament have now made their point of view known. Like all members, I have listened carefully to the arguments, and tonight, as on other nights, I have been impressed with the arguments and convictions of those who have spoken in the debate. I was particularly proud this evening to count myself as a friend of the member for Clutha, who spoke so well, so genuinely, so wisely, and with such sincerity, as did the member for Southern Maori. I have heard her speak before on this measure and I respect her point of view, as I respect the points of view of all members. I also compliment those who, with genuine intent, have sought to ask the House not to proceed with the Bill at this time, and that is why I shall vote in favour of the amendment moved by the member for Invercargill. There may well be people in New Zealand who do not have the genuine interest that my friends in Parliament who have been leading the fight on the Bill have. I have received a lot of correspondence, as have all members. I believe that most of it has been genuine. Some of it has been abusive, and some of it has even been threatening. None of the abusive or threatening correspondence has to my knowledge come from anyone in my electorate. Some of the correspondence I have received has been rather sad and has been decidedly from the heart. I received a letter from a man in Auckland whose parents live in my electorate. He said he was homosexual and was required to live away from home because of some victimisation he had experienced when he was younger. I also received, quite independently, a letter from his parents. They are friends of mine and they have put their case to me, and I have spoken with them. I respect their point of view. I have received letters and telegrams from individuals in the teaching profession, of which I was a part. In one case senior teachers of a school sought actively to make known to me as their member of Parliament their disagreement with the teachers' union proposals and its stance on the Bill. I hope those individuals will not be subject to any victimisation for their stand against the tenor of the Bill. I shall speak about the issues others have spoken of. As a member of Parliament I am disappointed at the way in which the petition was treated by the select committee and then by Parliament. It was undoubtedly the biggest petition in New Zealand's history. Some signatures would have been invalid, of course, but if half or three-quarters of them were invalid the number of valid signatures from people who do not want the legislation to be passed is still impressive. I am amazed and disappointed that Parliament would not accept the petition. I was sorry that people in Wellington found it necessary to write to the chairman of the select committee to express their concern about his conduct. They said they were disappointed to note his actions in issuing a press release condemning the anti-homosexual law reform petition before it was heard by the select committee. I believe that the chairman made an unwise move. I have not been subjected to too much abuse. To the mover of the Bill and to those who have been most vociferous in opposing it around the country I tender the apologies and concerns of New Zealanders, no matter what side of the argument they are on. I say that because I believe I know who the genuine members on this issue are, and it is regrettable that both sides have resorted to tactics that have come down to personalities and not to the issues. Perhaps it is difficult not to get down to personalities when discussing personal issues such as the one we are being asked to make a judgment on this evening. I have not sought to have a high profile on the issue, but people in my electorate understand my point of view and I believe that most of them respect that view, as I do theirs. Punishment by law, is not acceptable, of course, and in the reading I have done and the questions I have asked I have not been able to find any evidence of people being punished by the law, except when they had victimised those who did not want to take part in the activities that occurred. I support the member for Napier in his call for a royal commission. I also support the amendment by the member for Invercargill, because that would give us time for further reflection, and more time to have a commission or a referendum or whatever is suitable to allow the wishes of New Zealanders to be measured beyond any doubt. I feel strongly that most New Zealanders do not want the measure to be passed. I know that people of the opposite view feel just as strongly that the measure should be passed. By moving the amendment the member for Invercargill wants New Zealanders to have the opportunity to make quite plain what their wishes are. The Christian point of view has been put. In my electorate it is a mixed point of view. I shall quote the view of Dean Rhymer: “To accept homosexuality and heterosexuality as of equal worth does not stand up to rational inquiry. There is a contradiction between the two, which will never be bridged. The tension within the proposed solution is seen when homosexuality is a legitimate alternative to heterosexuality. This means that in schools the alternative lifestyles will be taught as part of the education for living. Further, homosexuals could ask to be married either by the State or by the church. Permission to adopt children could not be withheld. It is not enough to say that their right of freedom demands a change in the law. If freedom means the licence to do anything, then all actions must be permitted. However, if freedom demands a self-discipline in response to a rule we may rightly ask what is the rule which gives the freedom required in the Bill. That rule I have yet to read.” The argument concerning health matters, particularly AIDS, does engender some fear and trepidation in the minds of people. There are indisputable facts from other countries. We know that in America AIDS is a predominantly homosexual disease. Homosexuals make up 73 percent of all AIDS victims in the United States. We know that AIDS victims die. More than 75 percent of pre-1983 victims are now dead. Every homosexual known to have had AIDS in 1979 is dead, and 92 percent of the 1980 victims are dead, too. In the past 6 months there has been a 101 percent increase in the number of victims in the United States alone. We must decide upon these matters, and none of us would say it was an easy decision. Pressure tactics can be treated with some suspicion, but the issue is obviously a major public issue about morality. Tonight, fewer than 100 human beings who happen to have the privilege of being members of Parliament at this moment in 1985 will make a decision for more than 3,000,000 people, of whom 50 percent voted at the last election without giving a thought to an issue of this nature, but who probably have now indicated positively, by way of the petition and correspondence to their member, that they are opposed to the Bill. That is a significant matter that all members must reflect upon. The Bill will do nothing to achieve what I suspect the homosexual community wants most. All human beings, whether or not their activities are illegal at present, want to be accepted. Every person needs to be accepted as a person, and as a person who matters. The passing of the Bill may well lessen the acceptance that there could be in society already. I ask my colleagues to consider whether the second reading of the Bill this evening will enhance homosexuality, and, more important, the acceptance of homosexuals. I think not. I think there will be much less acceptance of homosexual behaviour. I think there is acceptance of the people who are categorised as homosexuals, by themselves and other people, rather than of their behaviour. I am not happy about the present law on homosexual behaviour for several reasons. It appears to be different for men than for women. The punishments are probably inappropriate. The law encourages a sustained effort by some people to prove that homosexual behaviour is normal and should be permissible and treated as normal acceptable behaviour. I am, however, even more unhappy about what is proposed by the member for Wellington Central. The Bill removes from the law any notion that sodomy is wrong. The Bill does not call it sodomy, but refers to “anal intercourse”. Sodomy is defined in the dictionary as “an unnatural act between males or between a human and an animal”. The Bill does not provide adequate protection against the corruption of the young. Other countries do not permit what this Bill proposes. Rt. Hon. DAVID LANGE: You should change your dictionary. ROGER McCLAY: It is regrettable that the Prime Minister speaks in this debate by way of interjection. I believe that he should take the call and make his personal view known, rather than continuing to interject as he has this evening. In Britain the minimum age of consent is 21, in Australia it is 18, but it is proposed that it should be 16 years in New Zealand. What is more, it will be sufficient defence that a person who is charged believed with reasonable cause that the boy was aged 16, even though he might be only 12 years old. It has not been shown anywhere in the world that bringing the activities of homosexuals “out of the closet” has decreased the incidence of AIDS. My strongest objections are to Part II, which amends the Human Rights Commission Act 1977. This is the part that can make criminals out of employers who decline to employ, and out of landlords, businessmen and businesswomen, and educationists. The headmaster of a school will not be free to refuse employment to a practising gay teacher, male or female. If he did he could be adjudged criminal before the High Court. I draw to the attention of the House the implication of the Bill in relation to youth hostels such as those of the Young Men's Christian Asociation. The Bill does not correct the harsh law-it turns it around completely. Therefore I shall oppose it. It appears to me that with the advent of the Bill people could build an argument that from then on good will be evil and evil will be good in the eyes of the law. It is not only right-wing fundamentalists who oppose the Bill; no communist country in the world would pass it, and no Muslim or Hindu country would consider it, or pass it. Only countries in which large numbers of people have the right and freedom to speak, and that have large numbers of people in the category of the much maligned Christians of our nations, would consider or allow these laws. I shall vote against every stage of the Bill. MARGARET AUSTIN (Yaldhurst): I move, That the motion be now put. Mr SPEAKER: I realise that the debate has reached the stage at which repetition has become the rule rather than the exception. I intend to let the House decide whether the motion should be put. If the House decides that it should not be put, the debate will continue. Hon. TONY FRIEDLANDER (New Plymouth): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I take it from your ruling that I may not speak in the debate on behalf of my electorate? Mr SPEAKER: I am saying that the House will decide by its vote whether the debate will continue. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON (Papakura): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before you finally put that question, may I refer you to Standing Orders 213 and 214. Standing Order 213 relates to amendments to question for second reading. It states that amendments may be moved in certain circumstances. As the House knows, the member for Invercargill so moved an amendment a week ago, and we have since heard several speakers, many of whom have spoken for the first time. Standing Order 214 relates to the relevance of amendments: “No other amendment may be moved to the question for the second reading of a Bill unless it is strictly relevant to the Bill ...". The amendment moved by the member for Invercargill conforms with Standing Orders 213 and 214. My point is that not every member has had the opportunity to speak in the debate so far, and the member for New Plymouth is a case in point. If we are to consider the amendment seriously, may I suggest that members who have not yet participated in the debate be given your leave to do so, not only for reasons that apply to any private member's Bill, but also for reasons that apply to the responsibility that a private member has to constituents. Mr SPEAKER: The position is that, as well as the members who had been called, by arrangement-as the House knew- a list was kept of those members who wanted to be called. I have the list, and it has been exhausted. Hon. TONY FRIEDLANDER: Where is that in the Standing Orders? JOHN BANKS: What list? Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind members that I am on my feet. It is not my decision to stop the debate, because it is a free debate. When Government members and Opposition members are in contention members know that the Government majority will succeed. However, this is a free debate, and there are no Whips. I will give the House the opportunity to decide whether the debate should be concluded. The question before the House is that the motion be now put. NORMAN JONES (Invercargill): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw it to your attention that the Standing Orders have been contravened. The member for Yaldhurst moved “That the motion be now put", when, it fact, the motion should have been “That the question be now put." Rt. Hon. DAVID LANGE: That's very important! NORMAN JONES: It is important, and it is out of order. You cannot accept the motion, sir. There is a tradition that the motion should be “That the question be now put”. No other form may be used. I have been ruled out of order for moving an incorrect motion. Mr SPEAKER: I should be obliged if members would recall the way in which motions are alternatively put in the House. The question “That the motion be agreed to" is the most common motion in the House. The question I pose to the House is that the motion be agreed to. JOHN BANKS (Whangarei): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice. You said a moment ago in your ruling, which I accept, that it is a free vote and there are no Whips on either side of the House. I should have thought that on a conscience issue of importance every member would have an opportunity to speak. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before the member goes any further, and because I do not want to remove his opportunity of voting, could he tell me what remedy he seeks that does not require a reversal of my ruling? JOHN BANKS: Are you saying that some members of the House who have not spoken at all will not be given an opportunity to speak? Mr SPEAKER: I am not saying that. The member is requesting a reversal of my ruling. My ruling is that the motion be now put. DON McKINNON (Rodney): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I refer you to Standing Order 190, which states tha any member moving the closure must use the w " That the question be now put”. I was not in the House at the time but I am informed by my colleagues that the words used by the member for Yaldhurst were “That the motion be now put”. That has been ruled out of order many times before and I suggest that in those circumstances the question that was put by the member for Yaldhurst cannot be accepted. Mr SPEAKER: I take the point that the member has made, but the fact that the words " question” and “motion" are used alternatively in the House would dispose me not to rule the motion out on those grounds. If members can draw my attention to a precedent in Speakers' Rulings or a precedent in the rulings of the House of which I am not aware, I shall be quite happy to be guided by it, but I know of no precedent. NORMAN JONES (Invercargill): In an all-night debate I was asked to move the closure and I moved it in the same words as those used by the member for Yaldhurst. It was not accepted because I did not use the correct words and ask that the question by now put. The closure motion was not taken until another time. I remember being ruled out on it myself by Speaker Harrison, and that is why I raise my point of order. JACK LUXTON (Matamata): I have sat in the chair many times, and I have always required that Standing Order 190 be adhered to - that is, that the form of the closure motion is “That the question be now put”. Speaker's ruling 45/5, which was given by Mr Speaker Macfarlane in 1958 states: “A member when rising to move ‘That the question be now put' cannot then give reasons for doing so.” It has always been the practice that a member must move the motion in its correct form - that is, “That the question be now put". Mr SPEAKER: I am persuaded by the arguments advanced, because to rule otherwise would be to rule against the strict interpretation of the Standing Orders. I am disposed to agree with the members who have raised the point of order. Hon. TONY FRIEDLANDER (New Plymouth): I appreciate the efforts that several of my colleagues have gone to give me the opportunity to speak in the debate. I am also looking forward to the Prime Minister's contribution, because he, too, rose to take the call. It is important that, as the House sets the rules it follows, society must also set and maintain the standards by which it operates. Parliament's task is to help society to set those standards and to ensure that society operates by them. In doing so members must provide the leadership that is required and must carry the responsibility for making those decisions. That is the right and proper thing to do. As we approach that task there has been ample evidence over the years to show that the laws we have set in Parliament are based upon the great moral laws that have come down to our civilisation over thousands of years. Those laws were originally set to ensure the survival of tribes and civilisations. There is ample evidence to show that those laws are as valid today as they have ever been. When members agree to allow those laws to be undermined, compromised, or diminished that action not only holds the law up to ridicule but damages the fabric of society, and so weakens society. In saying that I do not suggest in any way that laws are not broken. Laws are broken, and that is an unfortunate fact of life. However, that does not mean that the laws themselves are wrong. In fact, it is no argument for society to lower its standards and to do away with its laws because people break them. Logic tells us that we must still strive to set those standards that we believe are right and proper. Society cannot allow general lawlessness to take place because there are people in the community who would try to break laws as often as they like. We cannot condone activities such as drug abuse, offensive language, prostitution, self-mutilation, suicide, and other acts of self-denigration that damage or destroy our society or individuals. Society and the House move against so-called victimless crimes and against acts that denigrate people, not only for the protection of the individuals themselves, but for society's own well-being. If we as parliamentarians shy from taking the stand that is necessary to establish a standard of law or acceptable behaviour, when does it become impossible for us to set standards at all? When do we abdicate our responsibilities and say that because people break the law we can no longer set standards of acceptable behaviour? Finally, members of Parliament have to provide the leadership and direction that society is crying out for. If we do not, when will we face the demands from sections of the community to legalise, for example, incest between consenting adults, prostitution, euthanasia, and drug abuse? Unless at some stage we draw a line and say we are not prepared to lower our standards beyond that they will gradually be chipped away and before long there will be no standards, or Parliament will no longer set them. When the matter was debated last week I listened carefully to the Minister of Education. I was interested in the arguments he presented to the House. If I can encapsulate his arguments fairly, I believe he presented the case for all members of the House to show Christian love to homosexuals, and therefore to pass the law. On first appearances I found his argument to be compelling. I believe that the teachings of most of us call upon Christian love to be shown to all members of society. At times we are sorely strained and our patience is tried when we seek to do so, but that is what we are called upon to do, and no one would argue against that sentiment. However, after considering his arguments I believe that the same argument in our Christian teachings asks us to show a similar love to the thugs and criminals in our society; but that does not mean that we should legalise physical assault or dishonesty. It simply means that we should seek to rehabilitate and assist the offender. It does not mean that we should seek to approve and condone those actions. Yet members are being asked not only to show Christian love to homosexuals but to condone, accept, and approve their behaviour. We should not and cannot do that if we are to maintain a reasonable standard in our society. By taking that stance it must be apparent that I intend to vote against the Bill. At no stage have I suggested that our present laws are perfect-they are not; but I have listened carefully to members in the House and to people on radio to hear if anyone could bring any evidence to suggest that homosexuals have been harassed because of the present law. Although some speakers have implied that there has been harassment, no evidence has been provided to show that that is so. I have listened for the evidence to suggest that the information I have gathered is wrong. Although the existing laws are not perfect, they have achieved a considerable amount for society by discouraging the promotion of homosexual behaviour. They have protected society from those who would seek to promote homosexual behaviour as a right, proper, and acceptable way of life. I do not believe that it is. The present laws have also tended to suppress any form of homosexual soliciting, although one must acknowledge that some soliciting does occur. They have also helped to suppress and prevent public displays of homosexual activity in the community in a manner that most of us would find unacceptable. That has provided a major advantage to society and should not be lightly done away with. I repeat that in adopting my approach I do not lack concern or compassion for homosexual people. However, I believe the answer does not and should not lie in the whole of society being called on to weaken or lower the standards it sets for itself. I briefly draw the attention of the House to the amendments to the Human Rights Commission Act proposed by the legislation as they seek to legislate against any form of discrimination on the unds of homosexuality. That means that anyone seeking to appoint a scoutmaster, a Bible class teacher, a boarding school headmaster, and so on, could not discriminate and say “We do not find you acceptable because you are a homosexual.” FRAN WILDE: The member's wrong. Hon. TONY FRIEDLANDER: I am not wrong. (Interruption). It means that there would be no ability not to employ a person solely on the grounds of homosexuality. I believe that is an unacceptable position for us to place society in. The other point is that the House is strongly divided on the issue, yet if that aspect of the law is passed we are asking the public to ensure that despite the strong words that have been spoken here people will not be able to express their point of view as we have sought to express ours in the House. We are being illogical if we believe that by simply passing the legislation, as we are asked to do, people will put their prejudices and concerns behind them and will not break that law. Because many people are strongly opposed to what is being proposed, it would be ridiculous for us to pass a law that in no way, shape, or form would enable them to express their abhorrence of concern about homosexual activities in our community as they affect individuals. Members have applied themselves to the problem and are obviously divided on the matter. With other members, I intend to oppose the Bill. If we do not do so, at some stage we will regret the day that we allowed our standards to lower further and further. ANNETTE KING (Horowhenua): I move, That the question be now put. The House divided. Ayes 56 Anderton; Austin, M. E.; Austin, W. R.; Bassett; Batchelor, Boorman; Burke; Butcher, Caygill; Clark; Colman; Cooper; Cullen; de Cleene; Dillon; Dunne; Elder, Fraser, Gair, Gerard; Gerbic; Goff; Graham; Gray; Gregory; Hercus; Hunt; Jeffries; Keall; Kidd; King; Lange; Luxton; McKinnon; McLay; Marshall, C. R.; Maxwell, R. K.; Moore; Neilson; Northey; O'Flynn; Palmer; Prebble; Rodger, Scott; Shields; Sutton, J. R.; Tapsell; Terris; Tizard; Townshend; Wetere; Woollaston; Young, V. S. Tellers: Matthewson; Wilde. Noes 20 Angus; Austin, H. N.; Banks; Birch; Braybrooke; East; Friedlander, Knapp; McClay; McTigue; Mallard; Morrison; Peters; Smith; Talbot; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Wellington; Young, T. J. Tellers: Jones; Lee. Majority for: 36 Motion agreed to. The House divided on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 26 Angus; Austin, H. N.; Austin, W. R.; Banks; Birch; Cooper; Friedlander, Gray; Jones; Kidd; Luxton; McClay; McLay; McTigue; Marahall , D. W. A.; Morrison; Peters; Smith; Storey; Talbot; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Townshend; Wellington; Young, T. J. Tellers: Braybrooke; Lee. Noes 53 Anderton; Austin, M. E.; Bassett; Batchelor; Boorman; Burdon; Burke; Butcher, Caygill; Clark; Coleman; Cullen; de Cleene; Dillon; Dunne; East; Elder, Fraser, Gair; Gerard; Gerbic; Goff; Graham; Gregory; Hercus; Hunt; Jeffries; Keall; King; Knapp; Lange; McKinnon; Marshall, C. R.; Matthewson; Maxwell, R. K.; Moore; Neilson; Northey; O'Flynn; Palmer; Prebble; Rodger, Scott; Shields; Sutton, J. R.; Tapsell; Terris; Tizard; Wetere; Woollaston; Young, V. S. Tellers: Mallard; Wilde. Majority against: 27 Amendment negatived. The House divided on the question, That this Bill be now read a second time. Ayes 47 Anderton; Austin, M. E.; Bassett; Batchelor; Boorman; Burdon; Burke; Butcher; Caygill; Clark; Cullen; de Cleene; Dillon; Dunne; Elder, Fraser; Gair; Gerbic; Goff; Graham; Gregory; Hercus; Hunt; Jeffries; Keall; King; Lange; McKinnon; Marshall, C. R.; Matthewson; Maxwell, R. K.; Moore; Neilson; Northey; O'Flynn; Palmer; Prebble; Rodger, Scott; Shields; Sutton, J. R.; Tizard; Wetere; Woollaston; Young, V. S. Tellers: Mallard; Wilde. Noes 32 Angus; Austin, H. N.; Austin, W. R.; Banks; Birch; Colman; Cooper, East; Friedlander; Gerard; Gray; Jones; Kidd; Knapp; Luxton; McClay; McLay; McTigue; Marshall, D. W. A.; Morrison; Peters; Smith; Storey; Talbot; Tapsell; Terris; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Townshend; Wellington; Young, T. J. Tellers: Braybrooke; Lee. Majority for: 15 Bill read a second time.

IRN: 3860
PRIDENZ URL: https://www.pridenz.com/hansard_homosexual_law_reform_bill_instruction_to_committee_20_november_1985.html
TITLE: Homosexual Law Reform Bill - Instruction to Committee (20 November 1985)
DATE: 20 November 1985
LOCATION: Parliament buildings, 1 Molesworth Street, Wellington, New Zealand.
TEXT: GRAEME LEE (Hauraki): I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Homosexual Law Reform Bill that it may consider the Bill part by part. FRAN WILDE (Wellington Central): The member for Hauraki and I have consulted on this matter and have reached an agreement that it would be a rational way of debating the Committee stage of the Bill. DON MCKINNON (Rodney): This is a debatable motion, is it not, Mr Speaker? Whilst I know that there has been an arrangement between the member for Wellington Central, who stands on one side of the issue, and the member for Hauraki, who stands on the other side, several members in the Chamber are looking bewildered about how many parts are in the Bill. I made a decision some time ago that I would not even speak on the Bill, and I have little desire to speak on it, but as a member who has some responsibility on the side of Opposition members I think it is necessary to say that they should in the next couple of minutes have a chance to look at the Bill, as they have to do as individuals. It is not a party matter; it is a conscience matter. Each member may have a different position on whether the Bill should be debated part by part. Only a few minutes would be required to do that, and we would be in a better position to vote on the motion. I am told that there are three parts. FRAN WILDE: There is the short title and two parts - Part I and Part II. DON MCKINNON: So it is the intention of those moving the motion that the short title be separate? FRAN WILDE: Yes. Mr SPEAKER: I realise there is something in the contention raised by the member for Rodney. Although I must not involve myself in the debate it is my duty to look after the interests of all members, and I suggest that it would serve the interests of all members if one or two drew attention to what is involved in each of the parts and made some suggestions to the House as to how they think the debate should be conducted. I am not doing this in the hope of prolonging the debate-in fact, I hope to avoid a prolonged debate about a procedural matter. However, the House does need to know exactly what is involved and why the procedure is seen to be advantageous by those concerned. DON MCKINNON (Rodney): Those who promoted the idea might give some consideration to allowing the debate to begin on the short title. They have signalled in advance that they want to debate the Bill part by part, so after the debate on the short title it could then be moved that the balance be handled part by part. However, that would not affect the short title debate as a stand-alone debate. Hon. GEOFFREY PALMER (Leader of the House): This is not a matter in which I have taken any direct interest, but I should say something about the procedure that the House might want to adopt. If the Committee is to consider the Bill part by part it is necessary for the House to give that instruction to the Committee before the House goes into Committee. Therefore it is not practical to adopt the course the member for Rodney has suggested. The second point is that the structure of the Bill seems to lend itself to the kind of motion that is being suggested, because in the debate on the short title each member will be entitled to a total of three 5-minute calls on clause 1 if no other members are seeking the call. That ought to give any member ample opportunity to say a great deal. That deals with the nuts and bolts of the Bill. It is the most general debate that the Committee of the whole House will have. The second part of the Bill deals with the Crimes Act. As far as I can see, all of Part I deals with amendments to the Crimes Act and the criminality with which the substance of the debate has always been concerned. If that part is dealt with, each member will again be entitled to three 5-minute calls on that part. Members would be able to move all the amendments they wanted to, and to have them considered. There is no difficulty with that. DON MCKINNON: Is the sequence of those amendments changed by dealing with parts as opposed to dealing with clauses? Hon. GEOFFREY PALMER: I do not think the sequence of the amendments would be changed, because the Committee would vote on the amendments at the end and would vote on them in the order in which they amend the clauses of the part. If that were so, no logical difficulty should be involved. When the Committee had dealt with that part it would then move to Part II of the Bill, the amendments to the Human Rights Commission Act. That part comprises two clauses and is a discrete matter quite separate from the criminal provisions dealt with in Part II. That leaves the schedule, which would probably have to be dealt with separately. Hon. VENN YOUNG (Waitotara): Before I support or reject the proposal I need a clearer reason to restrict discussion on the clauses of the Bill, because members know quite well that taking Government Bills part by part does facilitate the passage of such measures. The Bill does not have many clauses, whereas other Bills for which the House has considered such a resolution have been large and the House has needed to make some progress on them; the Government's intention has been known. In this case, however, not only is the Bill smaller, and as the Leader of the House said, it has two separate parts, but it does divide into two separate Bills, because two Acts will be amended if both parts are passed. In the circumstances, and in the knowledge that there is widespread interest in the manner in which Parliament will deal with the Bill, we may be pushing Parliament unnecessarily in the consideration of the Committee stage of the Bill. In particular, there are several amendments to clause 5, and members will need to be very clear in their minds during the Committee stage which ones they propose to support and which they propose to reject. There is a proposal for a new clause 5A. All of the amendments deserve separate consideration by the House. Perhaps the most difficult issues members have to deal with when there are several amendments on a private member's Bill that is a conscience issue are the different stances taken by individuals or groups. Although I know that the House wants to proceed with the Bill, members do not want the Committee stage to take another 3 weeks. We want to make decisions. It seems that there would be some danger of short-circuiting the rights of members to speak to individual clauses if we followed the suggested course. Hon. GEORGE GAIR (North Shore): I have considered how best we might proceed with this stage of the Bill, and have had discussion with one or two people about it. It seems to me that the proposal before us does make good sense, but to win the support of the House the proposer needs to explain how the sequence of amendments would come before the Committee. In particular, I am thinking of the changes to the age of consent. Unless we adopt a process of elimination on the matter of age we could get into all kinds of trouble. May I give an example? There is a proposal in the Bill for an age of consent of 16. In Supplementary Order Paper 70 I have proposed an age of 18. There is a proposal for an age of 20, and yet another different proposal in a proposed clause 5A for an age of 20. As the age of 16 is stated in the Bill, the amendments will clearly have to be put before the substantive clause in the Bill. By a process of elimination we should work from a higher age, by amendments, down to the substantive proposal in the Bill. In that way we would learn the mood of the House. In terms of the sequence in which the supplementary order papers were lodged, however, we couldFRAN WILDE: The proposal makes no difference to that. Hon. GEORGE GAIR: I realise that, but the concern of members, some of whom may not have considered the proposal now before the House, is partly about the right to speak and partly about how they will have the right to make their choice when the amendments come before them. If members can be clear and agree that the order of choice is made available to members according to a descending order of age, those amendments would be taken in series on the completion of the debate at the end of Part I. The consequential amendments through the clauses of Part I would follow, and that may be the best solution in the circumstances. WINSTON PETERS (Tauranga): I make a plea for normalcy and convention in the matter. I believe that the Bill should be debated clause by clause. For example, I would like to have a debate on the short title and a debate on the subject of indecency with a boy aged between 12 and 16 years of age. There should be a debate on an indecent assault on a boy by a man. There should be a debate on keeping a place of resort for homosexual acts. Those matters are all covered in Part I. I understand the wish of my colleagues for a part by part debate, but that is in the hands of the proponents of the Bill. If some of the clauses are out of place and should be rearranged for the convenience of debate, let the proponents propose a rearrangement. That is in the hands of the member for Wellington Central and the Government, but it is not for them to ask us to abandon the conventions of the House that cover nearly every Bill that passes through the House merely because they may subscribe to a certain approach for the Bill. Concerning Part II, I should like to know whether there will be a debate on the Human Rights Commission Act and on discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation being unlawful, as in clause 9 and the schedule. Those are separate matters, but I come back to the point that if there are clauses that create difficulty for chronological debate because of their placement in the Bill it is for the member for Wellington Central to redesign it now, rather than to ask members of the House and you, Mr Speaker, to abandon the convention and tradition of discussing Bills in Committee. GRAEME LEE (Hauraki): I am opposed to the Bill, and my motive in moving the motion was to recognise the difficulties the House would get into, and the regrettable confusion that might follow, by not realising that substantial amendments apply to clause 5. Although the changes to clause 5 must be addressed in chronological order, as far as I know clauses 3 and 4, which refer to the age of 16, below which offences can occur, will not draw any amendments. There may be one small technical amendment. With the understanding of that point, clause 5 will therefore be the important benchmark clause. It was my attempt to facilitate the Chair that led me to suggest that those matters could be taken together. The matter could be dealt with in other ways. My colleague the member for Tauranga suggests that the clauses could be rearranged. So be it! Taking clauses 3, 4, and 5 together would also make it possible. The point raised by the member for North Shore-about taking the amendments with the age benchmarks in the order of decreasing age-would be automatic, so it can be set aside. That is the reason behind the motion, which simply means that clauses up to clause 7 come within the motion. It would not preclude any discussion - in fact, in my understanding it would allow the best result. I repeat that I oppose the whole of the Bill. The House divided on the question, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Homosexual Law Reform Bill that it may consider the Bill part by part. Ayes 55 Anderton; Angus; Austin, M. E.; Bassett; Batchelor; Braybrooke; Burdon; Burke; Butcher, Caygill; Clark; Cox; Cullen; Dillon; Dunne; Elder; Fraser, Gair; Gerard; Gerbic; Goff; Graham; Gregory; Hunt; Jeffries; Keall; King; McKinnon; McLean; Mallard; Marshall, C. R.; Marshall, D. W. A.; Matthewson; Maxwell, R. K.; Moore; Neilson; O'Flynn; Palmer, Prebble; Rodger, Scott; Shields; Shirley; Storey; Sutton, W. D.; Talbot; Tapsell; Terris; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Tizard; Wetere; Woollaston; Young, T. J. Tellers: Lee; Wilde. Noes 21 Austin, H. N.; Austin, W. R.; Banks; Birch; Bolger; Friedlander, Jones; Kidd; Knapp; Luxton; McClay; McTigue; Maxwell, R. F. H.; Morrison; Muldoon; Richardson; Smith; Wellington; Young, V. S. Tellers: East; Peters. Majority for: 34 Motion agreed to.

IRN: 3862
PRIDENZ URL: https://www.pridenz.com/hansard_homosexual_law_reform_bill_business_carried_forward_12_december_1985.html
TITLE: Homosexual Law Reform Bill - Business Carried Forward (12 December 1985)
DATE: 12 December 1985
LOCATION: Parliament buildings, 1 Molesworth Street, Wellington, New Zealand.
TEXT: Hon. GEOFFREY PALMER (Leader of the House): I move, That the following Bills: the Animal Remedies Amendment Bill, the Apple and Pear Marketing Amendment Bill, the Auckland Regional Authority (Regional Planning Scheme) Empowering Bill , the Commerce Bill, the Crimes Amendment Bill (No. 2), the Education Amendment Bill (No. 2), the Electricity Amendment Bill, the Fair Trading Bill, the Finance Bill, the Fisheries Amendment Bill, the Forests (Kaimai-Mamaku State Forest Park) Amendment Bill, the Health Amendment Bill, the Homosexual Law Reform Bill, the Hospitals Acts Amendment Bill, the Hospitals Amendment Bill, the Income Tax Amendment Bill (No. 5), the Income Tax Amendment Bill (No. 7), the Inland Revenue Offences Bill, the Invercargill City Council (Differential Rating Validation) Bill, the Local Government Amendment Bill (No. 2), the Local Legislation Bill (No. 2), the Machinery Amendment Bill, the Maori Affairs Amendment Bill, the Medicines Amendment Bill (No. 2), the National Development Act Repeal Bill, the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Bill, the New Zealand Market Development Board Bill, the New Zealand Mission Trust Board (Port Waikato Maraetai) Empowering Bill, the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Bill, the Nuclear Free New Zealand Bill, the Otago Foundation Trust Board Bill, the Patriotic and Canteen Funds Amendment Bill, the Pesticides Amendment Bill, the Plant Variety Rights Bill, the Private Schools Conditional Integration Amendment Bill, the Prohibition of Nuclear Vessels and Weapons Bill, the Residential Tenancies Bill, the Riot Bill, the Road User Charges Amendment Bill (No. 4), the Shipping Bill, the Survey Bill, the Tasman Pulp and Paper Company Enabling Amendment Bill, the Te Runanga o Ngati Porou Bill, the Trade and Industry Amendment Bill (No. 2), the Video Classification Bill, the Video Recordings Bill, the Waimea County Council (Motueka Harbour) Vesting and Empowering Bill, the Wanganui Computer Centre Amendment Bill (No. 2), the War Pensions Amendment Bill, the Wheat Board Amendment Bill; and the petitions and matters, other than Bills now before select committees, be carried forward to the next session of Parliament. GRAEME LEE (Hauraki): I move, That the words " the Homosexual Law Reform Bill” be omitted. It is preposterous to refer that Bill to the further sitting of the House in 1986. There has never been a Bill as obnoxious and repugnant as that Bill, which seeks to legalise sodomy at the age of 16. It is a Bill that gives to a group of people rights that are not available to others - rights that go beyond race, sex, and creed, and now bring in sexual behaviour or sexual orientation. It is appropriate now, having discussed the Bill at the length we have, that we agree to set it aside. There are several reasons for my seeking the support of the House to the amendment. First, there has never been a Bill that has divided the House and the nation as the Homosexual Law Reform Bill has. The matter has reached into almost every home in the country. Hon. RICHARD PREBBLE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder if you could give some guidance on the matter. I should like to know whether the member can debate in the widest sense on a motion such as this. He appears to be discussing issues that one would discuss in a second reading. If that is valid we will have to listen to it. However, I should have thought that he would have to confine himself to the very narrow argument about whether the Bill should he held over to the next session, rather than go into the merits of the Bill. Mr SPEAKER: I have been giving the matter some thought, and it amounts to a killer motion. Therefore, the reasons why the Bill should or should not for all intents and purposes be killed become a matter for much wider debate than merely the timing of its introduction, or any further debate. GRAEME LEE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was saying that the Bill has divided the House, the nation, and even family units. My second point is that the people have made a clear stand on the matter and have given Parliament and the legislators a clear mandate that they do not want the Bill to continue. While many in the House may think it appropriate to discuss further the measures of the Bill, which has already gone through the introductory stage, the second reading, and entered the Committee stage, surely there has been sufficient time for the House to examine it and understand why the people do not want it to continue any further. The third point-if an additional reason why the Bill should not continue is required - is that many people have expressed their concern about it through the select committee system. It is an historic record of the House that approximately 2,300 submissions came from the public on the matter. Certainly there were pros and cons, but it suggests to me that there was a deep sense of division in the minds of the people and that they exercised that concern by making those submissions to the select committee. If that is so, surely we must recognise that it is most inappropriate for the Bill to go further when there was such a clear division of opinion. What are we trying to do? Are we trying to bring down some factional measure that will continue to divide the nation when there is no reason for it and therefore no need for the Bill's introduction? The last reason why we should not proceed is that the nation now faces what is potentially the worst kind of health disaster ever to confront it. I refer to the AIDS problem. That problem worsens and will continue to do so, as every day goes by. We have seemingly had our heads in the clouds during the past few months in discussing a Bill that seeks to do nothing less than decriminalise homosexual behaviour and allow it to increase - and I will not go into the arguments, which I believe are unassailable - thereby providing for AIDS to strike down the people of this country. I am concerned that the people will contract AIDS, and we will be doing something that could potentially bring about deaths of more New Zealanders than needs to be the case. For those reasons, and many more profound reasons that I need not go into at this time of night and on this last day, we have a chance to stop the Bill. I call upon the House to reflect again, having considered the Bill and decided that it is too divisive to go further, that this is an appropriate time to put it aside. Let us stop this nonsense; let us consider the matter at some other time, if necessary, but do not let us go into 1986 with the Homosexual Law Reform Bill before us. GEOFF BRAYBROOKE (Napier): I am loathed to rise at this late hour, but I must explain how I feel about the motion moved by the member for Hauraki. No one detests the Homosexual Law Reform Bill more than I do. I do not approve of it, I have constantly voted against it in the House, and I have many times urged the House to reject it. However, one must face realities; this is not the way to dispose of the Bill in a democratic society. We should dispose of the Bill by letting it go to the House as a whole, and let the House vote on it when it hears all the merits of the case. There is no doubt about that. I am against the Bill. I sincerely hope that the amendments I have put forward will be agreed to by the House when the Committee stage of the Bill is completed. I have spoken sincerely in the House when I have said that it is not good enough just to kill the Bill. A royal commission of inquiry is needed to examine all aspects of homosexuality. The problem will not go away, and by artificially killing the Bill I am afraid that all that will happen is that in the new year we will again go through all the agony and divisiveness that we have already been through. I am not prepared to see the House do it again. I do not believe that the House will pass the Homosexual Law Reform Bill, but we will kill it in a democratic way; we will not do it by a back-door method. I want the Bill killed; I do not want to see it again, but this is not the way to do it. Therefore, I reluctantly support the Bill's remaining on the Order Paper, because I believe in the true, democratic way of doing it. Two wrongs have never made a right. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON (Papakura): I was interested to hear the member for Napier make his contribution. I accept what he said, although I do not agree with it. The point is - and he overlooked it - that the House has had nearly 9 months to deal with the issue. The great difficulty with a measure of this kind, as the member for Hauraki has correctly pointed out, is that if it drags on and on it diverts or deflects members from dealing with some very substantial public issues that are important to all those whom we represent. I well recall the member for Gisborne saying-and I cannot be specific about the time-so many months ago that when he came here he did not expect so much of Parliament's time to be consumed by such a matter. I agree with that. I agree with the member for Hauraki, who referred to the petition of 800,000 New Zealanders. There has been dispute about the precise numbers, and there will always be dispute about numbers in such a matter. The member's point was very simple. At no time in New Zealand's history, and, indeed, in the history of Parliament, have so many people said in simple terms that they do not want a Bill. Many people to whom we are responsible totally oppose the Bill. An inordinate amount of time has been spent in the House on the deliberation and discussion of the matter. That might be acceptable if times were normal, but at a time when the country is perturbed about the direction of the Government's foreign policy; at a time when there is concern, and, indeed, consternation, about the economic and fiscal policies adopted by the Government; at a time when, as we have heard in recent hours, there is expected to be a massive increase in unemployment-certainly after Christmas; at a time when our primary industry, and cornerstone of the nation's wealth, is under threat-and I refer to the farming industry - and when the horticulture, fishing, and forestry industries are under unprecedented threat. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have listened with some interest. Each one of the items that the member has mentioned might be accepted as a passing reference, but when he embarks on a litany such as he has done it becomes more than just a passing reference. I ask him to return to the subject-matter. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: I accept that absolutely, Mr Speaker. My question is simply this: how much more time does Parliament need to make up its mind on the Bill? That was the question posed by the member for Hauraki, who, with great sincerity and commendable determination, has pursued the matter from the beginning to the near end. How much longer does the House need? I suggest that it needs no further time. We have had very long select committee hearings and have heard all the evidence. We have had a debate on an unprecedentedly large petition. We have been lobbied by all kinds of people. We have been written to. The question before Parliament tonight is a very proper one. Beyond all that, what need we do? Hon. ROB TALBOT: Go home. Hon. M. L. WELLINGTON: Yes, and the Whips may give the member for Ashburton leave, and God bless him. The point is, if the House has been unable to make up its mind after all this time and after that catalogue of events, the Bill should be discharged. We should not embark in the new year on other grave and weighty problems while obsessed with this one. Therefore I support the member for Hauraki. I am a little surprised that the member for Napier at this late moment parted way a little with a member with whom he has worked so closely. He did offer an alternative that is fair enough - a royal commission. However, that would not dispose of the issue; it would keep the embers of the debate fanned. For example, who would constitute the members of the commission? They would have to be Government appointees. A glance at the voting records so far on the Bill show that a majority of Government members support homosexual law “reform” for young men and young women of the age of 16 and upwards. So if the Government can appoint the commission, what sort of answer can the people expect in the face of a petition of 800,000 people - about one-quarter of our total population? I do not think that the alternative proposed by the member for Napier is valid. Members have their channels in the House. We have exhausted them, as my remarks in the past few minutes were intended to illustrate. I thank the member for Hauraki for putting before the House an amendment that is not only proper, but that a Parliament should support by majority. Hon. VENN YOUNG (Waitotara): I listened with interest to the contribution from my colleague the member for Papakura, for whom I have the greatest regard. I wish the issue he referred to in terms of legislation would go away, but it will not. Parliament has to make a decision on whether the Homosexual Law Reform Bill proceeds. He who fights and runs away will live to run another day. Whether we like it or not, Parliament must deal with the subject; it must make a decision one way or the other. The Bill should be held over and we should make our decision next year, only because we cannot make it this year. I do not disagree with the member for Papakura when he says that the Bill is taking up the time of Parliament when it could be considering many other matters. However, decisions must be made, and made by the Legislature. There is no one else to make them. Hon. WHETU TIRIKATENE-SULLIVAN (Southern Maori): I rise to support the amendment, and I do so with as much sincerity, concern, and conviction as I am capable of. I can say what I want to say with impeccable brevity at this time of night. This is a conscience issue, included with many other Bills that are not of the same nature. I ask the House in all conscience: how can Parliament seek determinedly to proceed to legalise the means of passing on a fatal disease? I put it simply and succinctly in those terms. That is the focus of the Bill that causes me the greatest concern for those of the young generation who require us to pass laws to protect them in every aspect of their lives. I reiterate my concern that if the Bill is carried forward to the next session we will continue with a Bill that legalises the means of passing on a fatal disease. I cannot agree with that, and therefore I support the amendment that this particular Bill should not be carried forward. Surely, at a time when the Western World is aware of the epidemic of AIDS, Parliament cannot seek to pursue the passage of a Bill that will condemn the younger people of this generation and the next to the likelihood of becoming subject, reluctantly and innocently, to a fatal disease. Hon. GEOFFREY PALMER (Leader of the House): Mr SpeakerMr SPEAKER: Is the member speaking to the amendment? Hon. GEOFFREY PALMER: Yes. Mr SPEAKER: That means that you surrender your right of reply? Hon. GEOFFREY PALMER: Yes, I appreciate that one has only one set of rights. The amendment has been moved in all sincerity by the member for Hauraki, but I believe that it is misconceived, because I do not think there has been a measure in my time to which the House has devoted more effort, more energy, and more speeches than this particular Bill. The Bill is only partially on its way to a resolution and no one can tell what that resolution will be. The sponsors of the Bill feel so strongly about it, however, that it would be inevitable that they would reintroduce it, and we would go through the process all over again. I do not think that Parliament should be subjected to that. The purpose of Parliament is to decide that issue in a proper way in accordance with the Standing Orders, and, whatever view members take of the matter, Parliament has made a sincere effort to do that, but it has not finished that process, and that process must be allowed to continue. It must continue to its ultimate conclusion, unhurried by any particular action the Government can take by way of urgency. Under our Standing Orders, such matters can now be considered only on Wednesdays, and this matter has been considered on a great many Wednesdays. Given those circumstances, I think proper parliamentary practice and democratic procedures here coalesce; that whatever one's views of the Bill's merits, it is not appropriate to kill it off by a procedural motion at the end of a parliamentary session and set at nil the parliamentary effort that has been made on it over many weeks. This is not a private member's Bill that is of a political character. It is a sincere effort to change the law on a particular subject, and, whether or not we like the issue, as members of Parliament we will have to grapple with it and vote on it according to its merits, in accordance with the Standing Orders. For that reason it should be held over so that all the work the House has done is not wasted, and that must apply as much to the opponents of the Bill as to its proponents. In the final analysis this is a Parliament, and Parliament has to decide the matter. It ought not to be deprived of the opportunity to decide it by a procedural motion of the character contained in the amendment moved by the member for Hauraki. The House divided on the question, That the amendment be agreed 10. Ayes 17 Austin, W. R., Banks; Birch; Bolger, Falloon; McLay; McTigue; Maxwell, R. F. H.; Peters; Smith; Talbot; Tapsell; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Wellington; Young, T. J. Tellers: Austin, H. N.; Lee. Noes 56 Anderton; Austin, M. E.; Bassett; Batchelor; Boorman; Braybrooke; Burdon; Burke; Butcher; Caygill; Clark; Colman; Cooper; Cox; Cullen; de Cleene; Dunne; East; Elder, Fraser; Friedlander; Gerard; Gerbic; Goff; Gray; Gregory; Hunt; Isbey; Keall; Kidd; King; McKinnon; Marshall, C. R.; Matthewson; Maxwell, R. K.; Moore; Moyle; Neilson; O'Flynn; O'Regan; Palmer; Prebble; Scott; Shields; Shirley; Sutton, J. R.; Sutton, W. D.; Terris; Tizard; Townshend; Upton; Wetere; Woollaston; Young, V. S. Tellers: Mallard; Wilde. Majority against: 39 Amendment negatived, and motion agreed to.

IRN: 7839
PRIDENZ URL: https://www.pridenz.com/hansard_homosexual_law_reform_bill_committee_of_whole_house_5_march_1986.html
TITLE: Homosexual Law Reform Bill - Committee of whole House (5 March 1986)
DATE: 5 March 1986
LOCATION: Parliament buildings, 1 Molesworth Street, Wellington, New Zealand.
TEXT: Debate resumed from 20 November 1985. Clause 1. Short Title and commencement (continued).[A dispute having arisen, the member for Papakura withdrew from the Chamber on the instruction of the Chairman of Committees.][A dispute having arisen, the member for Tamaki withdrew from the Chamber on the instruction of the Chairman of Committees.] The Committee divided on the question, That the amendments set out in Supplementary Order Paper 71 be agreed to. Ayes 23 Angus; Austin, H. N.; Austin, W. R.; Batchelor, Birch; Bolger; Falloon; Friedlander; Jones; Kidd; Luxton; McClay; McTigue; Morrison; Muldoon; Peters; Storey; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Wallbank; Wellington; Young, T. J. Tellers: Banks; Lee. Noes 51 Anderton; Austin, M. E.; Bassett; Boorman; Burdon; Butcher, Caygill; Clark; Colman; Cox; Cullen; de Cleene; Dillon; Douglas; Dunne; East; Fraser; Gair; Gerard; Gerbic; Goff; Graham; Gray; Gregory; Hercus; Hunt; Isbey; Keall; King; McKinnon; McLay; McLean; Marshall, C. R.; Matthewson; Maxwell, R. K.; Northey; O'Flynn; O'Regan; Palmer; Prebble; Rodger; Shields; Shirley; Smith; Sutton, J. R.; Sutton, W. D.; Tizard; Woollaston; Young, V. S. Tellers: Mallard; Wilde. Majority against: 28 Amendments negatived. The Committee divided on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to. Ayes 47 Anderton; Austin, M. E.; Bassett; Batchelor; Boorman; Burdon; Butcher; Caygill; Clark; Colman; Cox; Cullen; de Cleene; Dillon; Douglas; Dunne; Fraser; Gair; Gerbic; Goff; Graham; Gregory; Hercus; Hunt; Isbey; Keall; King; McKinnon; McLean; Marshall, C. R.; Matthewson; Maxwell, R. K.; Northey; O'Flynn; O'Regan; Palmer; Prebble; Rodger; Shields; Shirley; Sutton, J. R.; Sutton, W. D.; Tizard; Woollaston; Young, V. S. Tellers: Mallard; Wilde. Noes 27 Angus; Austin, H. N.; Austin, W. R.; Birch; Bolger; East; Falloon; Friedlander; Gerard; Gray; Jones; Kidd; Luxton; McClay; McLay; McTigue; Morrison; Muldoon; Peters; Smith; Storey; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Wallbank; Wellington; Young, T. J. Tellers: Banks; Lee. Majority for: 20 Clause agreed to. Part 1. Amendments of Crimes Act 1961. JACK LUXTON (Matamata), on a point of order, said that an instruction from the House had to be worded in specific terms, but the motion moved on 20 November had been: " That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Homosexual Law Reform Bill that it may consider the Bill part by part". Unless members had voted on whether the Bill should be taken part by part the Chairman had an obligation to consider it clause by clause. The CHAIRMAN: I agree that this is a matter for the discretion and the decision of the Committee, which has the power under the resolution passed by the House to consider the Bill part by part if that is its decision. FRAN WILDE (Wellington Central) moved, That in accordance with the power conferred on the Committee by way of instruction the Homosexual Law Reform Bill be considered part by part. GRAEME LEE (Hauraki), on a point of order, asked whether the four 5-minute speeches allowed under the Standing Orders on each clause could be extended by the Chairman in the course of the debate should the Committee decide to discuss the Bill part by part. The CHAIRMAN: Standing Order 286 applies and is quite clear: any question before the Committee-including the part by part consideration of a Bill in the Committee stage-is allowed 4 speeches of 5 minutes' duration. JACK LUXTON (Matamata), on a point of order, said that it was normal for a specific instruction to be given to the Committee by the House. That could be done on a clear majority of the House. It was his understanding that when the Committee was deciding to take a Bill part by part the question was put directly by the Chair. If one member of the Committee objected the Bill would be taken clause by clause. The CHAIRMAN: The question as to the Bill's being considered part by part was not a clear instruction from the House; rather, the House had given the Committee the power to consider the Bill part by part should it want to do so. When the Committee had reached the stage at which a part by part consideration of the Bill was appropriate I moved that Part I stand part, whereupon there was a point of order on the nature of the instruction to the Committee, followed by a formal motion by the member in charge of the Bill. At that stage the question before the Committee was that the Bill should be considered part by part. Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT MULDOON (Tamaki), on a point of order, said that the resolution of the House had stated that the Committee " may" take the Bill part by part. The Chairman had said that there was a resolution to do that, but he had not ruled on the point made by the member for Matamata, that it was not possible in the Committee of the whole House to do that by resolution, as it had to be done by leave, and one voice could stop it. That was a very important issue upon which, if necessary, the Chairman should take the advice of Mr Speaker. It was an important matter if the Committee of the whole House purported to take powers to itself which, under the precedents of the House, it was not entitled to take. Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (St. Kilda), said, on the point of order, that the procedure the House had followed had been adopted in relation to the Goods and Services Tax Bill in 1985. A permissive motion had been moved to enable the Committee to consider whether the Bill should be taken part by part. It had not meant that the Committee had to take the Bill part by part. In McGee, at page 251, it was stated: " An instruction to a committee of the whole House is an abstract motion. . . . The committee... merely has power conferred upon it to do these things if it sees fit." Whether or not the Committee saw fit was a matter for resolution by the Committee and was therefore a motion to be debated within the Committee. There was no suggestion that the matter should be resolved by leave. That procedure would empower a single member to thwart the will of the overwhelming majority. The matter was one to be settled by debate, resolution, and division within the Committee. The CHAIRMAN: It is fairly clear that, in the past, when there has been an instruction from the House that the Committee may consider a Bill part by part, it has been considered an instruction that not only empowers the Committee but obliges it. The member for Matamata is quite right. When a voice has been raised in dissent it is then a question for the Committee to decide. A voice was raised in this instance, and, there having been dissent, it was then appropriate for the member for Wellington Central to move as she did. The Committee has the power if it wishes to exercise it. Since it has the power, it is in the process now of deciding whether it wishes to exercise it. JACK LUXTON (Matamata) moved, That progress be reported, to obtain the Speaker's ruling on the instruction to the Committee.[A dispute having arisen, the Chairman of Committees named the member for Whangarei.] Progress reported. House resumed. The CHAIRMAN: I report progress so that I can advise you that under Standing Order 193 I have been obliged to name a member-namely, the member for Whangarei-for a sequence of events during which he repeatedly challenged the authority of the Chair and left me with no alternative but to move under Standing Order 193. Mr SPEAKER: No doubt members have taken the opportunity to familiarise themselves with Standing Order 193. I draw to their attention the last three lines in particular: “... and the Speaker shall, on a motion being made thereupon, put the same question, without amendment or debate, as if the offence had been committed in the House itself". There is no provision under that Standing Order for the Speaker to do any other single thing. If members are in any doubt about that they should reread the Standing Order. Therefore, in accordance with the requirement of Standing Order 193, I call upon the Leader of the House. Hon. VENN YOUNG (Waitotara): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Committee has been debating a very difficult proposal - Mr SPEAKER: Order! We are dealing with a very serious matter, and I remind the member for Waitotara that the ultimate purpose of a point of order is to ask for some action to be taken or relief to be given by the Chair. To raise a spurious point of order is highly disorderly-by that, I mean a point of order that does not have the purpose to which I have just referred. I have drawn the attention of the House to the limitations of the Speaker's ability in the matter. The requirements of the Standing Order are absolute, and admit no departure from the procedure laid down. As long as the member for Waitotara is fully aware of that, is not involved in a spurious point of order, and concludes it by requesting some action from the Chair that would make the point of order totally in order, he may continue. Hon. VENN YOUNG: The heading for Standing Order 193 is " Member may be suspended after being named". It does not say that the member shall be suspended after being named. That being the case, the Speaker has the discretion to take into account the circumstances that led to the naming of the member. JACK LUXTON (Matamata): I draw your attention to the circumstances that led up to the incident. I moved a motion under Standing Order 289, and I refer you to the ruling - Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but no provision exists for the Speaker to review decisions that have been made by the Chairman in Committee. If there is dispute about whether correct procedural matters have been followed, it is in the authority of the Chair to review the procedure of the Committee of which the Chairman happens to be part in the light of the greater responsibility to the House; however, in the actual conduct of the proceedings of the Committee, the Chairman is in exactly the same position and has the same authority as the Speaker in the House. The Standing Orders and Speakers' Rulings specifically disallow the Speaker to review in any way a decision that has been made by the Chairman in matters of that account. Having stated that and explained the position I shall allow the member to raise his point of order, but he should bear that in mind and also remember that a spurious point of order is disorderly. JACK LUXTON (Matamata): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have no intention to making a spurious point of order. I draw your attention to Standing Order 289. I moved that the Chairman of Committees report progress to take a Speaker's ruling. The Chairman had no alternative but to call the Speaker. Standing Order 289 states: " A motion may be made during the proceedings of a committee of the whole House that the Chairman report progress in order to obtain the Speaker's ruling on some question raised therein. Such a motion shall be put forthwith without amendment or debate." After I had moved the motion-and that was the start of the sequence-the Chairman proceeded as if the Committee was still sitting. My argument is that the moment the motion was moved the Chairman had no further business in the Chair and had to call the Speaker to rule on the matter that I wanted resolved. I have a right to have my point of order dealt with first. Mr SPEAKER: I take cognisance of the matter the member has raised - that a motion was before the Committee that the Chairman report progress in order to obtain a Speaker's ruling. Of that I have no knowledge-it has not been reported to me - but if that were so that matter has still to be resolved by the Committee. The Committee is master of its own destiny until the motion has been put and passed-the mere putting of the motion does not involve the recall of the Speaker. Nothing in the Standing Orders states that it is any different from any other motion. That being so, the question of disorder apparently arose, from the Chairman's report, before the motion had been put. Therefore the Committee was still in control of its own affairs. A matter of disorder takes precedence over all other matters, and it is such a matter that the Chairman has reported to me. After it resumes, the Committee is free to decide whether to seek a ruling from the Chair on any matter. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON (Papakura): I should like to make two points: one has already been mentioned by the member for Matamata, and I raise it in the form of a question to you. What happens if the first part of a two-part sequence of events - the first of which is unresolved-leads to the suspension or the naming of a member? I do not see how we can separate them, but my question is whether we can do that. I now refer to Standing Order 193, which you are required to administer in the second part. It is subtitled " Member may be suspended after being named". That leaves a question to be answered about the word " may": in the text of the Standing Order it is stated that the Chairman " shall", the Speaker “shall”, and so on. I believe that the Standing Order is deficient in that the subtitle has the operative verb “may” and the word “shall” is used in the text. The question before the House is not whether he shall be named, but whether he may be named. In arriving at an answer to that, should we not take into account the actions that preceded the member's being named-particularly if, in the opinion of the Committee, the matter might not have been handled judiciously, for whatever reason. Mr SPEAKER: There is no difficulty about the matter at all. First, it is not a question of whether a member may be named; it is that the member may be suspended. The process of naming is one of the steps to be taken in suspending a member. The doubt that may exist has nothing to do with the text of Standing Order 193; the doubt that exists is whether the House will sustain that motion. It is not a decision of the Chair; it is not a decision of the Chairman of Committees; and it is not a decision of the Speaker-as it is on other occasions whether suspension is being considered. On this occasion it is a decision of the House, and no one may prejudge what the decision of the House will be. The member having been named, the Standing Order states that he may be suspended; that is where the element of doubt sets in. Hon. RICHARD PREBBLE (Minister of Transport): I move, That the member for Whangarei be suspended from the service of the House. The House divided on the question, That the motion be agreed to. Ayes 44 Anderton; Austin, M. E.; Bassett; Batchelor; Boorman; Butcher; Caygill; Clark; Colman; de Cleene; Dillon; Douglas; Dunne; Fraser; Gerbic; Goff; Gregory; Hercus; Hunt; Isbey; Keall; King; Mallard; Marshall, C. R.; Matthewson; Maxwell, R. K.; Neilson; Northey; O'Flynn; Palmer; Prebble; Rodger; Shields; Shirley; Sutton, J. R.; Sutton, W. D.; Terris; TirikateneSullivan; Tizard; Wallbank; Woollaston; Young, T. J. Tellers: Cullen; Wilde. Noes 31 Angus; Austin, H. N; Austin, W. R.; Banks; Birch; Bolger; Burdon; Cox; East; Falloon; Friedlander; Gair; Gerard; Graham; Gray; Jones; Kidd; Lee; Luxton; McLay; McLean; McTigue; Morrison; Muldoon; O'Regan; Smith; Storey; Wellington; Young, V. S. Tellers: McClay; McKinnon. Majority for: 13 Motion agreed to. Hon. TONY FRIEDLANDER (New Plymouth): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may recall that when the Chairman of Committees was reporting on the matter that has now been dispensed with, the issue that led to that incident was that the member for Matamata sought to have a matter reported back. I ask you to rule on that. Mr SPEAKER: I have no knowledge of that matter except what has been reported to me by the member for Matamata. If the Committee intends to pursue that matter I have no doubt that I will hear about it by the appropriate means, which are laid down in the Standing Orders. Committee resumed. JACK LUXTON (Matamata) moved, That progress be reported. Motion agreed to. House resumed. The CHAIRMAN: Mr Speaker, I have been asked to report progress and to seek your ruling on a matter that arose during the Committee's consideration of the instruction given to it by the House, " That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Homosexual Law Reform Bill that it may consider the Bill part by part." During the discussion on the instruction the point was raised that in the past the matter had been dealt with by leave, whereas, on a motion moved by the member in charge of the Bill, the Committee proceeded to debate the question that the Bill should be debated part by part. Several members have raised objection to that procedure, on the basis that it does not conform with precedent. Other members have pointed out that as recently as last year, on the Goods and Services Tax Bill, that was a way in which a Bill that can be divided into parts might be dealt with by the Committee. It was considered advisable that you be recalled so that the matter might be determined both in terms of recent precedent and of the past practice of the House. We seek your ruling on whether to proceed with the procedure we have adopted in the debate, which is to take the instruction and consider it by way of a motion moved in the Committee, to determine whether the Bill shall be considered part by part. Mr SPEAKER: It is not difficult to establish the tradition of the House. JACK LUXTON (Matamata): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As I asked for the Speaker to be recalled, surely I should be able to give a little background on the matter. Mr SPEAKER: Certainly, if the member wishes to speak. I was unaware that he was on his feet. JACK LUXTON: The Committee has a very narrow brief. It deals with the short title of a Bill; it deals with a Bill clause by clause; and it deals with amendments. It can take an instruction from the House. The motion agreed to by the House, as reported in Hansard, Volume 467, at page 8254, was: " That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Homosexual Law Reform Bill that it may consider the Bill part by part". It was not a specific motion that it will deal with the Bill part by part; it stated that it may do so. When that matter was raised the Chairman of Committees said that it was a decision of the Committee of the whole House as to whether it would deal with it part by part. The promoter of the Bill then moved that it be dealt with part by part. It is my contention that in the Committee stage it is not a debatable issue. It is not one that divides the Committee of the whole House; rather, that proceeding takes place by leave of the Committee. If leave is given it needs the full support of every member of the House. The idea of having an instruction to the Committee from the House is that it can be done on the majority vote of the House, but a decision at the Committee stage must be taken by leave or have the concurrence of every member of the House. That is part of the democratic process. I believe it will start a series of motions that are not within the bounds of the Committee of the whole House. I believed it was of such importance that the Speaker should be recalled to give a ruling, so that it is known whether in future such motions can be moved at any time during any debate at the Committee stage. Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (St. Kilda): I refer to McGee, pages 251 to 252, where the matter is dealt with adequately: " An instruction to the Committee of the whole House is an abstract motion... An instruction to the committee of the whole House must be permissive only. It gives the committee power to do something, it does not direct it to act in a certain way.” It goes on to explain why that is so, and, on page 252, states specifically that the debate on an instruction is restricted to the subject-matter of the motion and must not extend to the general principle or objects of the Bill. In other words, there is a motion in the House that is a permissive motion. That is then moved at the proper time-in this case it related to dealing with the Bill part by part, therefore it was moved after consideration of the short title. That motion is itself debatable. The leave of the Committee could be taken at the time debate on the short title finished, and leave could be refused; but that does not pre-empt the possibility of the motion then being moved, debated, and voted on by the Committee of the whole House. The crucial point made on page 251 of McGee is: " A committee of the whole House consists of all the members of the House and it would be absurd for the members in the House to bind themselves irrevocably to something in committee (in contrast to controlling select committees of which all members of the House are not members)." Hon. JIM McLAY (Leader of the Opposition): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As I was in the House when the proceeding commenced it might be helpful if I outline to you the sequence of events. Mr SPEAKER: Order! With due respect, I draw to your attention that the authority of the Speaker is sought to give a ruling solely on the interpretation of the Standing Orders. The Speaker's ruling has been sought on the principles involved. The Speaker may not give a ruling on the particular incident in the Committee; that is solely within the control of the Chairman. Hon. JIM McLAY: I realise that entirely, and I certainly do not seek a ruling on the events. They are part; they were not challenged at the time; and they are not relevant to the discussion-other than that they put the discussion on the interpretation of the Standing Orders into context so that you are not being asked to rule in a vacuum. As we moved past clause 1, the short title, which the Committee had voted on and agreed to, we proceeded to consider whether the Committee would deal with the Bill part by part, in accordance with the permissive, but certainly not mandatory, instruction from the House. The Chairman first sought leave, which, as the events suggest, was obviously denied. I would submit that that is where the matter ended. However, I suggest that it is only a matter for leave and not one for vote, which may be opposed only by a majority with a minority dissenting. The proper course of action would be for the Chairman simply to seek leave. If that leave is objected to there is no alternative but for the Committee to deal with the Bill in the manner prescribed by the Standing Orders, which is clause by clause. Mr SPEAKER: The matter is quite clear. It is well laid down by McGee but I suggest that it is just as clearly put in Speaker's ruling 34/6, which states: " An instruction to the Committee on a Bill is an abstract motion, not an amendment to the motion to go into Committee on the Bill. It is not mandatory; it merely gives the Committee power, if it thinks fit, to consider and bring into the Bill the matters referred to in the instruction." That appears to be the position. The Committee is empowered to deal with the Bill part by part if it so wishes on an instruction from the House. The wishes of the Committee may be sought in two ways. One is the simple way of taking leave, and if all members are unanimous the wishes of the Committee are without dispute and the matter proceeds. However, the wishes of the Committee may also be sought by means of a motion so that the Committee decides by its numbers. That is nothing novel because that is what the Committee does when it passes any clause or any part of a Bill that subsequently becomes part of its reporting back to the House. That is the normal procedure of the Committee to determine its own wishes. In the present case it was decided that the Committee should seek a resolution of its opinion by means of a motion, and that is entirely in accordance with the customary procedures of the House. It is a motion, like any other motion before the Committee. Hon. JIM McLAY (Leader of the Opposition): I raise a further point of order, Mr Speaker. I accept your ruling entirely, but to assist the Committee when it considers the Bill-either clause by clause or part by part as the case may be-could the Committee, having agreed initially to consider the Bill part by part, subsequently, on a motion moved by any member, agree to consider, say, a particular and complex part clause by clause? In other words, does that one motion preclude a subsequent motion that might involve clause by clause consideration either of the remainder of the Bill or of a particular part? Mr SPEAKER: That raises the question of what the wish of the Committee is. If the Committee in its wisdom has decided that the whole of its proceedings shall be part by part, then the Committee is bound by that decision. If someone chooses to test that on a subsequent occasion, it could only be done by leave. But if the Committee, again in its wisdom, wants to avoid prejudging something it has not yet had time to consider, and does not want to put itself into a position in which it is judging the whole Bill part by part, it is quite entitled to say that in that instance the first part will be considered as one unit, as a part, and the second part may be dealt with in the same way or clause by clause. The instruction from the House leaves the matter entirely in the hands of the Committee. Hon. JIM McLAY: If the Committee agreed to it on Part I - Mr SPEAKER: That does not bind it, provided the motion is worded in such a way that every member who votes on it knows exactly what he or she is voting on. But if the motion is that Part I be now considered-which would be an appropriate way of putting it-that deals only with the problem of Part I and with the problem of Part II. That can be dealt with by subsequent motions or decisions of the Committee. Hon. JIM McLAY (Leader of the Opposition): I raise a further point of order, Mr Speaker. I hesitate to draw the matter out but we are breaking new ground with what is a very important issue-one that is a conscience issue and not of the nature of the legislation we would normally deal with part by part. Can I take it from what you have said that if, as is the case in this instance, a general motion that the Bill be considered part by part is passed by the Committee, it is still open for the Committee to seek leave or move that, say, Part III or Part IV be dealt with on a clause by clause basis? Mr SPEAKER: No, I am sorry, if a general motion to consider that whole Bill part by part is taken, then the Committee is bound by that; but if the Committee does not wish to be bound by that it may do it in the manner that I suggested before, so that it deals solely with the matter in front of it. Then, when it comes to the other parts, the Committee has not bound itself to how they will be dealt with and the treatment of those parts can be resolved subsequently. This motion is like any other motion. If the motion before the House is that the whole Bill be considered part by part, then it is competent for any member to amend it by moving that only Part I be so considered and that Part II be left for further consideration by the Committee. The matter is entirely in the Committee's own hands. Committee resumed Part I. Amendments of Crimes Act 1961 (continued). Hon. Dr MICHAEL BASSETT (Minister of Health) moved, That the question be now put. The CHAIRMAN declined to accept the motion. GRAEME LEE (Hauraki) moved, That the motion moved by the member for Wellington Central be amended by deleting the words " part by part", and substituting the words " clause by clause on Part I; and that speaking times be strictly in accordance with the Standing Orders". The CHAIRMAN declined to accept the amendment on the ground that it negatived the motion before the Committee. Progress reported. The House adjourned at 10. 55 p. m.

IRN: 7840
PRIDENZ URL: https://www.pridenz.com/hansard_homosexual_law_reform_bill_committee_of_whole_house_continued_19_march_1986.html
TITLE: Homosexual Law Reform Bill - Committee of whole House continued (19 March 1986)
DATE: 19 March 1986
LOCATION: Parliament buildings, 1 Molesworth Street, Wellington, New Zealand.
TEXT: Committee Debate resumed from 5 March 1986. 7. 45 p. m. Part I. Amendments of Crimes Act 1961 (continued). GRAEME LEE (Hauraki) moved to add to the motion the words " except Part I". TREVOR MALLARD (Hamilton West) moved, That the question be now put. The Committee divided on the question, That the question be now put. Ayes 42 Anderton; Austin, M. E.; Bassett; Batchelor; Burke; Caygill; Clark; Cullen; de Cleene; Dillon; Douglas; Dunne; Elder; Fraser; Gerbic; Goff; Graham; Gregory; Hercus; Hunt; Isbey; Jeffries; Keall; King; Marshall, C. R.; Matthewson; Maxwell, R. K.; Neilson; Northey; O'Flynn; Palmer; Prebble; Shields; Shirley; Sutton, J. R.; Tapsell; Tizard; Wetere; Wilde; Young, T. J. Tellers: Mallard; Woollaston. Noes 27 Austin, H. N.; Austin, W. R.; Birch; Bolger; Burdon; Cox; East; Friedlander; Gair; Gerard; Gray; Jones; Kidd; Knapp; Luxton; McClay; McLay; McLean; Morrison; Muldoon; Storey; Talbot; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Wellington; Young, V. S. Tellers: Banks; Lee. Majority for: 15 Motion agreed to. The committee divided on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 25 Austin, H. N.; Austin, W. R.; Birch; Bolger; East; Friedlander; Gerard; Gray; Jones; Kidd; Knapp; Luxton; McClay; McLay; McLean; Morrison; Muldoon; Storey; Talbot; Tapsell; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Wellington; Young, T. J. Tellers: Banks; Lee. Noes 43 Anderton; Austin, M. E.; Bassett; Batchelor; Burke; Caygill; Clark; Cox; Cullen; de Cleene; Dillon; Douglas; Dunne; Elder; Fraser, Gair; Gerbic; Goff; Graham; Gregory; Hercus; Hunt; Isbey; Jeffries; Keall; King; Marshall, C. R.; Matthewson; Maxwell, R. K.; Neilson; Northey; O'Flynn; Palmer; Prebble; Shirley; Sutton, J. R.; Sutton, W. D.; Tizard; Wetere; Wilde; Young, V. S. Tellers: Mallard; Woollaston. Majority against: 18 Amendment negatived. The CHAIRMAN put the question that the following amendment, previously handed to the table by Mr Lee (Hauraki), be agreed to: To add to the motion the words “except clauses 4 to 6". Amendment negatived, and motion to consider the Bill part by part agreed to. Progress reported. The House adjourned at 10. 57 p. m.

IRN: 7841
PRIDENZ URL: https://www.pridenz.com/hansard_homosexual_law_reform_bill_committee_of_whole_house_continued_26_march_1986.html
TITLE: Homosexual Law Reform Bill - Committee of whole House continued (26 March 1986)
DATE: 26 March 1986
LOCATION: Parliament buildings, 1 Molesworth Street, Wellington, New Zealand.
TEXT: Mr SPEAKER: I am aware of the considerable number of amendments before the Committee and of the close similarity of many of them. For that reason I have asked the Clerk of the House, in association with the parliamentary counsel, to prepare a schedule of those amendments in an order that will allow a rational consideration of the issues involved in each amendment, if they are carried out in that order. The schedule will be made available to all members of the Committee. The House may not instruct the Committee on the matter, but I have asked the Clerk to have the schedule prepared and distributed to members so that they will know that all other members have that information in front of them. In Committee Debate resumed from 19 March 1986. Part I. Amendments of Crimes Act 1961 (continued). DOUG KIDD (Marlborough) moved, That the question be now put. The CHAIRMAN declined to accept the motion. FRED GERBIC (Onehunga) moved, That the question be now put. The CHAIRMAN declined to accept the motion. PHILIP WOOLLASTON (Nelson) moved, That the question be now put. The CHAIRMAN declined to accept the motion. TREVOR MALLARD (Hamilton West) moved, That the question be now put. The CHAIRMAN declined to accept the motion. REG BOORMAN (Wairarapa) moved, That the question be now put. The Committee divided on the question, That the question be now put. Ayes 55 Anderton; Austin, M. E.; Bassett; Batchelor; Boorman; Burdon; Burke; Butcher, Caygill; Clark; Cullen; de Cleene; Dunne; Elder, Fraser, Friedlander; Gair, Gerard; Gerbic; Goff; Graham; Gray; Gregory; Hercus; Hunt; Isbey; Jeffries; Keall; Kidd; King; Luxton; McKinnon; McLean; Mallard; Marshall, C. R.; Moyle; Neilson; Northey; O'Flynn; O'Regan; Palmer; Prebble; Richardson; Rodger, Scott; Shields; Shirley; Smith; Sutton, J. R.; Tapsell; Tizard; Wilde; Young, V. S. Tellers: Matthewson; Woollaston. Noes 15 Austin, H. N.; Banks; Birch; Jones; Knapp; McClay; McTigue; Peters; Storey; Tirikatene Sullivan; Wallbank; Wellington; Young, T. J. Tellers: Braybrooke; Lee. Majority for: 40 Motion agreed to. Hon. STAN RODGER (Minister of Labour) moved, in proposed new section 140A in clause 3, to delete the words " 16 years", wherever they appeared, and to substitute the words " 20 years". The Committee divided on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 17 Batchelor, Burdon; Gerard; Graham; Kidd; Luxton; McClay; McKinnon; McLean; O'Flynn; Richardson; Storey; Townshend; Young, T. J.; Young, V. S. Tellers: Austin. M. E.; Rodger. Noes 57 Anderton; Austin, H. N.; Banks; Bassett; Birch; Boorman; Braybrooke; Burke; Butcher; Caygill; Clark; Cooper; Cullen; de Cleene; Douglas; Dunne; Elder, Fraser, Friedlander; Gair; Gerbic; Goff; Gray; Gregory; Hercus; Hunt; Isbey; Jeffries; Jones; Keall; King; Knapp; Lee; McTigue; Mallard; Marshall, C. R.; Moyle; Neilson; Northey; O'Regan; Palmer; Peters; Prebble; Scott; Shields; Shirley; Smith; Sutton, J. R.; Sutton, W. D.; Tapsell; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Tizard; Wallbank; Wellington; Wilde. Tellers: Matthewson; Woollaston. Majority against: 40 Amendment negatived. Hon. GEORGE GAIR (Deputy leader of the Opposition) moved, in proposed new section 140A in clause 3, to delete the words " 16 years", wherever they appeared, and to substitute the words " 18 years". The Committee divided on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 20 Austin, M. E.; Batchelor; Elder; Gerard; Gerbic; Graham; Gregory; Jeffries; Luxton; McKinnon; McLean; O'Flynn; O'Regan; Smith; Storey; Sutton, J. R.; Wall; Young, T. J. Tellers: Gair; Townshend. Noes 57 Anderton; Austin, H. N.; Banks; Bassett; Birch; Boorman; Braybrooke; Burdon; Burke; Butcher, Caygill; Clark; Cooper; Cullen; de Cleene; Douglas; Dunne; Falloon; Fraser, Friedlander, Goff; Gray; Hercus; Hunt; Isbey; Jones; Keall; Kidd; King; Knapp; Lee; McClay; McTigue; Mallard; Marshall, C. R.; Moyle; Muldoon; Neilson; Northey; Palmer, Peters; Prebble; Richardson; Rodger; Scott; Shields; Shirley; Sutton, W. D.; Tapsell; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Tizard; Wallbank; Wellington; Wilde; Young, V. S. Tellers: Matthewson; Woollaston. Majority against: 37 Amendment negatived. Mr TREVOR YOUNG (Eastern Hutt) moved to delete clause 3. The Committee divided on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 24 Batchelor, Braybrooke; Burdon; Cooper, Falloon; Friedlander, Gerard; Gray; Jeffries; Luxton; McClay; McKinnon; McLean; O'Flynn; O'Regan; Peters; Rodger; Smith; Storey; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Townshend; Young, V. S. Tellers: Richardson; Young, T. J. Noes 51 Anderton; Austin, H. N.; Austin, M. E.; Banks; Bassett; Birch; Boorman; Burke; Butcher; Caygill; Clark; Cullen; de Cleene; Douglas; Dunne; Elder; Fraser, Gair; Gerbic; Goff; Graham; Gregory; Hercus; Hunt; Isbey; Jones; Keall; Kidd; King; Knapp; Lee; McTigue; Mallard; Marshall, C. R.; Moyle; Muldoon; Neilson; Northey; Palmer; Prebble; Scott; Shields; Shirley; Sutton, J. R.; Tapsell; Tizard; Wallbank; Wellington; Wilde. Tellers: Matthewson; Woollaston. Majority against: 27 Amendment negatived. Hon. STAN RODGER (Minister of Labour) moved, in proposed new section 141 in clause 4, to delete the words " 16 years", wherever they appeared, and to substitute the words " 20 years". The Committee divided on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 17 Batchelor, Falloon; Gerard; Graham; Kidd; Luxton; McClay; McKinnon; McLean; O'Flynn; Richardson; Storey; Townshend; Young, T. J.; Young, V. S. Tellers: Austin, M. E.; Rodger. Noes 59 Anderton; Austin, H. N.; Banks; Bassett; Birch; Boorman; Braybrooke; Burdon; Burke; Butcher, Caygill; Clark; Cooper, Cullen; de Cleene; Douglas; Dunne; Elder, Fraser, Friedlander; Gair, Gerbic; Goff; Gray; Gregory; Hercus; Hunt; Isbey; Jeffries; Jones; Keall; King; Knapp; Lee; McTigue; Mallard; Marshall, C. R.; Moyle; Muldoon; Neilson; Northey; O'Regan; Palmer; Peters; Prebble; Scott; Shields; Shirley; Smith; Sutton, J. R.; Sutton, W. D.; Tapsell; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Tizard; Wallbank; Wellington; Wilde. Tellers: Matthewson; Woollaston. Majority against: 42 Amendment negatived. TREVOR MALLARD (Hamilton West) moved, in proposed new section 142(6) and (7) in clause 5, to insert the words " subsection (1)(a) of" after the words " charge under". Amendment agreed to. Dr BILL SUTTON (Hawke's Bay) moved, in proposed new section 142 in clause 5, to delete the words " 16 years", wherever they appeared, and to substitute the words " 18 years". The Committee divided on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 14 Austin, M. E.; Batchelor, Elder; Gair; Graham; Jeffries; Luxton; McKinnon; McLean; O'Flynn; Storey; Townshend. Tellers: Sutton, J. R.; Sutton, W. D. Noes 61 Anderton; Austin, H. N.; Banks; Bassett; Birch; Boorman; Braybrooke; Burdon; Burke; Butcher, Caygill; Clark; Cooper; Cullen; de Cleene; Douglas; Dunne; Falloon; Fraser; Friedlander, Gerbic; Goff; Gray; Gregory; Hercus; Hunt; Isbey; Jones; Keall; Kidd; King; Knapp; Lee; McClay; McTigue; Mallard; Marshall, C. R.; Moyle; Muldoon; Neilson; Northey; O'Regan; Palmer; Peters; Prebble; Richardson; Rodger, Scott; Shields; Shirley; Smith; Tapsell; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Tizard; Wallbank; Wellington; Wilde; Young, T. J.; Young, V. S. Tellers: Matthewson; Woollaston. Majority against: 47 Amendment negatived. PHILIP BURDON (Fendalton) moved to delete clauses, 3, 4, and 5, and to insert the following new clause: 5A. Defence to charges under sections 141 and 142 - (1) The principal Act is hereby amended by inserting, after section 142, the following section: " 142A. It shall be a defence to a charge under section 141 or section 142 of this Act if the person charged proves"(a) That the other party consented; and “(b) That the other party was of or over the age of 20 years or that the person charged had reasonable cause to believe, and did believe, that the other party was of or over that age." (2) Section 141(3) of the principal Act is hereby amended by inserting, before the words " it is no defence", the words " Subject to section 142A of this Act,". (3) Section 142(4) of the principal Act is hereby amended by inserting, before the words " It is no defence", the words “Subject to section 142A of this Act,”. The Committee divided on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 18 Austin, M. E.; Batchelor; Falloon; Gair; Graham; Jeffries; Kidd; Luxton; McKinnon; McLean; Rodger; Smith; Storey; Townshend; Young, T. J.; Young, V. S. Tellers: Burdon; Richardson. Noes 56 Anderton; Austin, H. N.; Banks; Bassett; Birch; Boorman; Braybrooke; Burke; Butcher, Caygill; Clark; Cooper; Cullen; de Cleene; Douglas; Dunne; Elder; Fraser, Friedlander, Gerbic; Goff; Gray; Gregory; Hercus; Hunt; Isbey; Jones; Keall; King; Knapp; Lee; McClay; McTigue; Mallard; Marshall, C. R.; Moyle; Muldoon; Neilson; Northey; O'Regan; Palmer, Peters; Prebble; Scott; Shields; Shirley; Sutton, J. R.; Sutton, W. D.; Tapsell; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Tizard; Wallbank; Wellington; Wilde. Tellers: Matthewson; Woollaston. Majority against: 38 Amendment negatived. Hon. FRANK O'FLYNN (Minister of Defence) moved to insert the following new clause: 7A. Savings in respect of Armed Forces(1) Nothing in this Part of this Act shall affect the interpretation or application of section 42(b) of the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 (which relates to behaving in a disgraceful and indecent manner), and any behaviour that would have constituted an offence against that provision before the passing of this Act shall constitute an offence against that provision notwithstanding the passing of this Act. (2) Every person who commits any act that, but for the passing of this Act, would have constituted a civil offence within the meaning of section 74 of the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 shall be guilty of an offence against that section notwithstanding the passing of this Act, and shall be liable to the same punishment as that person would have been liable to under subsection (2) of that section had this Act not been passed: Provided that, in the case of an act that, but for the passing of this Act, would have constituted a crime against paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of section 141(1), or section 142, of the principal Act, the maximum punishment that may be imposed shall be 3 years' imprisonment. The Committee divided on the question, That new clause 7A be agreed to. Ayes 40 Austin, H. N.; Austin, M. E.; Banks; Batchelor, Birch; Braybrooke; Burdon; Cooper, Falloon; Friedlander; Gair, Gerard; Graham; Gray; Jeffries; Jones; Knapp; Lee; Luxton; McClay; McKinnon; McLean; McTigue; Muldoon; Palmer, Peters; Prebble; Richardson; Rodger, Smith; Storey; Tapsell; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Townshend; Wallbank; Wellington; Young, T. J.; Young, V. S. Tellers: Kidd; O'Flynn. Noes 36 Anderton; Bassett; Boorman; Burke; Butcher, Caygill; Clark; Cullen; de Cleene; Douglas; Dunne; Elder; Fraser, Gerbic; Goff; Gregory; Hercus; Hunt; Isbey; Keall; King; Mallard; Marshall, C. R.; Moyle; Neilson; Northey; O'Regan; Scott; Shields; Shirley; Sutton, J. R.; Sutton, W. D.; Tizard; Wilde. Tellers: Matthewson; Woollaston. Majority for: 4 New clause agreed to. The Committee divided on the question, That Part I as amended be agreed to. Ayes 41 Anderton; Bassett; Batchelor, Boorman; Burke; Butcher; Caygill; Clark; Cullen; de Cleene; Douglas; Dunne; Elder; Fraser; Gerbic; Goff; Gregory; Hercus; Hunt; Isbey; Jeffries; Keall; King; Mallard; Marshall, C. R.; Moyle; Neilson; Northey; O'Flynn; O'Regan; Palmer, Prebble; Scott; Shields; Shirley; Sutton, J. R.; Sutton, W. D.; Tizard; Wilde. Tellers: Matthewson; Woollaston. Noes 36 Austin, H. N.; Austin, M. E.; Banks; Birch; Bolger, Burdon; Cooper; Falloon; Friedlander, Gair, Gerard; Graham; Gray; Jones; Kidd; Knapp; Luxton; McClay; McKinnon; McLean; McTigue; Muldoon; Peters; Richardson; Rodger; Smith; Storey; Tapsell; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Townshend; Wallbank; Wellington; Young, T. J.; Young, V. S. Tellers: Braybrooke; Lee. Majority for: 5 Part I as amended agreed to. Part II. Amendments of Human Rights Commission Act 1977 Progress reported. The House adjourned at 10. 56 p. m.

IRN: 7842
PRIDENZ URL: https://www.pridenz.com/hansard_homosexual_law_reform_bill_committee_of_whole_house_continued_9_april_1986.html
TITLE: Homosexual Law Reform Bill - Committee of whole House continued (9 April 1986)
DATE: 9 April 1986
LOCATION: Parliament buildings, 1 Molesworth Street, Wellington, New Zealand.
TEXT: In Committee Debate resumed from 26 March 1986. Part II. Amendments of Human Rights Commission Act 1977 (continued). Hon. MERV WELLINGTON (Papakura), on a point of order, drew attention to Speaker's ruling 138/4; and to Speaker's ruling 139/1, which stated that it was not competent for a private member to propose additional taxation. He asked the chairman to consider the relevance of that ruling in the context of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. PHILIP WOOLLASTON (Nelson) said that if the Bill could be construed as involving a charge on the people it would be a matter for the Speaker, not the Chairman. The matter should have been dealt with on the introduction of the Bill. The CHAIRMAN: The matter cannot be dealt with at this stage. I uphold the interpretation of the member for Nelson. The proper course is for the member for Papakura to raise the point when the Bill is next considered by the House - that is, on the third reading. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON (Papakura), on a point of order, sought the leave of the Committee for the Speaker to be recalled to deal with the matter raised under Speaker's ruling 138/4 and Speaker's ruling 139/1. The CHAIRMAN: Is there any objection? Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (St. Kilda) objected. GRAEME LEE (Hauraki), on a point of order, sought the leave of the Committee to consider Part II of the Bill clause by clause. Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (St. Kilda) objected. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON (Papakura), on a point of order, said that under Speaker's Ruling 221 a private member's Bill that might involve an extra charge on the people by way of rates payable into the Public Account required the recommendation of the Crown and was therefore out of order. Speaker's Ruling 17/1 stated that a private member's Bill that would enlarge the scope of the State's liability by providing for the expenditure of public moneys was an Appropriation Bill. It had been ruled when the Bill had been introduced that it did not involve an appropriation, but it had since been stated that moneys would have to be appropriated. The CHAIRMAN: I take it that the member wants to question whether the ruling was properly given. I can only repeat my earlier ruling that it is perfectly appropriate for the member to raise the matter in the House, but not in the Committee. I do not have any power to rule whether the Bill involves an appropriation. Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT MULDOON (Tamaki), said that during the Committee stage an amendment could cause the original ruling to be no longer valid; and a detailed discussion of the Bill could disclose something that made the original ruling no longer valid. He moved, That progress be reported in order to obtain a ruling from the Speaker. Motion agreed to. House Resumed. The CHAIRMAN: Mr Speaker, I have been asked to seek your ruling on whether the Homosexual Law Reform Bill involves an appropriation. As I was not in a position to give a ruling on that myself, and as a motion has been moved, it has been agreed that your ruling be sought on the matter. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON (Papakura): The issue first arose earlier tonight before the tea adjournment. The difficulty the Committee got itself into-and there has been no challenge to the chairmanship of the member for Western Hutt, as the Journals of the House will testify-is that following discussion it became clear to the Committee, and therefore to the House, that there might be revenue implications in the Bill that the Committee and Parliament had not originally contemplated. I refer you to Speaker's ruling 138/4: " A private member's Bill clauses of which may involve"-and this is the reason I am raising the matter, remembering that I have not stated that the Bill will or shall - “an extra charge on the people in the way of rates” - and Mr Speaker Statham obviously meant that to mean taxes - “payable into the Public Account", which we call the Consolidated Account, " requires the recommendation of the Crown, and is therefore out of order." I shall come back to that, but for the moment I refer you to Speaker's ruling 139/1, which states in the second sentence: " It is not competent for a private member to propose additional taxation.” That was a ruling of Mr Speaker O'Rorke in 1879, Volume 32, at pages 486 and 497. Speaker's ruling 17/1--again a ruling of Mr Speaker Statham-in 1935, Volume 242, at page 473 states: " A private member's Bill which would enlarge the scope of the State's liability by providing for the expenditure of public moneys is an appropriation Bill." Given the three Speakers' rulings, I believe we have reached the point in the Bill at which we need to establish clearly to what extent the Homosexual Law Reform Bill may be an impost on the people as foreshadowed in the ruling of Mr Speaker Statham. Will the Bill cost the hard-pressed people more in taxes? Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the member of his obligation to express the matter tersely. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: I am happy to do that. In the belief that the Bill may impose a burden on the people, I refer the House to a paper issued by the head office of the Department of Health, signed by Dr R. A. Barker, Director-General of Health, and presented to the Statutes Revision Committee of Parliament on 30 April 1985 - Mr SPEAKER: Order! I may be of some assistance to the member in advancing his case. As I understand it, the House and the Committee to date have been working on the assumption that the Speaker's ruling that was given on the introduction of the Bill - that it did not involve an appropriation-was a valid assessment. That remains the rule of the House until the Bill has been altered in some way so as to change the validity of that ruling. If the member has evidence that would lead him to believe that is so, he should produce it tersely. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: I can, in the sense that Mr Speaker Statham foreshadowed it-and I chose my words with caution, for he said " may" and I believe he meant that injunction to act not as a brake on the Committee or on Parliament but as a caution. Mr SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but he seems to misunderstand the issue before the House. The matter before the House-and I presume before the Committee-is whether the Bill has been altered, or whether it is proposed to alter it, in such a way as to make the ruling given by the Speaker invalid. If not, either the member or the Committee is attempting to overrule a ruling that has been given by the chair, and that is not acceptable. I ask the member to come quickly to the point and explain to me in what way the House or the committee has embarked on a procedure that was not envisaged when the ruling was given that the Bill did not involve an appropriation. I ask him to draw attention quickly to the proceedings the Committee is involved in that were not foreseen in that ruling. Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Muldoon: I should like to help by traversing something that was put to the Chairman before you were recalled. As you have said, one possibility is an amendment to the Bill; another circumstance is that of evidence arising during the debate that was not in front of you when you made the ruling, but that nevertheless indicates that if the Bill were passed in that form an appropriation would be needed. That is the evidence that the member has put before the Committee. Because it was a Speaker's ruling, you have been asked to return to listen to that evidence to find out whether it would have altered your ruling had it been in front of you when the Bill was introduced. Mr SPEAKER: I ask the member to arrive at that point fairly soon. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: I refer to the Department of Health paper No. 954. It is obviously a ministerial paper as it must go through the Minister to be received by the appropriate select committee of Parliament, which, in this case, was the Statutes Revision Committee. Whilst no specific dollar and cents terms are added by way of addendum to the paper, it is clear to any member-especially to one who has been a spending Minister that, although it is not emphatically stated, the passage of the Bill would mean a further appropriation by the Government. I quote an addendum to the substantive paper: " AIDS has followed an epidemic course." It should be remembered that that was written by the Director-General of Health, who is not given to using emotive words because he is not in that mould. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the member again of his obligation to express his point of order tersely. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: My submission is that in the absence of a specific revenue-spending pattern for the current financial year, and, as is the custom in New Zealand, for the two subsequent years, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Finance-who keeps a close eye on that kind of thing-and their colleagues should come back to Parliament or to a select committee of the House and fill out all the detail. The Minister of Defence, the Minister of Education, the Prime Minister, and the Deputy Prime Minister know that if the Bill is passed it will involve considerable expenditure, if only for advertising the changes in the law. In addition, there will be the expense of combating the insidious effects of the Bill should it be passed. Speaker's ruling 138/4(c) makes it clear that if an extra charge might be imposed on the people the recommendation of the Crown is required - and we have not had a Crown opinion on the matter - Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member seems to be unable to comply with the Standing Orders, which state that a point of order must be expressed tersely. May I assist the member by saying that I understand his point of order to be that, because evidence has been presented to the committee, and to the House, that AIDS has reached epidemic proportions overseas, and will reach epidemic proportions in New Zealand, the passage of the Bill will involve an appropriation. Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Muldoon: No, the increase in the spread of AIDS will therefore cost more in terms of health expenditure. Mr SPEAKER: Have I correctly interpreted the member's point of order? Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: I am obliged to you, Mr Speaker. It is not the wish of the Committee or of the House to overrule your decision, but when the Bill was introduced you did not have that information. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is not speaking relevantly to the point of order. The wishes of the Committee are irrelevant to the ruling members are asking me to make. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: I appreciate your tolerance. I am obliged to you, not for my sake but for the sake of the issue. There was no determination by the Committee to overturn decisions, per se. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry, but the honourable member is embarking on irrelevant matters. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: You raised it. I am trying to help you. Mr SPEAKER: They are not relevant to the issue. FRAN WILDE (Wellington Central): The member has presented, as his so-called evidence, Department of Health submission No. 954 to the select committee that considered the Bill. He has quoted selectively from the submission. Members who have not read the submission should know that in it the Department of Health outlined the already established AIDS education and prevention programme. The submission does not suggest that the campaign cost will increase should the Bill be passed, but makes the contrary suggestion: " It is unlikely that the passing of this Bill will negatively influence the effectiveness of the proposed AIDS campaign." It is considered that there could be positive benefits from the campaign, which would depend for its success, to some extent, on good communication and the effective and open dissemination of information. The point was not that it would require the expenditure of extra Government money, but that the public environment that the Bill would create was important. The Government already has an AIDS programme in place. WINSTON PETERS (Tauranga): The distinction from your previous ruling is that changed circumstances could occasion an increased appropriation over a period. A strong case can be made out if the chronological evidence is considered. Since the Bill was introduced there has been an appropriation of about $3 million for that programme, and that is accepted. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member to come to the point at issue. He is being totally irrelevant. WINSTON PETERS: Perhaps I could come back and give you, Mr Speaker, the legal distinction that I sought to draw your attention to-that evidence may emerge from the Committee suggesting that appropriation has to take place either inside the House or outside it; but changing circumstances can also provide evidence that may lead you to change your ruling. There has been an appropriation, and that is the first standard. There is likely to be a further increase in that appropriation because of the increased incidence of AIDS. That is supported by overseas evidence that a liberalisation of the law has brought about an epidemic. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard both sides of that argument. The member is trying to introduce a point about the effects of that on the incidence of AIDS as an argument as to whether the Bill is an appropriation. That is not appropriate. The member should produce evidence about the question - that is, whether the present position is any different from the position when the ruling was made that the Bill did not involve an appropriation. That is the only issue before the House. It is the difference between the evidence that was available then compared with the present evidence. What the evidence may be is not relevant - it is the altered evidence. WINSTON PETERS (Tauranga): I have been following your explanation, Mr Speaker, as to what would distinguish your ruling now as opposed to your previous ruling. Please turn your mind, if you can, in a legal manner, to the evidence in all the circumstances rather than the provision of evidence right now, which you well know cannot be given by any member of the House. Mr SPEAKER: The Speaker's ruling was given in the light of the circumstances that were widely known at the time. 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 that has since become available to the House, which would justify a reversal of the Speaker's ruling. That is the matter before the House at present. There is no other question. The question is why that evidence is available now and was not available before. WINSTON PETERS: In a nutshell, the evidence is provided by the member for Wellington Central, who is on public record as saying that when the Bill is passed gays from overseas will come to New Zealand for a holiday to celebrate. That is my evidence. What more decisive evidence could one possibly need? FRAN WILDE (Wellington Central): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have been grossly misrepresented by the member for Tauranga and I ask that he be required to withdraw and apologise. He cannot produce any evidence that I have ever said that. JOHN BANKS: Did the member say that? FRAN WILDE: No, the member for Southern Maori said it. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The matters that can be seriously raised in this point of order have already been raised, unless members have matters that are relevant to the narrow point of why the evidence was not available to the Speaker and the people who advised the Speaker at the time the original decision was made. The matter does not involve what the evidence is. GEOFF BRAYBROOKE (Napier): I shall make my speech relevant and stick to the facts. When you originally ruled on this matter-when the Bill was introduced-I believed, and most members believed, that your ruling was correct. It certainly was correct for Part I, because there is no appropriation on decriminalisation, but the evidence that has come before the House, and before the whole of New Zealand, is that there has been an overwhelming cry against the Bill. You would not have known that, Mr Speaker, when the Bill was introduced. Parliament was subject to a petition with 750,000 signatures, the largest in the country's history. If the Bill is passed it will affect the Human Rights Commission, which is funded by the taxpayer, and 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 for the commission. In my view a petition with more than 750,000 signatures proves there will be extra work for the commission. Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (St. Kilda): I suggest to you, Mr Speaker, that the contribution by the member for Napier has clarified the issues fairly well for the House in that, as he said, no appropriation is involved in Part I, which is the only part that has been passed by the Committee. It has been suggested to you, on the basis of evidence that cannot be adduced, that there may be some involvement of appropriation in Part II - WINSTON PETERS: Part I has been passed. Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Part I has been passed in the Committee, but that is all, and it is agreed by the House that that is all that has happened. Part II has yet to be considered by the House, let alone voted on with any amendments. If anything happens in the Committee debate on Part II it can be dealt with later; it is not relevant now. Mr SPEAKER: I remind the member that he - along with the last two speakers-is not addressing the question that is in front of me, which is one of changed circumstances. I do not intend to allow any further contribution unless I hear some argument directed towards the circumstances I have to deal with. To date I have not been at all impressed. Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I apologise, Mr Speaker. What I am trying to say is that there are no changed circumstances since you made your ruling. The only changed circumstances that could occur have yet to occur in the Committee. The point that should then be raised should be raised after the Committee stage. You may then have new evidence and new matters to consider, depending on the nature of amendments passed in the Committee. At this point there is no new evidence to suggest that you should change your ruling. Mr SPEAKER: That has raised a further point, which I shall deal with. Again I remind members-because my experience to date is that they are not addressing themselves to the point-that the issue is new evidence that was not available to the Speaker at the time. To traverse the nature of that evidence is irrelevant. Members should not do that. BRUCE TOWNSHEND (Kaimai): Mr Speaker, I will try to answer your request specifically. I suggest to you that the one change that has not been brought before you is that the evidence upon which the member for Papakura has made his claim is based on a paper that was presented to the select committee subsequent to your making that ruling, and in doing so-Mr SPEAKER: Order! That fact has already been drawn to my attention, and unless the member has some new evidence I ask him to resume his seat. BRUCE TOWNSHEND: I just want to make one more point. I suggest that as the new evidence has come forward it should be studied by you, Mr Speaker, and the Clerk of the House, to see if it is applicable. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Hon. FRANK O'FLYNN (Minister of State): All that has been suggested was neatly summarised by you in connection with the suggestion that there may be some increase in the spread of AIDS, and some increase in the Health vote to deal with that. That is a highly debatable point. Some members suggested that it may be so, while others suggested that it may not, and it is a highly debatable matter. It is not fresh evidence upon which the Chair should alter its previous ruling. GRAEME LEE (Hauraki): I submit to you that the specific evidence available now is different from that available at 3 March 1985. The evidence is contained in a written answer from the Minister of Health, and it is only 10 days old. The question to the Minister of Health related to the cost of the AIDS epidemic, and the figure quoted was $9. 9 million. That is a specific figure, and I suggest that it answers the question relating to the nature of the change in status of the Bill. It must be considered by the Chair as being directly related to the Bill, because 73 percent of homosexuality is related to the disease AIDS. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Information about the incidence of homosexuality was available to the Speaker or his advisers before the decision was made. Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT MULDOON: You may be infallible, but you're not psychic! Mr SPEAKER: Order! I did not say that all the evidence was available to the Speaker; I said that it was available to the Speaker or his advisers. Some of those people who advise Speakers are the very people who have been named regarding this matter. As I understand it, no member is trying to overrule the original ruling given by the Chair, there has been no suggestion of that. However, it is suggested that because of new evidence that was not available to the Speaker or his advisers previously it has become apparent that an appropriation is involved that could not have been foreseen. My understanding is that it is alleged by those who are raising the matter that the inevitable consequence of the passing of the legislation will be an increased incidence of the venereal disease AIDS, and that a further appropriation of public moneys will be involved because of that. Those involved in the counter-argument are telling me that the evidence that has been presented from the same source is not that it will unequivocally produce that effect but that it may produce that effect, and that it may also allow a more effective public health campaign to be carried out. We then come to the question that has been raised of whether the public health campaign that will result from the legislation is an appropriation. An appropriation has already been made for that, which, presumably, takes into account all the contingencies involved. Therefore that cost will not fall more heavily because of the passage of the legislation. We then come to the question raised by the member for Napier-whether the expected increased incidence of the work of the Human Rights Commission will involve an appropriation. I should need proof that the passage of the legislation would involve not just a more active engagement of those employed by the Human Rights Commission-which might be one result of the Bill - but that further staff would have to be employed to deal with the matter. No evidence has been brought to me that that would be the result. In the circumstances - because the evidence brought forward to the House is equivocal-for the Chair to make a decision against the advice that has been given to date, which is quite extensive, would be for it to enter into the argument. It would be to make a decision that favoured one side contrary to the advice that had been given to the Chair. For that reason I do not intend to alter the original decision given by the Chair-that the Bill does not involve an appropriation. WINSTON PETERS (Tauranga): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The present legal position is that a person who wishes to allege discrimination on the grounds of homosexual preference may not bring a case to the Human Rights Commission. Mr SPEAKER: Order! It would be a great help to me if the member-who, after all, is legally qualified-would draw my attention to the Standing Order under which he is raising the point of order. His words to date do not indicate to me that there is any Standing Order or Speaker's ruling to which I should direct my attention. WINSTON PETERS: The Speaker's ruling concerned is the one you have just given. I can substantiate that on the ground that the ruling you have just given was that the parts of the Bill that concern the Human Rights Commission will not occasion extra appropriation. I can prove categorically that they will do so. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have not given a ruling about what the activities of the Human Rights Commission will be; what I have given is a ruling that the Bill does not involve an appropriation. I have given a ruling that to form a judgment one way or the other on the evidence presented to me would be to fly in the face of the advice given to me by dispassionate people, and to take the part of one side or the other of this argument. If the member is raising as his point of order, the most recent ruling given by the Chair for the purpose of questioning that ruling, I remind him that that is a most disorderly procedure. WINSTON PETERS: I am relying entirely on the words of your ruling to justify the point of order. Mr SPEAKER: Again, I ask the member to draw my attention to the Standing Order of which the House appears to him to be in breach. WINSTON PETERS: No, sir, I am relying in the point of order on a Speaker's ruling-your ruling, that you have just given. Mr SPEAKER: Do you intend to bring that ruling into question? WINSTON PETERS: No, sir. Mr SPEAKER: What is your purpose? WINSTON PETERS: Your ruling gave the clear explanation to the House that if it could be proved evidentially that the passage of the Bill would require a greater appropriationMr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry: without a doubt, as every member of the House must be aware, the member is bringing my ruling into question. WINSTON PETERS: If you have been hoist by your own verbal petard, that is your problem. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Machinery is available to question my ruling, but that is not to be done by the procedure the member wishes to use. I have given my ruling, and that is final. Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT MULDOON (Tamaki): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. For the benefit of the House, and later the Committee, can I take it from your ruling that if some member is now able to produce concrete evidence of the matters that have been alleged that is acceptable to your advisers you would be prepared at a later stage of the Bill to rule again on whether an appropriation is involved? In other words, we can carry on with the Committee, but if members were able to put solid evidence in front of you and your advisers you would, if necessary, reconsider the matter. Mr SPEAKER: Yes, it is a matter that can be raised until the third reading, because circumstances could change subsequent to a ruling. However, the kind of evidence needed to overrule a Speaker's ruling is not that based on opinion but evidence based on fact. Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT MULDOON: Facts that weren't available previously? Mr SPEAKER: Yes, but not opinion. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON (Papakura): I raise a fresh point of order, Mr SpeakerMr SPEAKER: Is it a fresh and entirely different point of order? Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: No, Mr Speaker, it is not entirely different. [Interruption.] Well, they can giggle. I believe that in this matter we are very much paving the way for subsequent legislation of this kindMr SPEAKER: Order! It would be of great help to me if the member could draw my attention to the Standing Order or Speaker's ruling that he wants to discuss-and it may not be a ruling immediately given by theSpeaker. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: I refer once more to Speaker's ruling 138/4. The difficulty is foretold by Speaker Statham, who said that it was not a matter of producing hard evidence at a particular point. That was the difficulty for the House when the Bill was introduced. Only 13 of the 95 members spoke, and one can work out the percentage. There was not sufficient evidence for the SpeakerMr SPEAKER: Order! I am being forced to the opinion that the member intends that I should reverse my ruling. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: No. Mr SPEAKER: Well, I ask him to tell me the remedy he wants to achieve. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: In relation to your ruling of 9 April 1986, that of necessity now has to beMr SPEAKER: I am asking the member what remedy he seeks. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: Well, simply this - [Interruption.] There they go. They would spend the taxpayers' money like pouring water out of a tap, and that is the point at issue tonight. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: Well, they interjected, sir. The remedy I seek is an assurance that the matters raised in Speakers' ruling 138/4, 139/1, and 17/1 are not left in abeyanceMr SPEAKER: Those Speakers' rulings relate to private members' Bills and taxation. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: No. Mr SPEAKER: I advise the member to look up the context of those rulings. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: What is a taxing Bill, and what is not? Mr SPEAKER: I have already taken the trouble to make myself familiar with the position. WINSTON PETERS (Tauranga): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek clarification of the standard of evidence you require, so I am not in any way challenging any ruling you have made. Given the use of the words " implied appropriation", what standard of evidence would you regard as being sufficient to change the rulings you have given? Mr SPEAKER: That would depend on the circumstances. The Speaker does not make decisions such as that without guidance from the appropriate authorities. I am not in a position to say now what the evidence-if it is brought forward by the appropriate authorities - may be. Committee resumed Part II. Amendments of Human Rights Commission Act 1977 (continued). House resumed. The CHAIRMAN: Mr Speaker, the Committee on the Homosexual Law Reform Bill has directed me to report progress, and has also directed me to ask leave to sit again. Mr SPEAKER: The Chairman of Committees reports that the Committee has directed him to report progress on the Homosexual Law Reform Bill and has also directed him to ask leave to sit again. The question is, That the report be agreed to. The House divided on the question, That the report be agreed to. Ayes 37 Anderton; Austin, M. E.; Bassett; Boorman; Burke; Butcher, Caygill; Clark; Colman; Cullen; Dillon; Douglas; Dunne; Elder; Fraser, Gair; Gerbic; Goff; Gregory; Keall; King; McKinnon; Marshall, C. R.; Matthewson; Neilson; Northey; Palmer; Richardson; Shirley; Sutton, J. R.; Sutton, W. D.; Terris; Tizard; Upton; Woollaston; Tellers: Mallard; Wilde. Noes 33 Angus; Austin, H. N.; Austin, W. R.; Banks; Birch; Bolger, Braybrooke; Burdon; Cooper, East; Gerard; Graham; Gray; Jones; Knapp; Luxton; McClay; McLay; McTigue; Marshall, D. W. A.; Maxwell, R. F. H.; Morrison; Muldoon; Peters; Smith; Talbot; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Wallbank; Wellington; Young, T. J.; Young, V. S. Tellers: Friedlander; Lee. Majority For: 4 Report agreed to. The House adjourned at 11. 6 p. m. Vol. 470

IRN: 7843
PRIDENZ URL: https://www.pridenz.com/hansard_homosexual_law_reform_bill_committee_of_whole_house_continued_16_april_1986.html
TITLE: Homosexual Law Reform Bill - Committee of whole House continued (16 April 1986)
DATE: 16 April 1986
LOCATION: Parliament buildings, 1 Molesworth Street, Wellington, New Zealand.
TEXT: Hon. MERV WELLINGTON (Papakura): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want, at the outset, to assure you that I am not referring to the debate just concluded. I shall be as concise as I can. However, the matter is complex. I raise the point of order under the following Speakers' rulings: 16/2, 16/5, 17/1, 138/4, and 139/1, with particular reference to the final portion. The point I raise is whether appropriation is involved. At the time the House last examined the Bill the evidence available was circumscribed or limited. The member for Hauraki received today a letter, which was written yesterday, from the Human Rights Commission, and I read from page 2: “If Part II of the Bill” - that is, the Homosexual Law Reform Bill - “is passed by Parliament pursuant to a democratic majority, and people actively challenge the new law, then there could indeed be an increased work load with increased cost factors." That letter is signed by Mr K. G. MacCormick, the alternative chairman of the commission. He goes on to say on the same page: " The commission asked Dr W. C. Hodge of the Auckland University Law School" - Mr SPEAKER: Order! I understand what the member is raising, but it is not a matter that can be dealt with immediately. As I said to the House when I was recalled to discuss the matter, if new, serious evidence-but not opinion - was raised, it would be considered with other matters. By the very nature of those considerations it is customary for legislation on which the Speaker is to make a judgment to be reviewed before its introduction into the House or before it proceeds along one of its stages. It is inappropriate that a decision should be made merely by my listening to certain evidence being presented. I suggest to the member that the evidence he has should be presented to the Clerk. I will consider that matter and decide whether it satisfies what must necessarily be fairly stringent requirements before I upset a previous ruling. If the evidence does satisfy that ruling, I shall send a message to the Chairman of Committees advising that the Committee should seek a ruling of the Chair. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: I am obliged to you, Mr Speaker. I shall do as you suggest. GRAEME LEE (Hauraki): I raise a further point of order, Mr Speaker. I thank you for your ruling, but I seek additional clarification. I understand you when you say that what is opinion would not necessarily constitute evidence. When you were recalled during a former debate on the Bill you said that anything that was relevant to appropriation, from the time of the introduction of the Bill to this time, would be considered. That makes it difficult to submit to you matters that would not necessarily come outside the range of opinion. Whilst that would not be all of the evidence we would like to bring to you, we believe it would be relevant for you to study it. Could you clarify what you mean by that which is only opinion? Mr SPEAKER: When considering the matters involved the Speaker has always acted on the advice tendered to him, and, if he has been unsatisfied with the competence of the advice, he has gone further afield. For that reason, it is not appropriate that I should pass judgment now, before I have seen evidence and decided whether it is of such a nature as to compel me to make a certain decision. That would almost certainly rule out the possibility of the Speaker taking appropriate advice. For that reason, I assure members that any evidence they have that is not purely opinion I shall be happy to receive and to review, and to consult my advisers on. In Committee Debate resumed from 9 April 1986. Part II. Amendments of Human Rights Commission Act 1977 (continued). WINSTON PETERS (Tauranga) sought the leave of the Committee to move proposed new clause 84 previously ruled out of order. Rt. Hon. BOB TIZARD (Minister of Energy) objected. PHILIP WOOLLASTON (Nelson) moved, That the question be now put. The CHAIRMAN declined to accept the motion. JIM SUTTON (Waitaki) moved, That the question be now put. The Committee divided on the question, That the question be now put. Ayes 42 Anderton; Austin, M. E.; Bassett; Boorman; Burke; Butcher; Caygill; Clark; Colman; Cullen; de Cleene; Dillon; Douglas; Dunne; Elder; Fraser; Gerard; Gerbic; Gregory; Hunt; Isbey; Jeffries; Keall; King; Lange; McKinnon; McLay; McLean; Marshall, C. R.; Matthewson; Neilson; Northey; O'Flynn; Richardson; Scott; Tapsell; Tizard; Townshend; Young, T. J.; Young, V. S. Tellers: Sutton, J. R.; Woollaston. Noes 34 Angus; Austin, H. N.; Austin, W. R.; Banks; Birch; Bolger, Burdon; Cooper; Cox; East; Friedlander; Gair; Graham; Gray; Jones; Knapp; Luxton; McClay; McTigue; Mallard; Marshall, D. W. A.; Maxwell, R. F. H.; Morrison; Muldoon; Peters; Storey; Sutton, W. D.; Talbot; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Upton; Wallbank; Wellington. Tellers: Braybrooke; Lee. Majority for: 8 Motion agreed to. Dr BILL SUTTON (Hawke's Bay) sought leave to withdraw the amendment to clause 9 set out in Supplementary Order Paper 72. JOHN BANKS (Whangarei) objected. WINSTON PETERS (Tauranga) proposed to move the amendment. The CHAIRMAN: The position is covered in Standing Order 190(2), which applies when a motion " That the question be now put" has been carried: " Any proposed amendment that has been properly notified on a Supplementary Order Paper or has been handed in to the Table prior to the time when the closure motion is accepted and which relates to the matter under consideration shall be put forthwith". The member is not in a position to withdraw his amendment. The amendment has to be put. Amendment negatived. Dr BILL SUTTON (Hawke's Bay) moved to insert the following new clauses: 9A. Employment-(1) Section 15 of the principal Act is hereby amended by inserting, after subsection (4), the following subsection: "(4A) Nothing in this section shall apply to preferential treatment based on sexual orientation where the position is one of domestic employment in a private household." (2) Section 15 (6) of the principal Act is hereby amended - (a) By inserting after the words " based on sex", the words " or sexual orientation": (b) By inserting, after the words “to one sex”, the words “or to persons of a particular sexual orientation". 9B. Qualifying bodies-Section 21 (2) of the principal Act is hereby amended by inserting, after the words " to one sex", the words " or to persons of a particular sexual orientation". GRAEME LEE (Hauraki) moved to delete from proposed new clause 9A the word " sexual", and to substitute the word " heterosexual”; and to delete from proposed new clause 9B the words " particular sexual", and to substitute the word " heterosexual". The Committee divided on the question, That the amendments moved by the member for Hauraki be agreed to. Ayes 39 Angus; Austin, H. N.; Austin, W. R.; Banks; Birch; Bolger; Burdon; Colman; Cooper; Cox; East; Friedlander, Gair; Gerard; Graham; Gray; Jones; Knapp; Luxton; McClay; McKinnon; McLay; McTigue; Marshall, D. W. A.; Maxwell, R. F. H.; Morrison; Muldoon; Peters; Storey; Talbot; Tapsell; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Townshend; Wallbank; Wellington; Young, T. J.; Young, V. S. Tellers: Braybrooke; Lee. Noes 40 Anderton; Austin, M. E.; Bassett; Boorman; Burke; Butcher; Caygill; Clark; Cullen; de Cleene; Dillon; Douglas; Dunne; Elder; Fraser, Gerbic; Gregory; Hunt; Isbey; Jeffries; Keall; King; Lange; McLean; Marshall, C. R.; Matthewson; Moyle; Neilson; Northey; O'Flynn; Richardson; Scott; Sutton, J. R.; Sutton, W. D.; Tizard; Upton; Wetere; Wilde. Tellers: Mallard; Woollaston. Majority against: 1 Amendments negatived. The Committee divided on the question, That new clauses 9A and 9B be agreed to. Ayes 52 Angus; Austin, H. N.; Austin, M. E.; Austin, W. R.; Banks; Birch; Bolger; Burdon; Butcher; Colman; Cooper; Cox; Cullen; de Cleene; Dunne; East; Elder; Fraser; Friedlander; Gair; Gerard; Graham; Gray; Jeffries; Jones; Knapp; Luxton; McClay; McKinnon; McLay; McLean; McTigue; Marshall, C. R.; Maxwell, R. F. H.; Morrison; Moyle; Muldoon; O'Flynn; Peters; Storey; Sutton, J. R.; Sutton, W. D.; Talbot; Tapsell; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Townshend; Wallbank; Wellington; Young, T. J.; Young, V. S. Tellers: Braybrooke; Lee. Noes 26 Anderton; Bassett; Boorman; Burke; Caygill; Clark; Dillon; Douglas; Gerbic; Gregory; Hunt; Isbey; Keall; King; Marshall, C. R.; Matthewson; Neilson; Northey; Richardson; Scott; Tizard; Upton; Wetere; Wilde. Tellers: Mallard; Woollaston. Majority for: 26 New clauses agreed to. 10. 14 p. m. Hon. WHETU TIRIKATENE-SULLIVAN (Southern Maori) moved to insert the following new clauses: 9AA. Employment-Section 15 of the principal Act is hereby amended by inserting, after subsection (6), the following subsection: “(6A) Nothing in this section shall apply to preferential treatment based on sexual orientation where the position is one of authority over persons all or some of whom are under the age of 16 years." 9BB. Land, housing, and other accommodation-Section 25 of the principal Act is hereby amended by inserting, after subsection (4), the following subsection: "(4A) Nothing in this section relating to discrimination by reason of the sexual orientation of any person shall apply to the letting of any residential accommodation." GRAEME LEE (Hauraki) moved to delete from proposed new clause 9AA the word " sexual" and to substitute the word “heterosexual”; and to delete from proposed new clause 9BB the words " apply to" and to substitute the words " prevent preferential treatment on the ground of a person's heterosexual orientation in relation to". The Committee divided on the question, That the amendments moved by the member for Hauraki be agreed to. Ayes 34 Angus; Austin, H. N.; Austin, W. R.; Banks; Birch; Bolger; Burdon; Cooper; East; Friedlander; Gair; Gerard; Graham; Gray; Jeffries; Jones; Knapp; Luxton; McClay; McLay; McTigue; Marshall, C. R.; Maxwell, R. F. H.; Morrison; Muldoon; Peters; Talbot; Tapsell; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Wallbank; Wellington; Young, T. J. Tellers: Braybrooke; Lee. Noes 45 Anderton; Austin, M. E.; Bassett; Boorman; Burke; Butcher; Caygill; Clark; Colman; Cox; Cullen; de Cleene; Dillon; Douglas; Dunne; Elder; Fraser, Gerbic; Gregory; Hunt; Isbey; Keall; King; Lange; McKinnon; McLean; Marshall, C. R.; Matthewson; Moyle; Neilson; Northey; O'Flynn; Richardson; Scott; Storey; Sutton, J. R.; Sutton, W. D.; Tizard; Townshend; Upton; Wetere; Wilde; Young, V. S. Tellers: Mallard; Woollaston. Majority against: 11 Amendment negatived. The Committee divided on the question, That new clauses 9AA and 9BB be agreed to. Ayes 44 Angus; Austin, H. N.; Austin, M. E.; Austin, W. R.; Banks; Birch; Bolger; Burdon; Colman; Cooper; Cox; East; Friedlander; Gair, Gerard; Graham; Gray; Jeffries; Jones; Knapp; Luxton; McClay; McKinnon; McLay; McLean; McTigue; Marshall, D. W. A.; Maxwell, R. F. H.; Morrison; Muldoon; O'Flynn; Peters; Storey; Talbot; Tapsell; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Townshend; Wall; Wallbank; Wellington; Young, T. J.; Young, V. S. Tellers: Braybrooke; Lee. Noes 35 Anderton; Bassett; Boorman; Burke; Butcher, Caygill; Clark; Cullen; de Cleene; Dillon; Douglas; Dunne; Elder; Fraser; Gerbic; Gregory; Isbey; Keall; King; Lange; Marshall, C. R.; Matthewson; Moyle; Neilson; Northey; Richardson; Scott; Sutton, J. R.; Sutton, W. D.; Tizard; Upton; Wetere; Wilde. Tellers: Mallard; Woollaston. Majority for: 9 New clauses agreed to. GEOFF BRAYBROOKE (Napier) moved to insert the following new clause: 10. Armed Forces, Police, traffic officers, and officers of penal institutions-Section 16 of the principal Act is hereby amended by inserting, after subsection (3), the following subsection: "(3A) Nothing in subsection (1) or subsection (2) of section 15 of this Act shall apply in respect of anything done or omitted to be done in respect of the recruitment, treatment, or dismissal of any person as a member of the Armed Forces, or as a member of the Police, or as a traffic officer, or as an officer of a penal institution, on the ground of that person's sexual orientation.” The Committee divided on the question, That new clause 10 be agreed to. Ayes 42 Angus; Austin, H. N.; Austin, M. E.; Austin, W. R.; Banks; Birch; Bolger; Burdon; Colman; Cooper; Cox; East; Friedlander; Gair; Gerard; Graham; Gray; Jeffries; Jones; Knapp; Luxton; McClay; McKinnon; McLay; McLean; McTigue; Marshall, D. W. A.; Maxwell, R. F. H.; Morrison; Muldoon; Peters; Storey; Talbot; Tapsell; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Townshend; Wallbank; Wellington; Young, T. J.; Young, V. S. Tellers: Braybrooke; Lee. Noes 37 Anderton; Bassett; Boorman; Burke; Butcher; Caygill; Clark; Cullen; de Cleene; Dillon; Douglas; Dunne; Elder; Fraser; Gerbic; Gregory; Hunt; Isbey; Keall; King; Lange; Marshall, C. R.; Matthewson; Moyle; Neilson; Northey; O'Flynn; Richardson; Scott; Sutton, J. R.; Sutton, W. D.; Tizard; Upton; Wetere; Wilde. Tellers: Mallard; Woollaston. Majority for: 5 New clause agreed to. GEOFF BRAYBROOKE (Napier) moved to insert the following new clause: 11. Educational establishments-Section 26 of the principal Act is hereby amended by adding the following subsection: "(4) Nothing in this section shall prevent the promulgation or enforcement of any rule of conduct in any primary or secondary educational institution prohibiting, or designed to prevent the occurrence of, sexual behaviour generally, or any particular type of sexual behaviour, within the educational institution." The Committee divided on the question, That new clause 11 be agreed to. Ayes 45 Angus; Austin, H. N.; Austin, M. E.; Austin, W. R.; Banks; Birch; Bolger; Burdon; Colman; Cooper; Cox; East; Friedlander; Gair; Gerard; Graham; Gray; Jones; Knapp; Luxton; McClay; McKinnon; McLay; McLean; McTigue; Marshall, C. R.; Maxwell, R. F. H.; Morrison; Muldoon; Northey; Peters; Storey; Sutton, J. R.; Sutton, W. D.; Talbot; Tapsell; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Townshend; Wall; Wallbank; Wellington; Young, T. J.; Young, V. S. Tellers: Braybrooke; Lee. Noes 35 Anderton; Bassett; Boorman; Burke; Butcher; Caygill; Clark; Cullen; de Cleene; Dillon; Douglas; Dunne; Elder, Fraser; Gerbic; Gregory; Hunt; Isbey; Jeffries; Keall; King; Lange; Marshall, C. R.; Matthewson; Moyle; Neilson; O'Flynn; Richardson; Scott; Tizard; Upton; Wetere; Wilde. Tellers: Mallard; Woollaston. Majority for: 10 New clause agreed to. Hon. FRANK O'FLYNN (Minister of Defence) moved to insert the following new clause: 11A. Vocational training bodies-Section 22 of the principal Act is hereby amended by adding the following subsection: "(4) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall apply in respect of anything done or omitted to be done in relation to the training of any person who is or is seeking to become a member of the Armed forces by reason of the sexual orientation of that person." The Committee divided on the question, That new clause 11A be agreed to. Ayes 44 Angus; Austin, H. N.; Austin, M. E.; Austin, W. R.; Banks; Birch; Bolger; Burdon; Colman; Cooper; Cox; East; Elder; Friedlander; Gair; Gerard; Graham; Gray; Jeffries; Jones; Knapp; Luxton; McClay; McKinnon; McLay; McLean; McTigue; Marshall, D. W. A.; Maxwell, R. F. H.; Morrison; Muldoon; O'Flynn; Peters; Storey; Talbot; Tapsell; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Townshend; Wallbank; Wellington; Young, T. J., Young, V. S. Tellers: Braybrooke; Lee. Noes 34 Anderton; Bassett; Boorman; Burke; Butcher; Caygill; Clark; Cullen; de Cleene; Dillon; Douglas; Dunne; Fraser; Gerbic; Gregory; Hunt; Isbey; Keall; King; Marshall, C. R.; Matthewson; Moyle; Neilson; Northey; Richardson; Scott; Sutton, J. R.; Sutton, W. D.; Tizard; Upton; Wetere; Wilde. Tellers: Mallard, Woollaston. Majority for: 10 New clause agreed to. Hon. FRANK O'FLYNN (Minister of Defence) moved to insert the following new clause: 12. Educational institutions-Section 26 of the principal Act is hereby amended by inserting, after subsection (2), the following subsection: "(2A) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall apply in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by any educational establishment conducted by the Armed Forces in respect of any person who is or is seeking to become a member of the Armed Forces by reason of that person's sexual orientation. The Committee divided on the question, That new clause 12 be agreed to. Ayes 44 Angus; Austin, H. N.; Austin, M. E.; Austin, W. R.; Banks; Birch; Bolger; Burdon; Colman; Cooper; Cox; East; Elder; Friedlander; Gair; Gerard; Graham; Gray; Jeffries; Jones; Knapp; Luxton; McClay; McKinnon; McLay; McLean; McTigue; Marshall, C. R.; Maxwell, R. F. H.; Morrison; Muldoon; O'Flynn; Peters; Storey; Talbot; Tapsell; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Townshend; Wallbank; Wellington; Young, T. J.; Young, V. S. Tellers: Braybrooke; Lee. Noes 35 Anderton; Bassett; Boorman; Burke; Butcher; Caygill; Clark; Cullen; de Cleene; Dillon; Douglas; Dunne; Fraser; Gerbic; Gregory; Hunt; Isbey; Keall; King; Lange; Marshall, C. R.; Matthewson; Moyle; Neilson; Northey; Richardson; Scott; Sutton, J. R.; Sutton, W. D.; Tizard; Upton; Wetere; Wilde. Tellers: Mallard; Woollaston. Majority for: 9 New clause agreed to. The Committee divided on the question, That Part II as amended be agreed to. Ayes 31 Anderton; Bassett; Boorman; Burke; Caygill; Clark; Cullen; de Cleene; Dillon; Douglas; Dunne; Elder; Fraser; Hunt; Isbey; Keall; King; Lange; Marshall, C. R.; Matthewson; Moyle; Neilson; Northey; Scott; Sutton, J. R.; Sutton, W. D.; Tizard; Wetere; Wilde. Teller: Mallard; Woollaston. Noes 49 Angus; Austin, H. N.; Austin, M. E.; Austin, W. R.; Banks; Birch; Bolger; Burdon; Butcher; Colman; Cooper; Cox; East; Friedlander; Gair; Gerard; Gerbic; Graham; Gray; Gregory; Jeffries; Jones; Knapp; Luxton; McClay; McKinnon; McLay; McLean; McTigue; Marshall, C. R.; Maxwell, R. F. H.; Morrison; Muldoon; O'Flynn; Peters; Richardson; Storey; Talbot; Tapsell; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Townshend; Upton; Wall; Wallbank; Wellington; Young, T. J.; Young, V. S. Tellers: Braybrooke; Lee. Majority against: 18 Part II as amended negatived. Progress reported. The House adjourned at 11. 1 p. m.

IRN: 7844
PRIDENZ URL: https://www.pridenz.com/hansard_homosexual_law_reform_bill_committee_of_whole_house_continued_4_june_1986.html
TITLE: Homosexual Law Reform Bill - Committee of whole House continued (4 June 1986)
DATE: 14 June 1986
LOCATION: Parliament buildings, 1 Molesworth Street, Wellington, New Zealand.
TEXT: In Committee Debate resumed from 16 April 1986. Schedule negatived. Title. FRAN WILDE (Wellington Central) moved to delete the long title and to substitute the following long title: An Act to amend the Crimes Act 1961 by removing criminal sanctions against consensual homosexual conduct between males, and by consequentially amending the law relating to consensual anal intercourse. New title agreed to. Bill reported with amendment

IRN: 7845
PRIDENZ URL: https://www.pridenz.com/hansard_homosexual_law_reform_bill_third_reading_2_july_1986.html
TITLE: Homosexual Law Reform Bill - third reading (2 July 1986)
DATE: 2 July 1986
LOCATION: Parliament buildings, 1 Molesworth Street, Wellington, New Zealand.
TEXT: PHILIP BURDON (Fendalton): I move, That the order of the day for the third reading of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill be discharged, and that the Bill be recommitted for consideration of the amendments set out in Supplementary Order Paper 30. I move the motion in order to give the House another chance to reconsider its earlier decision regarding the age of consent, which, at 16, is too young. I suggest that the House should raise the age to 18 years. Hon. DAVID CAYGILL (Minister of Trade and Industry): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to challenge your calling of the member for Fendalton. However, I had earlier indicated my wish to raise a point of order in relation to the matter. I rose and called a point of order at the same time as the member for FendaltonMr SPEAKER: The matter does need sorting out because of the contentious and highly emotional issues that are involved. First, a member rising improperly at the wrong time to raise a point of order does not have any pre-emption over another member who rises at the proper time. The member cannot say that he established any claim when he improperly gave notice of his intention to rise. That is quite clear. Secondly, as I had been notified-as has every other member of the House-of the nature of the supplementary order papers, it became inevitable that I should be placed in the invidious position of having to choose one or the other because I was not in ignorance of the contents of those supplementary order papers. I had to make a decision on which one served the greater interests of the House; I was not the slightest bit concerned about any sectional or factional interests. One of the supplementary order papers would have provided for the reconsideration of the age of consent in a limited sphere-not through all of the Bill, but only in part of it. Undoubtedly, that procedural action would have left those who wanted the consideration to be right across the Bill feeling frustrated. The supplementary order paper whose supporter I called achieved the objective of the member who was not called, but also added to it an ability for the House to consider the age of consent over all areas under discussion. Over all, therefore, the ability of the House to consider the whole matter is enhanced by my having accepted the call of the member for Fendalton. That was why I did it. I have no intention of reversing my decision, because I am confident that the decision I made advances the purposes of the House more satisfactorily than the other option would. I am aware that certain difficulties and problems arose during the debate on the Committee stage of the Bill. I have no authority to order the Committee, nor would I wish to have that authority, but, as one of the few members of the House who will be sitting on the side line while the Bill goes to the Committee, may I presume to offer a procedural suggestion to the Committee that might promote a more orderly discussion. I suggest that if the Committee in its wisdom thought it advisable to allow all the amendments on the supplementary order paper to be debated as one, because they are so closely interrelated, the Committee could then divide on each of the issues in the supplementary order paper individually at the end. I make that suggestion because past experience suggests that that might reduce some of the rather intense discussion on procedural motions. The matter is, however, entirely in the hands of the Committee. The House divided on the question, That the order of the day for the third reading of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill be discharged, and that the Bill be recommitted for consideration of the amendments set out in Supplementary Order Paper 30. Ayes 22 Austin, M. E.; Batchelor; Boorman; Colman; Cox; East; Gair; Graham; Gregory; Luxton; McKinnon; McLean; Marshall, D. W. A.; O'Flynn; O'Regan; Richardson; Smith; Storey; Upton; Young, T. J. Tellers: Burdon; Townshend. Noes 63 Anderton; Angus; Austin, H. N.; Austin, W. R.; Banks; Bassett; Birch; Braybrooke; Burke; Butcher; Caygill; Cooper, Cullen; Dillon; Douglas; Dunne; Elder; Falloon; Fraser; Friedlander; Gerard; Goff; Gray; Hercus; Hunt; Isbey; Jeffries; Jones; Keall; Kidd; King; Knapp; Lange; Lee; McClay; McTigue; Marshall, C. R.; Matthewson; Maxwell, R. F. H.; Maxwell, R. K.; Morrison; Moyle; Neilson; Northey; Palmer; Peters; Prebble; Rodger; Scott; Shields; Shirley; Sutton, J. R.; Sutton, W. D.; Tapsell; Terris; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Tizard; Wellington; Wetere; Woollaston; Young, V. S. Tellers: Mallard; Wilde. Majority against: 41 Motion negatived. Hon. DAVID CAYGILL (Minister of Trade and Industry): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think I know the answer to the question I am about to put to you, but it might assist the House if I asked it nevertheless. Is it now open to me to move the motion I previously attempted to move? PHILIP BURDON: No, and the member knows it. Hon. DAVID CAYGILL: I wish the House to have an authoritative ruling, and not an expression of opinion either from me or from other members. Mr Speaker, is it open to me to move the motion I foreshadowed in my earlier attempt to seek, on a point of order, the Bill's recommittal in order to consider Supplementary Order Paper 72? Mr SPEAKER: No it is not, because the wording of the motion is that the order of the day be discharged, and the matter is finished once that has been decided on any particular day. It was to be discharged for a particular purpose. If the third reading is not completed tonight, and the Bill is set down for further consideration of the third reading on a subsequent day that same motion can be moved on that day, because the question relates to whether to proceed with the matter in the way laid down on the Order Paper that day. Third Reading. FRAN WILDE (Wellington Central): I move, That this Bill be now read a third time. During the Committee stage there was the most torrid debate the House has ever heard, certainly in my experience here, and I suspect also in the experience of most members of Parliament. In the end it became not torrid but just plain boring, because members heard repeatedly from a small group of members, stale old arguments that had lost their colour and impact. Many members believe that those arguments were put before the House simply to delay the Bill's progress. It was interesting to note during the Committee stage of the Bill that the public grew more and more aware of the delay in progress, and both the public and the news media commented on the stonewalling tactics that were used. It is important to comment on that, because those tactics show the mentality of some of the members opposed to the Bill. Many members who spoke in opposition to the Bill during the Committee stage did not present arguments, or any factual evidence. They did not refer to anything rational, or to any facts on which this Parliament, and other Parliaments in the Westminster system, normally try to base sound and rational decisions. Members heard merely a long line of histrionics and scaremongering from those members who opposed the Bill. I shall speak on some of the issues put before the House over the past few months, and give a summary of some of the arguments presented. One of the main arguments was that the Bill is offensive to God and religion. That is an important argument, because although some people believe New Zealand is now only nominally Christian others believe that New Zealand is indeed a Christian country. Since the Bill was introduced, members have discovered that many people believe that New Zealand's Legislature, its Parliament, and its system of laws should be based not on the legal system now being evolved, which this Parliament has tried to strengthen during the past 1½ years, but on the Old Testament of the Bible. The problem with that argument was that it was not sustained in the House, or in the select committee hearings that preceded the second reading and the Committee stage. At those select committee hearings, and subsequently in newspapers around the country, representatives of mainstream churches came out in favour of the Bill. They did not necessarily do that because they themselves support homosexual behaviour, or because they themselves are gay. They did it because they believe that our country should be run as a secular State, and that all religious and ethical beliefs should be given equal weight in the eyes of the law. A law cannot be based on a single narrow and rigid interpretation of the Old Testament such as we heard in those arguments. I must admit that after hearing those arguments I worry for the future of New Zealand if the Bill is defeated. New Zealand would be in trouble if the House were to continue to enact such laws in future. Tonight I ask all members present, and all of those who intend to vote on the third reading, to bear in mind the nature of the opposition to the Bill and the kind of argument put forward. If the Bill fails it will be only one in a long line of social repressions inflicted on the people in the name of religion. New Zealand is well past the time of the persecutions of the Middle Ages, which were carried out by the church in which I was brought up as a child. Many other arguments were brought forward in the Committee stage, one in particular revolving around the health issues that have emerged in the past year or so-particularly in relation to the growing problem of AIDS. The problem for those who presented such arguments against the Bill was that they failed to read the evidence and to listen to those who have some expert knowledge, who are working in the field, and who know what they are talking about. The problem of AIDS is a terrible one, and I found it astonishing and very sad that some people in our community wish that homosexuals would contract AIDS and die of it because they see that as a punishment from God. When the Bill was before the select committee we heard evidence from Dr Barker of the Department of Health and from other departmental officials who told us that suppressing law reform would not stop the passage of AIDS. The committee heard from numerous other people who are involved in the fight against AIDS, such as the New Zealand AIDS Foundation. Members will have read in this morning's paper a statement made by Kate Leslie, who chairs the AIDS Foundation. She said that it is imperative that the Bill be passed and that it be passed with the age of 16 as the age of consent, because those young people who would be discriminated against if the age of consent were raised were the ones most at risk. The Bill is now before the House for a third reading at a time when the whole population, not just the gay population, is at risk if a decent and effective public health campaign cannot be mounted. I ask members, before they go into the Noes lobby against the Bill, to think very carefully about the effect that not passing the Bill will have on the campaign that the AIDS Foundation and the Department of Health are trying to set up to stop the spread of AIDS. AIDS is not a disease that is confined to the gay community. It entered New Zealand largely as it did the other Western countries of the United States and Europe - that is, through the gay community-but that is certainly not its genesis, and it is certainly not contained therein. Anyone who has more than one sexual partner at any time runs the risk of being exposed to AIDS. What is more, if we cannot educate, if we cannot run clinics, if we cannot say to people that it is O. K. to be homosexual and that they will not be prosecuted by the law because they are gay, we will not be able to get those people who are at risk to come forward and be tested. They will simply go back into the closet where they have been for the past 100 years, and there they will stay. I have received a great deal of mail during the campaign to pass the Bill. Some of the letters have been very moving. I shall read tonight one of the more recent ones, because it sums up what the problems will be if the repression continues. I received this letter in my office a couple of months ago. " My words will have more meaning by telling you that I am a police officer living and working in a provincial town in New Zealand. I am 20 years old and I am gay. I have been prompted to write this having just read in the local paper that I am indecent and offensive because of my sexuality. It angers me that the community I love and work for will despise me only after they find out I am gay, especially when being gay has given me special qualities to make me a good police officer. It has been a hard decision to make to leave my job. Had I been accepted for what I am things might have been different, but when your won sanity becomes a choice between denying your sexuality or losing a career, there is only one thing that I can change." That letter sums it up. Gay people are not gay by choice, and, even if they were, the House has no right to deny them that choice of sexuality. Gay people are gay, just as heterosexuals are heterosexual. We, as individual members of the New Zealand Parliament, have no right to say to people that they must not practise their sexuality, which is an integral part of their being. During the campaign I had contact with parents of gay children who had committed suicide. I had contact with many sad families of gay people who said they wished they had known before it was too late. I ask the House tonight not to make it too late, and to vote for the third reading. GRAEME LEE (Hauraki): The comment made by the member for Wellington Central, the introducer of the Bill, that homosexuals are born that way, is incorrect. She could not offer any scientific evidence for her statement. In fact, the evidence research over many years shows clearly that homosexuals are not born that way; it is learnt behaviour, which can therefore be unlearnt. Throughout the debate the opponents of the Bill have concentrated on the behaviour. We have attempted to judge people as people. It is a fundamental fact, and the House should once again hear the truth, that homosexuals are not born that way. The member for Wellington Central accused the Opposition of stonewalling the debate, but the House should know, and it should be recorded, that the Opposition has employed every means at its disposal to oppose the Bill, because it has the mandate of 835,000 New Zealanders in the largest petition ever submitted to Parliament. It is on the clear mandate of those people - and it would have been 1,000,000 people if time had permitted that target to be reached-that Opposition members have opposed the Bill, and will continue to oppose it. We call upon the House to seal the Bill's doom by voting against this repugnant Bill and throwing it out. If there were any doubt about the commitment of the people who signed the petition, that commitment has been further tested in the past few days. In Te Atatu 600 people have been canvassed in a comprehensive assessment; 52 percent said they had signed the petition, but 83 percent said they would sign it today. That is a 30 percent increase in support of the petition. That is the strength behind the petition, which, its supporters have told the House, is 2½ times greater than anything else brought before the House. It is possibly the world's largest petition on a per capita basis. It was an unequivocal declaration that New Zealanders did not want anything to do with the Bill. Parliament knows that it has before it the clearest possible expression of the wishes of the nation. The petition was attacked on every front, without result, by the people supporting the Bill. It emerged unscathed, and it will always stand up because it has been found in the Auckland Star to be viable. Indeed, that particular assessment affirmed that the gay petition was valid. I also record, in the context of the accusation of stonewalling, that those who oppose the Bill were gagged several times. The gagging began in the select committee, with an attempt by the chairman to hold back the proper course of the Bill. It continued in the House, with the Standing Orders being employed to stop the proper process of the debate. That was done by the Government-and I except those who have consistently and courageously opposed the Bill-which has aligned itself politically with the Bill. It should be written into the annals of the House that the Government sought through its numbers to exclude a proper clause by clause consideration of the Bill. Members have had to discuss the 2 parts-9 clauses-in a limited-time debate, with 21 amendments being offered. It was entirely wrong. What emerged from the Committee stage, and what underscores this evil Bill, is that it attempts to make wrong right. There is not the slightest doubt that the people of this country believe the Bill to be entirely wrong. The construction of the legislation makes it intrinsically wrong, and it is wrong in every context. The Bill tries to make homosexuality acceptable, lawful, and viable as a future life-style. That is not acceptable. Even in overseas countries where there has been liberalisation - and I refer to the English law, which was used in several arguments and misunderstood-there is limited liberalisation. It is still, in essence, a law for consenting adults in private only. It is still seen to be wrong. In the past 2 days the United States Supreme Court has stated that homosexual behaviour between consenting adults is wrong. The Opposition believes that it is morally wrong, because the passing of the Bill would remove the offence and a barrier to other moral lapse and decline. It is wrong because it is unnatural; it is wrong because it attacks the family, and, indeed, it puts the family at tremendous risk. The mover of the Bill also said that the accusation that the Bill was an offence before God and man was entirely wrong. I have said in the House, and I stand by it, that the Bill is an abomination to God and man. I say that because I believe that the biblical teaching on the matter is abundantly clear. What the member for Wellington Central has said to the House tonight should shock every New Zealander. She asked if we were to return to the Middle Ages and to bow to repressive religion. She implied by that comment that she has no commitment to the Christian faith. She implied that she believes that the Christian faith has no relevance to New Zealand and to the House, yet the laws of the House are based on the Christian faith. I believe that every New Zealander listening to the debate and hearing those words would have been shocked. New Zealanders will now know-if there was any doubt in their minds-that the mover of the Bill is wrong, and that what she has said is wrong. The member for Wellington Central spoke about AIDS and heterosexual incidence of it. Of course heterosexuals will get AIDS when bisexuals make up part of the sexual group that accounts for more than 80 percent of those who spread AIDS. Opposition members believe that we must not pass the Bill, and we must not take action that would logically increase the incidence of AIDS in the community. How, in the name of common sense and sanity, can anyone have brought before the House and the nation at this time a Bill that will increase the incidence of AIDS in this country through an increase in homosexual behaviour? That it would increase has been attested to in San Francisco and Great Britain over the past decade. The passing of the Bill would do just that; New Zealand would have much more homosexual activity, with an increased risk of AIDS. Members are considering the worst killer disease known to man, yet the member for Wellington Central is frivolous enough to say that that is not the point and that it is a matter of heterosexuality versus homosexuality. Members are being asked to pass this Bill as a means of containing the worst killer disease known to man. It is incredible that such an argument could be used in the House. I was particularly pleased that the human rights provision was eliminated from the Bill. I believe that the Bill should be torn up. GEOFF BRAYBROOKE (Napier): I was misrepresented in the previous speech when the member asserted that the Bill was a Government, or Labour Party, Bill. That is incorrect. It is a private member's Bill. I remind the House that several members of the Government have consistently voted against the Bill. Hon. RUSSELL MARSHALL (Minister of Education): I think it could be fairly said that, just as most Government members generally support the legislation, most National Opposition members oppose it. I want to say again that I support the legislation in its entirety, in spite of the fact that we have had months of filibuster from the other side. I support the age of consent being 16 years. I acknowledge that in the end it will be a close run thing whether we manage to achieve that. Anyone who has studied adult behaviour and children's behaviour knows that adult behaviour is governed very much by early childhood experiences. It is not possible for an adult to change his or her sexual orientation, and indeed it is not easily possible to change much of our behaviour. We are, as adults, very much more than most of us recognise, products of our earliest years. I do not know what the causes are, or how these things come to be, and nobody is sure of that, but we are talking about people who grow into a particular kind of sexual orientation. I want to say a little more about the attitude of the Church, but before I do I shall make reference to some of the comments made during the long Committee stage about education, schools, and the relationship of the legislation to that environment. It has been suggested in some quarters that it would be possible-if the Bill were to be passed-for people to force homosexual behaviour on young boys at school. That is not true, and it certainly would not be true if the Bill were to be passed. It is just as illegal for homosexual behaviour to be forced on a young person at school as it is now for heterosexual behaviour. It is just as illegal for under-age homosexual activity as it is for under-age heterosexual activity. The clarity of the debate has been helped not one whit by those who have sought to exaggerate what the Bill sets out to do. I shall concentrate most of my deliberations on the rather presumptuous remarks made, not for the first time in the debate, by the member for Hauraki, who is presumed to speak for God and scripture. I remind the House that there have been a great number of people, official representatives of the churches no less, as well as countless Christian people, who have supported the legislation. It is not possible for anyone in the House, let alone an opponent of the Bill, to say: “God says this Bill is wrong." What I cannot comprehend about opponents of the legislation is the people who seek to describe other people as un-Christian. I would not dare, or have the temerity, to describe my friend the member for Hauraki as un-Christian. I take it very poorly that he should so describe supporters of the Bill. The member may be able to find scriptural records in Leviticus and elsewhere in the Old Testament. I challenge him, and anybody who is opposed to the Bill, to produce one word from our Lord that condemns homosexuality. I ask members to tell me how within the spirit of Christ it is possible to oppose the Bill. Of course they cannot oppose it. I have been brought up to believe that the Christian spirit of compassion, love, and warmth is not to reject other people even if we disagree with their behaviour and even if we condemn that behaviour. I am troubled that the member should take it upon himself, as numbers of his colleagues have done, to presume to speak on behalf of our Lord and to tell the people that they are wrong and evil, and to say what will happen to them. Nobody knows what will happen. I do not know what view the member for Hauraki holds on life after death, and I guess none of us know until we get there. I tell the member that when I asked a question about what is important in life, it is not how many people I have condemned, not how many people I have described as sinful, and not how many people I have cut off and said are not worthy of my time because they are criminal. Is it surely not more a basis for Christian judgment that one ask how loving people were to those who did not agree with them, how warm and compassionate they were to those people, even if they felt they were wrong? One might also ask how patronising or unpatronising one has been. There has been very little of the Christian spirit in those people who have spoken in opposition to the Bill. I want to make a claim on behalf of all those good Christian people, men and women of the clergy and laity, who have spoken in favour of the legislation; all those people who claim-utterly consistent with the main thrust of the biblical record - that the Bill is indeed within the spirit of Christ. The member for Hauraki can quote texts from Leviticus, but I thought the New Testament was the new way. We have grown out of Old Testament ways. I am not here to defend some of Saint Paul's rather strange ideas about the sexuality of men and women, or those people who came to the committee and to the House, and who have sought to follow the spirit of Christ, who have said that Leviticus is inconsistent with the spirit of the Bill. I am sure that there are many people who have been saddened to hear men-and it has always been men-whom they know well criticising them very directly. Everyone in the House knows and is known to male adult homosexuals. Many of us do not know who those male homosexuals are. Many people would now be scared to acknowledge their adult male homosexuality to people they know. I am absolutely certain that every one of the severest critics of the Bill knows, and knows well, adult homosexuals, without even knowing who they are. Those people who have criticised the Bill stand condemned for rejecting much more than they realise people who would value their compassion and friendship. What concerns me is not only the bigotry but also the hatred that has been engendered during the course of the debate; the vitriolic mail that people have received; and the extraordinary things that people have claimed will happen. I would have hoped that by the 1980s we had become a mature society that can accept other people as they are, accept their differences, and realistically face up to the fact that an adult's sexual preference is almost certainly unable to be changed. We are not saying that people as adult males and females cannot practise heterosexual activity. The critics have not volunteered to be celibate for the rest of their lives, but they are determined that the people whose given orientation is different will be celibate for the rest of their lives. What kind of arrogant nonsense and impertinence allows us to come to that view? How do we govern? We do not govern by the number of people who sign a petition. We govern as a House of Representatives - although not very representative; we are mostly middle-aged males who seem to have the greatest difficulty with the Bill-and we are supposed to represent the country. We should not govern by public opinion and by the numbers of people who write in and say they will or will not vote for us, according to our vote on the Bill. Having learnt about, studied, and thought about the matter as carefully as we can we should govern not on the basis of bigotry or on what we feel but on what we have taken the trouble to read and to learn about the matter. Some people think that the Bill will ensure that people can change their sexual orientation. How many people do the member for Hauraki, the member for Invercargill, the member for Whangarei, or any of the other opponents actually know who have changed their sexual orientation? It is virtually impossible to change it. Some people think that we will make more male homosexuals, as if, once the Bill is passed, all of us who are adult males will suddenly turn into rampant and promiscuous male homosexuals. I have not the faintest interest in becoming a male homosexual, and I suspect that applies to most if not all members. I do not think that many people will suddenly find themselves a new freedom and change their orientation. Some people seem to be scared that it will become compulsory, and that once the Bill is passed they will have to show their manliness by saying they are male homosexuals. That is not what the Bill will do. The Bill will not change anybody's personality-unfortunately, in some cases; it will not change anybody. GEOFF BRAYBROOKE (Napier): Members have listened to what I consider to be a sincere speech from the Minister of Education. He eloquently put the case for the Bill, and one would not be surprised, because he is an ordained Minister of the Methodist Church. I would not in any way attempt to clash with him on matters theological. However, he mentioned one matter that needs to be challenged. He said that we should love the sinner. Nobody who professes to be a Christian would argue with that. What he did not say, but hinted at, was that we should also love the sin, and that is where I part company with him. He wants us to love the sinner and the sin. In my view and in the view of many other people, homosexuality and sodomy have been sins for generations. Sodomy has been considered to be an act of gross indecency throughout the world, not only by Christian people but by people of other great faiths, such as Hindus and Muslims. My colleague pointed out, as did the member for Wellington Central, that the Bill has also divided the nation, cities, churches. The proof is that it has divided political parties and, I suspect, even families. It has been one of the most agonisingly, divisive Bills ever to appear before Parliament. I am sorry that the first National Opposition speaker attempted to make small political capital by making it appear that the Labour Party was in favour of the Bill while the National Party was against it. That is plainly not true. During the Committee stage the House considered a motion not to report the Bill back. To be fair, it was the brain-child of the member for New Plymouth, and I supported it. Four National Opposition members voted not to go along with the motion. They voted to continue the Bill. The House should know who those four National Opposition members were-the member for Selwyn, the member for Raglan, the member for Rodney, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It ill behoves anybody in the House to try to pretend that the Bill is a Labour Party Bill. It is not. It is a private member's Bill introduced by the member for Wellington Central-and it was her right to do so. A matter that became clear during the Committee stage was that those who support the Bill and the homosexual community are definite that they want homosexuality to be accepted by society as being normal. In the past year I have put down a written question in the House asking how many homosexuals are in prison. It appears that those in prison are those who committed acts of gross indecency in public places or with small children. It is rare indeed - and I know of no cases-for policemen to creep up to keyholes to look at what is going on in private houses. Homosexual people want society to accept them as normal. They want to put a cloak of respectability upon their activities. They want to be able to say to the world that their so-called orientation is right, proper, and normal. I am confident that I speak for most of the citizens of Napier. I do not pretend to speak for all of them, but I am sure I speak for the majority - and that is part of my job in the House-in saying that they do not want a Bill that legalises sodomy. The religious angle has been mentioned by the previous speaker. It is true that the churches are divided. The church to which I owe an allegiance does not support the Bill. The leaders of my church do not support it. Trevor Mallard: Some of the leaders of our church don't. GEOFF BRAYBROOKE: The member for Hamilton West will have his opportunity to speak. I did not interrupt the previous speaker and I ask the member for the same courtesy. The Catholic Church is opposed to the Bill and I would be happy to table a letter, which was discussed during the Committee stage, in which Cardinal Williams himself opposed the Bill. The Salvation Army, which is a strong Christian church, has also opposed the Bill. The House should know that there is another side to the coin. It would be a tragedy if the Bill were to become law. As I said earlier, it would give homosexuality a cloak of respectability. Young people, and, I suppose, old people, would consider that what is legal must be right. They would be misled into thinking that it is O. K. to follow a homosexual orientation should they wish. It has been said in the House that there will be no sudden explosion of homosexual activities. That is conjecture. It could well be right, but it could also be wrong. In Western countries where the law has been liberalised there has been a large increase in homosexual activity. One only has to go to Holland, London, New York, or San Francisco to see what happens when such laws are liberalised. Homosexuality has become almost an industry, with homosexual bars, baths, meeting houses, and even homosexual churches where they go through some form of marriage to one another. That is considered to be normal in those states. I have consistently opposed the Bill. I admit that I do so on moral grounds and from my experience as a member of the armed forces for many years. [Interruption.] Do not worry, we have them there as well. I have seen how homosexual people act when they do not get their own way. I attended two public meetings in Lower Hutt and witnessed the disgusting behaviour of a large group of Wellington homosexuals, when those who opposed them were howled down, and when a Salvation Army minister who wanted to lead the meeting with a prayer was ridiculed with blasphemies, jeered at, howled at, mocked at, and screamed at. Those people were not nice, gay, oppressed people. Such people want their own way and if they do not get it, look out. The House will decide on this matter, and that is right and proper. I want to close by saying that I am firmly convinced that if the Bill becomes law there will be a cry of outrage throughout the land. It will cost some members their seats, and so be it-we all accept that probability. I also prophesy that after the next election the Bill, if it succeeds tonight, will be repealed. PAUL EAST (Rotorua): It is curious that while I have to disagree with much of what the previous speaker has said I will probably find myself in the same lobby as he is in when I vote. I congratulate the Minister of Education on an excellent contribution to the debate. The previous speaker represents the city of Napier. He boldly told the House how consistently he has always vigorously opposed homosexuality, yet many of us know that when he was trying to gain a seat in Pakuranga he told the people there that he would be happy to sponsor legislation to make homosexuality lawful. That is why we have a great deal of difficulty in understanding him on the issue. The member says he formed his views on the matter years ago while in the Army, yet only a few short years ago he was telling people that he hoped would vote for him something diametrically opposed to what he has been saying tonight. That is why I doubt his sincerity on the issue. The member for Napier and I may well vote on this matter in the same lobby but I hope I come to the Chamber with cleaner hands than he does. Of all the contributions I have heard, I respect and admire the contribution of the Minister of Education, because one knows exactly where he stands on the matter, and he has been consistent in that stance. I shall vote against the third reading of the Bill. I voted for the Bill to be recommitted. The vote on that matter brought about an unholy alliance with the firm protagonists for the Bill and the firm opponents of it crowding into one lobby to vote that the Bill should not be recommitted. My grave misgivings about the Bill are shared by many New Zealanders. They are that we are trying to do too much too quickly, and that the age of consent is much too low. I adhere to the view that there is an argument for some reform in the homosexual law, but I do not countenance the legislation that we now have before the House, and for that reason I shall vote against it. The age of 16 years is an intolerably young age to inflict on New Zealand when many children are still at school, when many young men are grasping for maturity and manhood, and going through a complex change in their life. It is asking too much of New Zealand society to expect it to adjust to that in such a rapid manner. For those reasons I will vote against the third reading of the Bill. One of the other reasons I will vote against it is the manner in which it has been dealt with by the House. The parliamentary procedures are ill equipped for dealing with issues such as this. There is no doubt that the structure of the Standing Orders has constrained members when they have wanted to have matters recommitted that would bring about legislation better than it might otherwise be. There was an example of that tonight. It is possible to have only one application for a Bill to be recommitted and only one change can be made. That is a constraint in legislation such as this when party Whips do not operate and all members are free to vote according to their consciences. Our procedures do not easily handle conscience matters, and that has been clearly demonstrated through the passage of the Bill. Apart from my grave concern about the major change-in particular, the age limit that will be forced upon the country should the Bill become law-the second concern I have is the manner in which the legislation was dealt with. It was railroaded through the select committee procedures and I, for one, am saddened by that. People can say it was in the select committee for a long time, but I say to members that this is one of the major changes we will make as a Parliament and therefore we should listen to all arguments on the matter. But what did we do? Some months into the procedures of the select committee a Government majority decided to close the hearings, yet how often do we hear that we should have consultation in the House and should listen to everyone who wants to bring an argument here and have a point of view put before a select committee? However, Government members on the select committee voted that it should stop having hearings and that the select committee should cease to hear from the many people who still wished to have their points of view heard before Parliament, including organisations as responsible as the National Council of Women. How does the Minister of Women's Affairs feel about organisations such as that being precluded from having their views heard? Some political heat was generated against some of the Labour politicians on the issue, so as a group they came to the select committee and closed the hearing by a majority vote. Therefore Parliament was not able to hear all the evidence that people wanted to present before the House deliberated on the legislation. Worse than that, many petitions-not just one or two-to be heard by that select committee were not heard. The House knows that the right to petition Parliament is one of the most ancient constitutional rights that a citizen holds, and when for purely political motives a majority on the select committee denies the people the right to petition Parliament about legislation, Opposition members say that those members have gone too far. They cannot expect to force legislation through the House when, first, they have denied people the right to have their points of view properly put to the select committee; and, secondly, they have denied petitioners the ancient and hard-fought-for right to come before the House and have their submissions heard by a parliamentary committee and reported back to Parliament. That was what happened, and those people were denied their constitutional rights. That was a sad day for Parliament. That is the second reason I will vote against the third reading. I am saddened that we do not have a more moderate Bill that would receive more support from members. In my view the legislation will not have the majority support of members, and I believe that is for the two reasons I have outlined to the House. Those are certainly the reasons that have led me to the conclusion that I should no longer support the legislation. Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (St. Kilda): I support the Homosexual Law Reform Bill, which was introduced in March 1985; in July 1986 Parliament is still considering the third reading. I find it extraordinary that it should be suggested that the parliamentary process has not devoted sufficient time to consideration of the Bill. I cannot think of any other Bill that has occupied so much of the time of Parliament. Some members have begun to think that we could look forward to a long career in Parliament with Wednesdays filled up with consideration of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. I believe that the consideration of the Bill has been one of the most regrettable episodes in modern parliamentary history-[Interruption.] - and some of the interjections we have heard reinforce that point. It has often been said by political commentators, both within the House and outside it, that Parliament is at its best on debates of genuine issues of private conscience. That has usually been so. I can remember listening during my first term in Parliament to debates on the abortion issue-debates that reached a higher standard than is the wont for Parliament. I can recall listening to debates in the 1970s on similar issues, when members with deeply held beliefs, who were deeply divided, managed to debate the issues without attacking each other personally and without stooping to low political tactics. Tonight we heard the member for Wanganui make a speech that was a classic example of the kind of speech the House has been accustomed to hear on private members' Bills of conscience. I am sure he will forgive me for saying that this has not been the easiest week in politics for him, and that he was able to make such a speech is a tribute to what the House should be about when it is considering matters of this kind. However, in general, the debate on the Bill has not reached that standard. It has generated incredible bitterness and extraordinary personal attacks, and it has affected the whole atmosphere of Parliament over the past year. Many of the problems Parliament has faced in its running over the past year have in large measure been generated by the nature of the debate on the Bill, because in the past when the House has come to measures of this kind members have been able to put aside their party colours and to recognise genuinely held beliefs, and to respect those beliefs, even when their own beliefs have differed fundamentally. I have listened to speech after speech, made at every stage of the Bill, that indicated that members seem unable to recognise that other members can hold different views, and hold those views genuinely. That is one of the reasons I have spoken infrequently on the Bill: because of their nature I simply found it somewhat distasteful to participate in much of the proceedings. It is regrettable, too, because there has been a breakdown of the unspoken rules about how private members' Bills of conscience are dealt with as they relate to party lines. There has been an unforgivable attempt by some members to suggest that the Bill is a party Bill, and that the division is upon party lines. I have to say that that is a great insult to my colleagues the member for Napier, the member for Southern Maori, the member for Gisborne, and several others, who have consistently opposed the Bill, and who have never been under any pressure from their colleagues to do anything else. I ask whether any Opposition member can give the same assurance for the National Opposition. The position is regrettable, too, because of the antipathy to homosexuals that has been generated by discussion of the Bill. The Bill is designed to ease some of the burdens that homosexuals suffer, but the discussions have all too often led to outbreaks of what is often called homophobia, and attacks upon homosexuals. Much of what has been said both inside and outside the House in attacking the Bill scarcely makes one proud to be a New Zealander. It is regrettable, too, because of the ability of people to present the issue in a false light. The Minister of Education rightly said that members-both individually and collectively cannot merely be the tools of public opinion. However, it is worth asking what the public opinion is on the actual content of the Bill now before the House. The latest opinion polls show that more than 60 percent of New Zealanders support the decriminalisation of homosexuality. There is only one way to decriminalise homosexuality - that is, to stop making it illegal. GRAEME LEE: That's wrong. Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I will not respond to the member for Hauraki because I may merely stoop to the tactics I have already condemned in members during the debate. There is only one way to decriminalise homosexuality - that is, to stop making it illegal. The significant division has been over age, but the largest proportion of people now support 16 as the age of consent. That is what the public supports, and that is what the Homosexual Law Reform Bill-stripped of Part II, which I supported-actually provides for. That is the reality. If the argument is to be about what the people support, then, in fact, the people support what is in the Bill. However, I accept that the people do not support the Bill, because they have been convinced that the Bill is different from what it is. What the people believe is in the Bill is not what is in fact in it, and the misinformation that has been spread is extraordinary. I am reminded of Gladstone's famous comment when losing the election of 1874-that he was drowned in a torrent of gin and beer. I fear that that is the kind of pressure we are facing. The real, central issue-seldom debated, but touched upon by the member for Napier is whether the law should enforce most people's abhorrence of sodomy, anal intercourse, call it what one will. I do not deny that most people have that abhorrence, but the law cannot be made the medium for enforcing that view. What is right is not defined by what is legal, thank goodness! There are still some matters left to the individuals of New Zealand that are not defined for them by 95 people who sit within the Chamber. Why not? First, homosexuality is not a chosen behaviour, and a law one way or the other will make no difference. Secondly, I am appalled by the lack of basic human understanding of our fellow people. " Judgment is mine" sayeth the Lord. However, any number of candidates wished to pre-empt that final right, both inside and outside the Chamber. The member for Napier said that one should love the sinner, not the sin. Unfortunately, under the present law it is not the sin but the sinner who is sent to jail. Therefore, even the member's own context of “Let him love the sinner, and not send the sinner to jail" does not affect his right to condemn the sin. Let him think upon that before he casts his final vote. I call upon members to show some honesty towards people we know and cherish. Two of my closest friends as a young man were homosexuals, or later declared themselves to be so. I will not fail those people when I vote on the question. We have heard much about the question of AIDS, and what is done by pushing things under the carpet and making homosexuality a criminal offence instead of allowing people to be themselves, to seek the assistance they need, to be able to talk about their contacts, and to be able to ensure that information is available so that we can deal with a very real problem. The question of the protection of minors has been used to muddy the issue. Nothing in the Bill affects minors. I have been asked many times about my children. My children are daughters-they have nothing to fear from male homosexuals. JUDY KEALL (Glenfield): I agree with those who say that while one section of society is oppressed we are all oppressed. Homophobia, or fear of homosexuals, is crippling society. I believe that homosexual law reform is the first step to freeing society of that fear and freeing the gay community from discrimination. Under the present law not only sodomy but all sexual activity between males is a crime. At the third reading of the Bill it is important to be very clear about the present law. It is still a crime even if both parties consent, are adult, and are in the privacy of their own home. All anal intercourse is a crime, including that between a married couple. There are no exceptions to any of those offences, nor are any defences allowed in the law. The penalties range from 5 years to 14 years in jail even if both parties consent. That means that heterosexual married couples are liable to spend 14 years in jail for sodomy. Despite the penalties I have just read out, we all know that the law has not been enforced for a long time. The member for Napier is absolutely right about that. I am amazed at the number of people who oppose the Bill and who, presumably, know what the law is; yet I have never heard any of them arguing that we should imprison all gay men who practise their homosexuality. I have never heard people say that, yet that is what the law states. When I talk to people in my electorate who bring up questions about the Bill, and I explain what the law states, I am amazed at how many of them have been misled by the opponents of the Bill and do not know that the law states that those people should be in jail. When I ask them: " Do you think those people should be put in jail?" they say: “Oh, no, that's not what we want. We don't believe they should be put in jail." I then say to them: " Do you think it will be right if we do not put them in jail?" They say " Yes", and I say: " That's all we are changing; we are changing the law in that respect." They say " That's O. K." Members must be very clear what they are voting for tonight. We will be voting for all private consenting sexual activity between adult males to be made legal. That is all. It is very sad that so many of the Bill's opponents have misrepresented what it is doing. They have engendered fear that young boys will be legitimately seduced and that people will be forced into sexual activity against their will. That is completely untrue. All sexual activity between males to which one party does not consent will still be a crime. Anal intercourse between heterosexuals when one partner does not consent will be a crime. That is rape under the new rape law. Any male who has consenting activity with a boy under the age of 16 years will be liable to a term of imprisonment ranging from 7 years to 14 years, depending on the circumstances and the age of the boy. The penalties in the Bill are strengthened to bring them into line with the penalties pertaining to sexual intercourse or indecency with girls. A new offence is created-that of running a male brothel. The Bill amends the Crimes Act to put homosexual behaviour on the same footing as heterosexual behaviour. The Bill will not legalise soliciting. I want to speak briefly now about the age limit, because when " adult" is defined in the Bill we are talking about the age of 16. I say very clearly tonight that I believe that setting the age of 16 is a matter of equity - no more, no less. When we say that at 16 we consider a young boy or a young girl to be adult in the matter of sexuality we mean that they have reached the age when they are believed capable of responsible action. It does not mean that it is compulsory for a young woman to indulge in sexual activity merely because she has reached that age. So, of course, it does not mean that it is compulsory for a young man to indulge in any sexual activity at 16. It is simply that he or she has reached the age at which we expect young people to be capable of making a responsible decision. As a mother of teenage sons I have recommended to my sons that they do not indulge in any sexual activity at that age. I think they should wait for quite some time. I have made that recommendation, but it is up to them, and I have to trust them from that age to make that decision. When members are talking about the age of 16 they must remember that people can get married at that age. Very few do, but it is the legal age at which one can get married. It has never been suggested by anyone who opposes the Bill that the law for women - the age of 16-should be changed. Why therefore are they so adamantly opposing the Bill concerning young men? I totally reject the argument that young men are less mature than young women. I believe that they are responsible and able to make decisions, and I do not see why young men should be protected more than young women. After all, a young woman can become pregnant, and the dangers of sexual activity for her at 16 are much greater than they are for any young man. I want now to talk about love and the need of all of us for affection. When the Bill was introduced I was very moved when one member of the House who was supporting the Bill made that very point. It is one that has stayed with me all the way through the debate. If we have a need for affection and can find fulfilment of that need only with someone of the same sex the law should not deny that fulfilment. Certainly, some people choose to be celibate, and that is their choice; but why should the law call a criminal a person who can find love only with a member of the same sex? Let us be clear: from all the evidence we heard at the committee-and I, as a member of the former Statutes Revision Committee, heard more submissions than any other member apart from the member for Wellington Central-no clear evidence was ever given one way or the other about why people are homosexual. It appears that at any given time or place about 10 percent of the population is always homosexual. If people are not to be regarded as criminals the law must be changed. I do not believe that the law makes any difference to the number of heterosexuals or homosexuals in society. I do not believe that if we pass the Bill there will suddenly, overnight, be more homosexuals practising their sexuality. The reason for wanting to change the law for all adult males over the age of 16 is humanity and equity. We no longer want those people to feel that they are criminals, or to put them in such a position that they may be blackmailed. We want them to be able to continue being good, upright members of the community, without any fear or discrimination. I strongly support the Bill and I urge members to vote for the third reading, particularly if they initially made a commitment to decriminalisation. It is important for members to understand why one group in our society should not be looked upon as criminals, and should not be liable to be jailed. It is important that members vote for the Bill, even if they do not feel comfortable about the age of consent. I urge members to think seriously about what they are doing to that section of our society if they leave those people branded as criminals. Passing the Homosexual Law Reform Bill, now an amendment to the Crimes Act, is something we can do to help our fellow members of society feel accepted. It is very sad that so many homosexual men in our society still feel pressurised into marriage. RICHARD NORTHEY (Eden): In rising to support the third reading of the Bill, I take my last chance to appeal to members to support what is only a recognition of basic human rights. The most basic of human rights is surely the ability to express love and affection to others in the way that is natural, that is derived from a person's basic being. Someone once asked me what one calls men who love one another, and the answer is, of course, Christians. I have been amazed to find that significant sections of the Christian church in the community oppose the Bill, which is basically about love and affection. I also realise that most churches and most Christian people in the community support the Bill because they respect the rights of people made and born in the image of the Creator to be able to express their natural integrity and natural affection. They reject the views of a minority of people who do not accept the right of others to have different views and to be able to behave in a way repugnant to some people. I find repugnant the economic activities of many people and the way they oppress others, yet there are still laws that allow that to happen. It is appalling that we have allowed to remain for so long a law that denies people the right to love, companionship, and affection. Such an attitude is derived from the same root as racism, the fear many people have of the disabled, and religious bigotry. People who have complained about the anger displayed by gay people in some meetings when their basic nature has been attacked and despised can understand the reaction as being similar to the reaction we see on television screens each day. In South Africa there are people who have been oppressed for two or three generations. Gay people in our community have been oppressed for longer than that, and the change is long overdue. There has been much debate about the causes and nature of homosexuality. One of the clearest statements on that matter was made by 200 leading health professionals after a conference at the Wellington medical school: " We are sure that homosexuality is not an illness or a disease. It is a state of being, in terms of sexual orientation. The expression of homosexual orientation is part of the expected sexual expression in any community, and is part of the normal distribution of sexuality. Homosexuals do not become homosexual through either seduction or habit. Like heterosexuals, they are drawn to their sexual orientation by their own feelings, often most unwillingly. To refuse to accept and understand this process is shutting one's eyes to part of the natural expression of sexuality." I appeal to members who from their own upbringing and natural expression of their feelings find homosexual orientation and activity repugnant to try - if they can step down from the position of power and authority over others that they have by virtue of being in Parliament-to put themselves in the position of powerlessness that is experienced by many homosexual people who are trying to express the basic derived orientation that is as natural to them as is heterosexuality to others. Concern has been expressed about the age of consent, particularly by the member for Rotorua, who said that 16 is too low for boys. I agree with the member for Glenfield that if 16 is too low for boys it is too low for girls. However, I have not heard the member for Hauraki or any of the other members who are opposed to the Bill suggest an amendment to raise the age of consent generally. In fact, we have laws that say people can get married at 16 and that women can get pregnant at 16 - that is an event that certainly affects the rest of their lives much more profoundly than an isolated homosexual encounter. We have strong evidence that many young men have homosexual experiences and activities around the age of 16 but most later become confirmed heterosexuals. It is precious to advocate a different age of consent. It is absurd and illogical, and 16 is the only appropriate age. Setting a higher age would mean that at the time when they are unsure of their sexuality people would be subject to being hunted down by the police and by other members of society, and would be subjected to a penalty, which, I remind members, is up to 14 years' imprisonment. That is a longer term than most people get for murder and longer than people get for inflicting lasting physical damage through beating up others. People have said that they love the sinner and not the sin, but have then suggested that people should be locked up for 14 years. That is intolerable. The change is long overdue. Concern has been expressed about the effect of a law change on the spread of AIDS, yet evidence has been given from the Department of Health, the AIDS Foundation, and notable overseas experts that it is ignorance, fear, and the failure to be able to communicate with people who engage in occasional homosexual activity that is the greatest danger to people within that gay community. To give some examples, Dr Pearl Mear is the chief of clinical microbiology in New York, she said and that New Zealand's laws and conservative attitudes against homosexuality are a major problem in trying to combat AIDS. Dr David Miller, clinical psychologist and leading researcher, said that the single most helpful action the Government could take is to legalise homosexuality. It is only in an atmosphere in which people are able to communicate the need for safe sexual activity that the spread of AIDS can be combated. There is clear evidence from the experience in New York and San Francisco that that is so. We were told that research in New York has shown that the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases among homosexuals has now dropped below the levels for heterosexuals, because contact with them after decriminalisation has ensured that they engage in safe sexual practices. A decrease is apparent also in Spain, where the law has set a relatively low equal age of consent. For both males and females Spain has the lowest incidence of AIDS in Europe. In South Australia, where homosexuality has been liberalised, there is little incidence of the disease; in fact, I do not think any cases have emerged there. The evidence shows that the spread of AIDS is most effectively combated by decriminalising the act, by giving people a sense of self-respect, enabling them to get information, and allowing them to live their lives free of the fear and bigotry they have been subjected to for more than a century. Hon. TONY FRIEDLANDER (New Plymouth): I move, That the question be now putHon. MARGARET SHIELDS (Minister of Customs): I support the third reading of the Bill. It is necessary to sort out what is being talked about with such important legislation. New Zealand is away behind most countries in the Western World in that legislation, but I hope we will catch up. The measure does not advocate any particular form of behaviour; it is about acceptance and tolerance. It is about facing up to the realities of New Zealand society. During the long process of the Bill there has been a lot of talk about Christianity and what Jesus Christ might have had to say about the Bill. Although many people do not attend church regularly, most have been brought up to have some understanding of the Christian religion and some understanding of Christian doctrine. Those who have thought about it at all, and who have studied the priorities that are placed on people in the Christian doctrine, know that the greatest of all the virtues is love-love in the sense of compassion and true acceptance of each other, and love for one another. It is not a qualified emotion; it is a real concern. If members of the House do not front up to that, they may have difficulty in fronting up to themselves. The member for Hauraki disputes the origin of homosexuality. He says that it is learnt behaviour, and, further, that as it is learnt it can be unlearnt. That becomes his justification for opposing the legislation, together with a rather strange reliance on a petition that has had more ballyhoo and doubt thrown on it than any petition brought before the House at any time in the past. I do not doubt the sincerity of the member for Hauraki. I do, however, disagree with him utterly and completely, and so does all the available scientific evidence. The origin of sexual preference is poorly understood. It is known that such preferences are determined at a very early age. Whether one is homosexual, heterosexual, or in some cases, bisexual, is not something that one chooses or that one could choose. It is patently ridiculous to suggest that. That point was well made by my colleague the Minister of Education. One does not choose one's sexuality, and I suggest that, if one could, few would choose the difficult, and at present illegal, path of the male homosexual. I know of no homosexuals who have not resisted the reality of their preference, who have not tried to deny that reality, and who have not suffered enormous pain in acknowledging that preference-first to themselves, and then, if they have the courage, to their family and friends. I should like to talk about the petition because, to my astonishment, and to the astonishment of many others, it is still being bandied around as though it has some kind of factual basis. I personally checked the signatures that were attributed to my electorate on that petition, and I found the petition to be grossly inaccurate. The petition is not something that I would place one iota of faith in if I were a social scientist or a statistician. Alongside my own referendum, which was sent to every voter in my electorate, I placed the results of a Heylen poll that was conducted, coincidentally, at around the same time. The results were entirely consistent, and within the margin of error. I am therefore inclined to think that the evidence from that Heylen poll is probably much more reliable than any evidence from the petition. It shows that two-thirds of New Zealanders support the legalisation of homosexual behaviour, and that about 30 percent-the figure varied depending on the part of the country-were opposed to it. The House ought to know that. Some of the people who came to me - and I know they came to others also-opposing the Bill cited experiences that they themselves had had. Those people were more likely to be males. They cited experiences of being accosted by male homosexuals as young men. The curious thing is that it seems to have had no effect on their behaviour, and that again gives the lie to the suggestion by the member for Hauraki that homosexuality is somehow learnt behaviour, or behaviour that one can, somehow, catch. It is quite clear that contact with male homosexuals does not change orientation. It is annoying, in much the same way as it is annoying for a female to be accosted by a male heterosexual making unwanted advances. Most sexual harassment involves male heterosexuals harassing young women. Why do people spend so much time worrying about homosexual behaviour that is clearly not changing the orientation of those being attacked, but merely annoying them in much the same way as all unwanted sexual advances annoy? Like the member for St. Kilda, I do not have any sons, and, like him, I have two daughters. That does not mean that I do not care about young men, nor does it mean that my own family would be immune to the direct consequences of an unjust law that discriminates against male homosexuals and that, in come cases, forces deceit and ill advised attempts at going straight. In those cases, going straight is an extraordinary way to describe living a lie. I know of several cases of young women entering into marriages with young men, quite sincerely. The young men have been unable to front up to a lifetime of being a male homosexual, and have attempted to be heterosexual. It has not worked, and the tragedy has been enormous. I suggest that most New Zealanders support the Bill, and that most New Zealanders will be immensely relieved when the third reading is completed and the legislation is on the statute book. All objective evidence supports that view. It has been a torrid and divisive debate. The law needs to be changed, and tolerance must be shown for those who differ from ourselves and for those, both inside and outside the House, whose opinions differ from ours. I ask all members to extend that tolerance to those who at present are discriminated against by law for no other reason than that they are different from ourselves, and who, at the moment, cause no harm to any other human being. Hon. WARREN COOPER (Otago): I move, That the question be now put. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think it would be inappropriate to put the question at this stage. There have been eight speakers, and it is a debate in which many members have become involved. The debate has generated a great deal of support and opposition, and I do not think the closure would be appropriate at this time. EDDIE ISBEY (Papatoetoe): I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The issue is a conscience issue, and affects everyone individually. I believe that in the spirit of the House it is wrong for any member to ask for the motion to be put. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. JIM ANDERTON (Sydenham): It is important for the House to make clear to the New Zealand people what the Bill will not do. The Bill will not change the laws about marriage; it will not change the laws on adoption; it will not change the laws about the custody of children; it will not change what is taught in the schools; it will not allow anyone to molest anyone else; it will not force an employer to employ a gay person who is not suitable for the job; it will not stop people from being able to criticise or preach against gay people - and that should please some members. Morality is a human thing: it does not depend on religion, on the church, or even on God. Morality, which some people call conscience, makes us aware of the peculiar psychological phenomenon that gives us all a sense of obligation to do what is right rather than what is wrong. Exercising one's conscience, therefore, is not just a matter of doing what one is told, even by God; it involves understanding, and knowing what one is doing and why. Knowing what one is doing is being human, and that is the first and best reason for doing it. What is at issue and at stake in the homosexual law reform debate? Those in favour of reform do not want criminal sanctions to be retained for use against persons over 16 years of age who engage in sexual activity in private and by mutual consent, whether they be homosexuals or heterosexuals. Those who oppose reform want all sexual activity between males, of whatever age, whether or not by mutual consent, to be a criminal offence. A good deal of the heat in the debate has been generated by those - many of whom profess strong Christian beliefs-who are outraged by the morality, or immorality, even sinfulness, of male homosexual behaviour. That no criminal sanctions exist for female homosexual behaviour is a point on which most are silent. Is it the job of politicians to pass laws that 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. Christ Himself did not have a high regard for either lawyers or lawmakers. " Unless your justice gives fuller measure than the Scribes and Pharisees", He said, " you shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven." To those anxious to rush forward to judge the behaviour of others and to pass laws on their behaviour, He made an offer, which the mob of his day refused: " Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." GRAEME LEE: Read the rest of the Bible. JIM ANDERTON: Nowhere in Christian teaching can I find any suggestion that one's values should be determined by public pressure, by referenda, or by the weight of numbers on a petition. Pontius Pilate held a referendum. He knew that his prisoner was innocent, but, as the recognised lawmaker of his time and place, he believed that he could wash his hands of the decision of the mob, and stand aside and allow those with the weight of numbers on their side to have their way. Does the member for Hauraki want to be on the side of Pontius Pilate, or on the side of those who would judge, on its merits and on the conscience of those in the House, whether it is appropriate to pass the legislation? Members cannot wash their hands as Pontius Pilate did. We must decide. My view is that the possibility of objective, well informed, as well as unemotional, consideration of the matter has been shown to be difficult if not well night impossible. My mail, and I am sure the mail of many members, is evidence of that difficulty, and some of the contributions to the debate over the many months-if not 1½ years-have proved that point. I remind the House, as other members who have spoken tonight have done, that, with regard to clauses 4 and 5, it has barely been noted that the term of imprisonment for indecent assault or anal intercourse on a boy under the age of 16 years is imprisonment for between 6 years and 14 years, which is the same range of sentence usually reserved for murderers. What punishment do those opposing the Bill want? Do they want more punishment than for the crime of murder, and, if they do, what are the implications? The member for Napier mentioned the attitude of the Catholic Church towards the Bill, and, by implication, indicated that there was some kind of universal or catholic agreement amongst Christians and Catholics on the matter. In 1956, 30 years ago, before the reform of the law against homosexuality in Britain, a committee was set up by the Catholic Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster to draw up a report on the Catholic position regarding homosexuality and the law in that country. The report submitted to the British Government by the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster made the following conclusions: " Attempts by the State to enlarge its authority and invade the conscience of the individual, however high-minded, always fail and frequently do positive harm. It should accordingly be clearly stated that penal sanctions are not justified for the purpose of attempting to restrain sins against sexual morality committed in private by responsible adults. They" - that is, criminal sanctions-" should be discontinued because, (1) they are ineffectual; (2) they are inequitable in their application; (3) they involve punishments disproportionate to the offence committed; and (4) they undoubtedly give scope for blackmail and other forms of corruption." With all due respect to my colleague the member for Napier, I would suggest that the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster knows a good deal more about the theological position of the Catholic Church than the member for Napier. That is a serious and considered reflection of the Catholic Church of Great Britain, which supported the reform of homosexual laws in that country. No one could accuse the committee of being extravagantly radical or wanting to hasten the demise of Western civilisation or any other such claim. The decriminalisation of homosexuality does not require that one approves of or wants to promote homosexual behaviour. Moral and personal condemnation are compatible with a human activity being legal. It does not mean that one agrees with it, and that is the essence of the Bill. The Bill is an attempt to achieve equity. I conclude by quoting from a letter I received from a former London policeman now living in New Zealand. He wrote: “In the matter of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill there appears to be no mention of who does the arresting if consenting adult homosexuality in private remains a crime. Will it be members of Parliament, or a religious group, or a vigilante squad, or the police? Before the English law changed 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; their crime-their sexuality; my shame-that I had no brief to crush the sensibilities of fellow human beings. To criminalise private morality turns us off the steep path to civilisation." That is what would happen if the law were left as it is. That would be reliance on a law that could not be implemented. that would bring the law into disrepute, and that is something to which the House should not be a party. Dr BILL SUTTON (Hawke's Bay). There must be many people listening to the debate who are astonished at the capacity of members of Parliament to continue discussing this important issue for 18 months. There are many things that should still be said in the third reading debate, and there are many members who wish to be heard on the matter who have not yet had the opportunity to have their final say. I deplore any attempt to railroad the House into voting on the third reading before all those who wish to speak on the Bill have had an opportunity to do so. The member for Rotorua advanced an interesting argument. He was one of the 22 members who supported the attempt to discharge and recommit the Bill in order to reconsider the age of consent. He told the House tonight that he believes that the law relating to homosexual acts should be reformed, but that he finds he has such difficulty with the Bill as it stands that he could not support its third reading. He particularly objected, first, to the age of consent; and, secondly, to the manner in which the Bill had been dealt with by the House up until this point. I strongly disagree with him about how the House has dealt with the Bill. The select committee that was given the responsibility of conducting hearings on the detailed evidence sat for an unprecedented number of hours, and heard an unprecedented number of oral submissions. I do not believe that simply because the committee did not hear every group that wished to appear before it and endlessly repeat the same arguments, and because it did not wish to hear all of the petitions that had been presented, that establishes that it did not give the Bill adequate consideration at that stage. During the debate on the reporting back I told the House that I wanted to hear a cogent argument that there had been evidence to be presented to the select committee that was significantly different from the other facts placed before it. I invited members such as the member for Rotorua, who were criticising the select committee, to give examples of evidence that should have been heard, but they were not able to do so. At the same time, I asked the members supporting the reporting back to prove to me that everything had been done in the select committee that should have been done. Once again, they were not able to put up convincing arguments. I was forced to abstain from voting on the reporting back, and I left the precincts of the House in order to do so. That select committee gave a great deal of time to consideration of the Bill, and the house has also given a great deal of time to it. It is true that we have not yet devoted many hours of debate to the third reading, but we certainly did to the earlier stages. It is an interesting reflection on the tactics being used that, whereas in the earlier stages of the Bill its proponents were moving that the debate be abbreviated and the motion put, and the opponents of it steadfastly maintained that further argument should be considered, the tables have been turned tonight. The opponents of the Bill seem to be determined to push it to a final vote, and the other members do not wish it to be concluded until they have had an opportunity to speak. What we have had - and it has come out in the earlier stages of the debate-is two organised groups of members: those who are wholeheartedly in favour of the initial reform put forward by the member for Wellington Central, and are clearly an organised group of people with coherent and logical arguments who were able to marshal their supporters; and those who are totally opposed to any reform of the law relating to homosexual acts and want to keep New Zealand locked into a position that has been relinquished by almost every other Western democracy-they also were an organised group of M. P. s who clearly marshalled their supporters and told them which way to vote on every division. The only thing that has saved the debate, the Bill, and the people of New Zealand from having a decision foisted on them one way or another that would not command majority support has been that neither of the organised groups has an absolute majority. Neither group has been able to have its way with any certainty. If there were a vote on the third reading at this stage no member could be confident of the final outcome. I am sure that the organisers-the numbers men-have done their jobs; I am sure that they are optimistic that they hold the edge; but I am also sure that they cannot guarantee the outcome. That means that there is a group of members whose votes on the issue will be critical, and I want to hear some of them speak. I want to hear more of them than just the member for Rotorua and myself explaining the reasoning they intend to apply in the final voting; there is much more to be heard from them. Since the earlier stages were debated there have been some interesting developments, and they are worth considering. For example, a recent survey has been published on where the people of New Zealand stand on the issue. It is interesting that almost 64 percent of the population now supports reform. That is a significant increase on the proportion-57 percent-that supported reform 18 months ago. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, under Speaker's rulings 41/1, 41/3, and 41/5. The member on his feet is proceeding on a much wider basis than is customary at a third reading. I quote Speaker's ruling 41/1: " The exact boundaries of the narrower third reading debate” - and so on. I suggest that the broad canvas that the member for Hawke's Bay is attempting to paint is well beyond the boundaries encompassed in the Speaker's rulings to which I have referred. Dr BILL SUTTON: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I should like you to be guided on the matter by the precedent set by earlier rulings during the course of this long debate. It has ranged far and wide, and it has generally been accepted that on a broad issue such as this-a moral issue and a private member's Bill-considerable latitude is allowed to members to explain their reasoning. Therefore I do not feel that I or any other member should be constrained to speak narrowly at this stage. TREVOR MALLARD: It is important to consider Speaker's ruling 41/3: “Debate on the third reading is more restricted than it is on the second reading." - and especially the second sentence: " It is limited to matters contained in the Bill as it comes from the Committee." The implication is also that the debate in the Committee can be gone over, and it is important that we do that, and remember that 7 months were spent during that Committee stage considering a wide range of issues, many of which are now being reconsidered. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The matter can be dealt with in this way. It is perfectly correct to note the Speakers' rulings that generally apply in the third reading stage. However, I have to say that this is not a typical third reading debate. I have been aware that members have ranged beyond the narrow considerations usually given in the third reading to matters that pertain to the debate that took place in the Committee. I have not been in the chair all evening. However, during the time I have been in the chair I have been listening to material that I believe comes within Speaker's ruling 41/2: " The third reading debate should be in the nature of a summing up". I take it that members are attempting to sum up their views of a long debate that has taken place over several months, and I think it is proper to allow them some latitude. Dr BILL SUTTON: One of the most interesting features of the debate in the Committee stage was the tactical manoeuvre adopted when Part I of the Bill-which has effectively become the Bill for the third reading-was not amended, other than to make an exception for the armed forces. I spoke against that amendment, and I voted against it, because I believe it is illogical to have one set of criminal activities for the armed forces, and another for the general population. That can readily lead to illogical discrimination amongst people who are in the armed forces, people who have recently left the armed forces, or people who are about to join the armed forces. I believe that the amendment was passed purely as a compromise by one particular group of members, who felt that it was necessary to compromise. What was not passed was any attempt to alter the age of consent for homosexual activities or for sodomy. Those votes revealed an unfortunate alliance between those members who were wholly in favour of reform and those who were totally opposed to it, which resulted in those members being out on a limb and voting by themselves. Those members have established again tonight that they cannot command a majority in the House. There is no doubt that a majority in the House could easily be commanded by those members who sought a compromise combining with either major faction-those who are opposed to reform or those who are in favour of reform. Because that group of members who sought a compromise did not enter into discussion with either the opponents of the Bill or the supporters of it they failed to find an accommodation. They failed in their responsibility to bring forward reform legislation that could command a clear majority in the House and in the country. ROGER McCLAY (Waikaremoana): I move, That the question be now put. TREVOR MALLARD (Hamilton West): First I condemn the loss of Part II of the Bill during the Committee stage. In voting against it the House lost the opportunity to pass a law that stated that, no matter what a person's sexual orientation, he could work and live wherever he wanted. The House decided that that was not appropriate. I believe that the decision was not a good one. For most of the hearings of the select committee I was in the chair. I went to 26 sessions over 70 hours in that committee, and the proceedings were tedious repetition. Many groups made the same point, not making it well, and, at the later stages, not adding information for the House or the committee. The most moving part of the select committee hearings was in Auckland, where we heard several confidential submissions. Two of those submissions were from women whose husbands were homosexual. Both the men knew before they were married that they were gay. They had really believed that getting married would mean that they could work through their sexual orientation, and that not only would they become heterosexual but that they would be happily heterosexual. Of course, in both cases it did not happen, because it does not happen that way. The tragedy of one of those cases was that the first time one of the women became aware that her husband was gay-and this was after many years of marriage-was when the police told her that he had been arrested for a sexual act in a public toilet. That is an indication of the way the law works to push people, first, into marriages that are totally inappropriate, and, secondly, into casual sexual relationships that I abhor. At the select committee we also heard from several medical experts. With one exception - a person holding a minor position in an Auckland hospital - those who came before the committee were unanimous in the opinion that it was appropriate to decriminalise homosexual activity. The select committee made some major changes to the Bill. I heard it said tonight that there is a group of M. P. s who are unwilling to compromise on the Bill, and that it is being pushed through. I want to make it clear that that is not correct. During the Committee stage two substantial changes were made. The first was moved, I think inappropriately, by my colleague the member for Island Bay, as Minister of Defence. It made a major change in the application of the law to the armed forces. The second major change was the decision to drop Part II - the part that had regard for the human rights of people of different sexual orientation. It protected not only homosexual men and lesbians but also heterosexuals. It meant that the sauna parlour operator could not say: " I am not employing you because you are not gay." That point needs to be remembered. There were also some minor changes. I moved an amendment, and although some people regarded it as insignificant I regard it as significant from at least one point of view-it gained the unanimous support of the Committee. That amendment tightened the law on homosexual activity with intellectually handicapped people. I thought the Bill was deficient in that regard and that it was one of two matters that deserved change, and the Committee agreed to change it. The Bill not only affects homosexual relationships. Even as it is amended, it also affects anal intercourse. Anal intercourse is an act that is carried out regularly, so the Committee was told, by about 50 percent of homosexual couples. We were also told that if not a majority then a very large minority of heterosexual couples have at some stage in their relationship, if not regularly, experimented in activities that include those we are discussing tonight. It is my belief that the Bill is inappropriately named. On the question of AIDS I want to quote Dr Paul Goldwater, a senior lecturer at the Auckland medical school, the person I believe to be New Zealand's expert on that subject. He said that some people are now using AIDS as a justification for amending the age upwards and voting against the Bill. He said: " It assumes that legal prohibition stops homosexuals from practising. There is no evidence to support this claim that I am aware of. In fact, there are many reasons to believe the current criminal provisions have no effect at all on the incidence of homosexual acts. I believe legal prohibition merely drives the homosexual person into a covert and closeted existence. It is quite impossible to stop the spread of any disease effectively under such circumstances." I want Parliament to consider carefully what it is doing. I appeal to the House to hear all the members who wish to speak in the debate. I was one of the members alongside the member for Whangarei in the lobby opposing the closure on the second reading, because I believe that at important stages of a Bill all members have the right to tell their electorates and the country what their view is. During the second reading I was denied by many of my colleagues my right to state my position. I support the Bishop of Hamilton, Bishop Gaines, in his view that legislators have to work hard to know the difference between morality and legality. BILL DILLON (Hamilton East): The issue being debated has brought out both the best and the worst in the House, not only in the speeches that have been made but also in the mail that members have received and in the incidents that have taken place outside Parliament. I speak with some 25 years of experience as a criminal lawyer in a provincial High Court centre, as a person of strong Christian beliefs, and as a practising Roman Catholic who stood down as the chairman of the cathedral parish council when selected to stand for Parliament. I also voluntarily stood down as a leader at Sunday mass when the Bill came before the House. I did that because I did not believe that my stance should divide the cathedral parish. I am one of those who regularly attend something that the people of New Zealand may not be aware of-regular prayer breakfasts held at 8 a. m. in the Beehive. I share that custom with the member for Hauraki. It is important that those credentials and my background should be known in order to lend validity to the stand I take. I apologise for not being able to attend the prayer breakfast this morning, as I was still coming from Hamilton on a flight that did not arrive in Wellington in time. The Bill sets out to decriminalise homosexuality; it has been promoted by its opponents as one that will legalise it. However, the important issue is that the weight of current medical research indicates that homosexuality is an orientation, not an illness that can be cured, and that in most cases the orientation is established very early in life-probably before the age of 5 years. The orientation towards people of the same rather than the opposite sex is found in 5 percent to 10 percent of a given population. The Bill would allow those people the opportunity to express their orientation without being discriminated against. On occasion I chaired the select committee hearing the Bill, and it dealt with more than 1200 submissions. Further, if the petition that was presented to Parliament was to be taken at face value, my electorate is vitally at risk over the issue. The total number of names on the Hamilton East roll is 20 829. I was told that the petition in my electorate contained 20 299 signatures, which would amount to an amazing 97. 25 percent of the electorate. That is not an acceptable form of lobby, and it is certainly not believable. A Heylen poll conducted in June of last year recorded 61 percent in favour of reform. More recently that figure has climbed to 64 percent. However, as a result of the publication of the petition figures for Hamilton East, Professor Poole of the University of Waikato undertook to check the poll. He conducted a random survey of 677 people in Hamilton East from 19 to 21 September. His result showed that only 37 percent signed the petition. The names, not only on the main petition but on supplementary petitions affecting the Hamilton-Waikato area, have been carefully and closely checked. The results of those checks have not previously been made known, either to the House or to the press. They have been made known to private individuals who have asked me about them, but I believe they are important. Of the 20,829 people on the Hamilton East roll, those identified as having signed the petition number 3193-as opposed to the alleged 20,299. Of that number, there were 218 duplicates, 197 signed twice, 16 signed 3 times, 4 signed 4 times, and 1 assiduous person signed 5 times. I think it is important that the credibility of the figures should be known, because my stance is that I am in favour of the Bill. I am in favour of the decriminalising of homosexuality. I am certainly not personally in favour of homosexuality, but I do not believe that New Zealand law should discriminate against those of that orientation. At the time of the second reading, I expressed reservations about the age of consent being 16. I still have those reservations. I believe that at another time it might be possible to have the age of consent altered. However, in contrast to the member for Rotorua, if the choice is 16 or no reform, I am in favour of the Bill rather than of its defeat. That is a serious choice for me. It is one that I do not take lightly, but it is one that I believe, in principle, must be mine because-age 16 or 18-the element of discrimination is so abhorrent that it is important that the reform go ahead. NEILL AUSTIN (Bay of Islands): I move, That the question be now put. Mr SPEAKER: I am becoming increasingly disposed to accept the closure, because relatively few of the third reading speeches I have heard conform with the requirements of a third reading speech. I am also disposed to accept it because the result is not predictable, as it would be if party matters were involved. In a true sense, the House has the matter in its own hands. I am prepared to listen to one further speech, and then it is my intention, if the House so wishes, that the strength of the opinion of the House be tested. Rt. Hon. BOB TIZARD (Minister of Energy): This has been the longest debate on a Bill in all my time in the House, but I must say that it has been the most divisive Bill-public or private-that I have heard debated during that time. I suggest that it has been even more divisive than the debate on the abolition of capital punishment. It is clear that there has been more emotion, and more misdirected emotion, in relation to the present Bill than in relation to any other. I know that there are some strictures about the form of the debate. I shall concentrate on the Bill in the form in which it came from the Committee of the whole House. That seems to be the nub of the problem. There is now only a Crimes Amendment Bill, containing a very limited part of what was originally intended to be a much wider Bill. All the Bill will effectively do is decriminalise homosexual acts between consenting adults-adults being defined as persons, male or female, above the age of 16 years. Members must accept the Bill in that form. If we do not, we are being asked to legislate for morality rather than for or against a criminal offence. We have heard the views of many people, many of them earnest and well-meaning, some of them well intended, but still it is private morality that has been expressed. We are not looking at the needs of our society. I stress that there are more than enough divisive issues in society today without adding one as divisive as this. Tolerance has been less evident throughout the debate than it has been in most of the other debates on private members' Bills that I can remember-specifically, tolerance of another's point of view. The member for Hamilton East stressed that he had reached his view not because of any personal choice, but because of his need to take cognisance of the affairs of society. That is why I think that members should support what is essentially a Crimes Amendment Bill. We are dealing with what would remain in the statute book as a crime, but the debate has centred on morality. I wonder whether members really appreciate the changes in morality in the world today, and the changes that have taken place in our society over a period of time in relation to the difference between what is regarded as a crime and what is regarded as a sin to be morally condemned. I do not think the House should have any part in moral condemnation. That is very much a matter for the churches and for the people who believe in them and belong to them. I am very much in favour of people living up to the standards of morality that they profess for themselves, but I have no concern whatever with sticking those moral judgments down somebody else's throat. I remind Opposition members that there are societies today for whom New Zealand is prepared to change some of its laws. I refer specifically to Muslim countries. New Zealand is prepared to change its practices in the freezing works to conform with Muslim views, but it does not accept Muslim religious views on personal morality. Adultery and fornication are at present punished in two Muslim states by stoning the practitioners to death. The women are the more usual victims because the evidence is often more readily available than it is when the woman is simply found in flagrante delicto. We must also look at our own past society, in which the strictly religious could condone the execution of a child for striking its parent. Those are extreme instances, although in the course of the debate I have head the reasons why people fought in recent conflicts and heard of the values they thought they were protecting or fighting against. Members should certainly not be seeking at present to limit the actions of consenting adults in private, because that is all that the Bill is concerned with as it comes before the House for its third reading. The member for Rotorua alleged that the Bill's opponents were not given a full hearing of their point of view at the select committee. That may well have been so, but if he fixed his voting patterns on the side of those whose views were not fully heard in select committees there would have been no National Development Bill, no State Services Conditions of Employment Bill, and much of the trade union legislation passed in the previous Parliament would not have been passed. The Bill has received much discussion on its introduction, in the select committee, in the second reading, in the Committee stage, and now in the third reading. Supporters of the Bill are having more to say in the third reading, although its opponents had the most to say in the Committee stage. There has been ample opportunity for most members to express their point of view at some time, but those who have expressed their point of view have not shown much conviction. While some of the evidence that was examined may have caused people to change their minds discussion in the House and in the Committee stage has not. It has tended to harden attitudes, and to divide the groups more clearly. In summary, I stress that, as the member for Napier said, without realising what he had said, we should love the sinner; even if we recognise his actions as being sinful, we have to tolerate the existence of that sinner. I would not like to be judged by anyone else in the House, and I wonder how many members would like to have me judge them. One member said that he represented the voice of conservatism. I am afraid that that member often identifies conservatism with rabidity. I do not think personal representation of rabidity is needed in a debate such as this. Therefore, let members have a little of what is said to be the Christian virtue of charity; let us have better view of those we might consider to be weaker than ourselves. I certainly have no sympathy for homosexual practices, but that is my personal view. What consenting adults do in terms of what remains in the Bill will remain a sin in the eyes of some, but, I hope, not a crime in the eyes of most people. Hon. BILL BIRCH (Franklin): I move, That the question be now put. Mr SPEAKER: The question is, that the question be now put. PHILIP WOOLLASTON (Nelson): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to question the ruling that is implicit in your acceptance of that motion, but I do want to draw a matter to your attention and seek your guidance. I have been seeking the call for approximately 1½ hours, the member for Papatoetoe has been doing so for a similar time, and the Minister of Social Welfare for a slightly shorter time. When you resumed the chair some time ago I drew it to your attention, in a brief exchange, that I was seeking the call. On the present occasion I did not call against the member for Wellington Central. I started to rise to seek the call, saw her rise, and knowing that you had told the House that you were disposed perhaps to consider the closure - Mr SPEAKER: I have been listening with some patience to the member. It undoubtedly appears that he is questioning my ruling that the matter should be put in the hands of the House. As I pointed out to the House previously, the outcome is not a foregone conclusion as it is in party matters. The question is entirely in the hands of the House. If the House decides that the question should not be put, the debate will continue. I am not prepared to accept any point of order that implies a contravention of my decision that the motion should be put. That will not be opposed. FRAN WILDE (Wellington Central): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: What remedy does the member want to raise? FRAN WILDE: It is not a remedy. Mr SPEAKER: Why is the member raising a point of order? FRAN WILDE: I want to know whether the mover of the Bill is entitled to a right of reply. Mr SPEAKER: The mover does not have that right when the House is deciding whether the question should be put. Hon. DAVID CAYGILL: But the House hasn't decided. Mr SPEAKER: What remedy does the member seek? Hon. DAVID CAYGILL (Minister of Trade and Industry): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker, and I do so with great reluctance. I ask you to reconsider the ruling you have given. Mr SPEAKER: That concern might well be appropriate in party matters, but in the present matter I would defy anyone to predict with certainty what the House will decide. I will put the matter over to the House to decide. I will not allow any further attempt to delay it, as I see members are trying to do. By their so doing I presume that they may have a greater knowledge of what the decision of the House will be than I have. I am aware of a definite attempt to delay the matter, and I will not allow it. The House divided on the question, That the question be now put. Ayes 42 Angus; Austin, H. N.; Austin, W. R.; Banks; Birch; Bolger; Burdon; Colman; Cooper; Cox; East; Falloon; Friedlander; Gerard; Graham; Gray; Jones; Kidd; Knapp; Luxton; McClay; McKinnon; McLean; McTigue; Marshall, D. W. A.; Maxwell, R. F. H.; Morrison; Peters; Richardson; Rodger; Smith; Storey; Tapsell; Terris; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Townshend; Upton; Wellington; Young, T. J.; Young, V. S. Tellers: Braybrooke; Lee. Noes 43 Anderton; Austin, M. E.; Bassett; Batchelor; Boorman; Burke; Butcher; Caygill; Cullen; Dillon; Douglas; Dunne; Elder; Fraser; Gair; Goff; Gregory; Hercus; Hunt; Isbey; Keall; King; Lange; Marshall, C. R.; Matthewson; Maxwell, R. K.; Moyle; Neilson; Northey; O'Flynn; O'Regan; Palmer; Prebble; Scott; Shields; Shirley; Sutton, J. R.; Sutton, W. D.; Tizard; Wetere; Woollaston. Tellers: Mallard; Wilde. Majority against: 1 Debate interrupted. The House adjourned at 11. 06 p. m.

IRN: 7846
PRIDENZ URL: https://www.pridenz.com/hansard_homosexual_law_reform_bill_third_reading_continued_9_july_1986.html
TITLE: Homosexual Law Reform Bill - third reading continued (9 July 1986)
DATE: 9 July 1986
LOCATION: Parliament buildings, 1 Molesworth Street, Wellington, New Zealand.
TEXT: The third reading of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill having been called, Dr BILL SUTTON (Hawke's Bay) said: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker, under Standing Order 235. I move, That the order of the day for the third reading of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill be discharged, and that the Bill be recommitted for consideration of the amendments set out in Supplementary Order Paper 33. I am speaking under part (2) of the Standing Order. The Homosexual Law Reform Bill is finely balanced between victory and defeat. If the Bill had been voted on last week it would have been defeated by one vote; if it is voted on tonight it may well pass or fail by a similar margin. That is not the best way for the House to dispose finally of such important legislation when, with a further small amendment that does no real damage to the principles of the Bill, it could be passed by a convincing majority and receive majority support from the New Zealand people. The House divided on the question, That the order of the day for the third reading of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill be discharged, and that the Bill be recommitted for consideration of the amendments set out in Supplementary Order Paper 33. Ayes 18 Austin, M. E.; Austin, W. R.; Burdon; Colman; Cox; Dillon; Gair; Gerard; Graham; Jeffries; Luxton; McKinnon; O'Flynn; Storey; Sutton, J. R.; Young, T. J. Tellers: Elder; Sutton, W. D. Noes 68 Anderton; Angus; Austin, H. N.; Banks; Bassett; Batchelor; Birch; Bolger; Boorman; Braybrooke; Burke; Butcher; Caygill; Clark; Cooper; Cullen; de Cleene; Douglas; Dunne; East; Falloon; Fraser; Friedlander; Gerbic; Goff; Gray; Gregory; Hercus; Hunt; Isbey; Jones; Keall; Kidd; King; Knapp; Lange; Lee; McClay; McTigue; Marshall, C. R.; Marshall, D. W. A.; Matthewson; Maxwell, R. K.; Moore; Morrison; Moyle; Neilson; Northey; O'Regan; Palmer; Peters; Prebble; Rodger; Scott; Shields; Shirley; Talbot; Tapsell; Terris; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Tizard; Wallbank; Wellington; Wetere; Woollaston; Young, V. S. Tellers: Mallard; Wilde. Majority against: 50 Motion negatived. Third Reading Debate resumed from 2 July 1986. Hon. GEORGE GAIR (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): This is one of the hours in the life of Parliament when one makes a decision whether one likes it or not, one hopes for the better, and one does one's best. There is not a member in the House who is not presented with this problem. I am conscious that the House is divided fairly evenly on the issue. I am conscious that the community is divided, the political parties are divided, and the churches are divided on an issue that has gone on for too long. However, it was better to try to stay the distance and get the right answer than to come to a wrong answer in a short time. As members know I have tried to find a compromise between two extreme positions. The positions did not start as extreme, but they became extreme as the debate developed; positions hardened; attitudes became more and more intransigent; the community became divided; and that is bad. Sometimes change is inevitable, and responsible change is necessary. In 1974 my colleague the member for Waitotara introduced legislation that was defeated by-as I recall it-only seven votes. Had it been passed there would have been no such division in the country today, because New Zealand legislation would have been on a par with that of much, indeed most, of the Western World. In our present legislation creating criminals of homosexuals, who live their lives and do their thing in private away from the public scene-we share honours with a handful of states in the United States, the state of Queensland, Ireland, and South Africa. The rest of the Western World has learnt to adapt to changing times, but for New Zealand that was not to be. Attempts at changing the law since then have not been successful until now-partly because of the zealous support of the enthusiasts for change. The Bill that is now being considered in its final hours presented the House with two suggestions: first, to change the Crimes Act, with which I agree; and, second, to change the Human Rights Commission Act, with which I disagree. Most members of Parliament and most New Zealanders are against that, and Parliament has already defeated that measure. With the best of motives, the people who have sponsored the Bill may have asked for too much. By asking for too much they created a bow wave of opposition that produced the arguments that now divide New Zealand. Until the past few hours I had felt that some compromise, particularly on the matter of age, might still be possible. It was not until last night that I finally realised that the hardening of opinion over the months of the debate meant that a compromise was no longer possible. The attitude was " Like it or lump it - the whole deal, or nothing at all". It is not a satisfactory position, but that is the choice that each member must face tonight. The last opportunity for a compromise, which I could have supported enthusiastically, was lost in the wrong vote on Wednesday night when the member for Fendalton had his motion defeated by 63 votes to 22. The protagonists of change in an unchanged form-in other words, the Bill with Part I as it stands - and the opponents of the Bill joined forces to defeat any reasonable attempt to find a middle ground. The argument has been going on for so long that, inevitably, Parliament must now face the final crunch. That there has been no willingness to compromise is as much on the heads of those who are opposed to the Bill as of those who are in favour of the Bill in its present form. Each could have worked with those in the middle ground to find a compromise that would have produced a change in the law, but with an age limit a little higher than that proposed in the Bill. Those who, like myself, represent the middle ground are presented with three options: to vote against the Bill; to abstain; or to vote for the Bill unamended. I cannot vote against the Bill, because a change is long overdue - and that I have sought to make clear. For some time I considered that perhaps the course was to abstain, and I agonised over that. I must say that some aspects of abstention are appealing, but, in the final analysis, an abstention would pass the responsibility over to others, and that I am not prepared to do. Therefore, I was presented with what I feel is a difficult choice between two propositions, neither of which I like, but one of which I like less than the other. So when the vote is taken I will vote in favour of the Bill but with considerable reluctance. New Zealand has been badly divided on the issue. I should like to feel that the hard things that have been said in the Chamber, and the hard things that have been said outside the Chamber, will be eased and forgiven, whatever the result. From the middle of a great foot-deep heap of correspondence that has deluged my office recently I plucked two letters. Coincidentally, they involve two communications that represent the diversity of the extremes in the argument. The first is a simple thank-you card, which states: “Thank you for saying yes to the law reform Bill.” I have no doubt that that was written with total sincerity. The second is a letter that, among other things, states: " With your stand on the homosexual reform Bill you have just determined where you are going to spend eternity", and it refers me to Romans, chapter 1, 24-27. Both those letters were written with total sincerity, and I received them with equal sincerity. After the vote has been taken, and no matter what the outcome, our big task will be to heal the wounds. There is no future for a society that is divided by zealots on the one side and bigots on the other side. New Zealand is a society that stresses tolerance. It is a society that has prided itself on its ability to accommodate gradual social change. That the Bill has asked for too much of the loaf, and finished up with only half, should be accepted as an honourable middle ground. Part II of the Bill, which I believe produced the greatest amount of opposition, has been defeated-it is not before the House. Tonight the House is being asked to approve the decriminalisation of male homosexuality, and that is a strongly justifiable measure. The arguments that remain relate to the matter of the age of consent, and I am sorry that we were unable to make the age 18 years. Had the amendment of the member for Fendalton been accepted I believe that it would have been agreed to by a substantial majority of members and the issue would have been closed. If the vote tonight is finely balanced, it is certain that the argument will return. It will haunt the Chamber until New Zealand society finds a way to live with change. I make a final plea: that whichever way members vote tonight they be not judged too harshly, because even those who oppose the position I hold are voting with their consciences; they are voting for what they believe to be right. JOHN BANKS (Whangarei): What we have just heard was shallow humbug and weak rhetoric from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It was a historic dissertation of negligible substance. Until 70 percent of his speech had been delivered, it appeared to be a speech of abstention. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has obviously had considerable difficulty with his own conscience. He said that the options were to vote against the Bill, to abstain, or to vote in favour of the Bill. Although he said that the sponsors of the Bill in its present form had asked for too much, he said that he is prepared to give them that " too much". I tell the Deputy Leader of the Opposition-as I told him privately-that I am terribly disappointed in him. He is a colleague, and I hope that, after the Bill has gone, he will continue to be a friend. However, I am prepared to stand up and be counted. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had voted with the rest of his colleagues just 1 week ago, we would not be debating the Bill tonight - instead, we would be discussing matters of great importance to New Zealand. On behalf of the opponents of this evil Bill, I thank those New Zealanders who have shown encouragement for so long. I thank those people who had an overwhelming objection to the Bill and who were motivated by its evil and their concern for the country-a concern that there was no conciliation in the way the Bill came from the select committee and the Committee of the whole House. I thank those 835,000 people for the considerable amount of work done throughout the country. This day will be remembered as a sad and sickening day for New Zealand. A very black cloud hangs over Parliament tonight, and those members who wheel themselves through the doors of the Ayes lobby to vote for legalised sodomy at the age of 16 should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, particularly as the family unit in New Zealand is under siege. The family, the building block, the bastion of this country, is under siege even without the kind of legislation that has been foisted on the nation by Parliament tonight. Tonight is the night that I and other opponents will say no and will parade through the Noes lobby at the appropriate time. As those of our colleagues whose consciences have told them to amend the Crimes Act to legalise sodomy at the age of 16 for young New Zealanders come out of the Ayes lobby, we will be prepared to bury the hatchet forthwith. But I stand here and thank the majority of the people of Whangarei, the 835,000 New Zealanders who oppose the Bill, and those decent people who have prayed on the steps of Parliament. I am prepared to stand up and be counted on their behalf tonight. I am also prepared to let the Bill lie once it passes on to the statute book, because that is the democratic process and in this forum members with the right amount of intestinal fortitude can say exactly how they feel about such issues. I stood and said exactly how I felt after my friend and colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had stood up and told the country how he felt. He had a right to do that, and I respect that right, and I have a right to tell the House exactly what I think about the Bill and what I think about members who are prepared to wheel themselves through the Ayes lobby when you, Mr Speaker, decide that you have heard enough. Members heard at the Committee stage that homosexuals cannot change-once a homosexual always a homosexual. There is no evidence to support that view. It is similar to the Victorian view that once one was an alcoholic one was always an alcoholic. Members heard at the Committee stage that homosexuals are born that way, that they have no choice but to be the way they are. Most leading psychologists now agree that homosexuality is not innate and does not have any generic connection. Members were told that a person should be able to do what he or she wants to in the privacy of his or her bedroom. That is untrue. Taken to an extreme, if that was so, how would society protect itself from incest in the privacy of the bedroom, from child abuse in the privacy of the bedroom, from bigamy in the privacy of the bedroom, and, at the ultimate extreme, from euthanasia in the privacy of the bedroom? Someone must stand up and say that the country is in trouble. Enough is enough. I am prepared to take a stand on behalf of the 835,000 New Zealanders who said no with a signature on a petition, and the many hundreds of thousands of people who are very concerned about the shenanigans in Parliament today. Most New Zealanders support gay rights, which is the right to be gay. That is what we heard, but 835,000 New Zealanders said that Parliament should not legitimise the act of sodomy at any age. Tonight those people find themselves facing the worst option, that of age 16. During the Committee stage members heard that compassion should be shown to those people. To pretend that such behaviour is normal or healthy is no more sensible than to celebrate with an alcoholic his alcohol drinking problem. I finish as I started: at last I am prepared to say in the House on behalf of most of my constituency that homosexuality is wrong on every occasion. They have told me that it is wrong and I will stand up in Parliament and say that it is wrong. I do not care what ridicule I get from Government members-because most of the Bill's supporters come from that side of the House-but members must say no to the Bill tonight. MAURICE McTIGUE (Timaru): Even before I came to Parliament this Bill was being debated. More than 12 months later it is still before the House. The issue is described as one of conscience, and I hope that for all members of the House the matter is one to make them search their consciences, call upon the value judgments that a lifetime has taught them, and consider the things that they hold to be precious and important to them when making that judgment. I am the only member of the House who has faced a true poll on the issue of whether or not to legalise homosexuality, in that it was a matter of substantial public concern at the time of the by-election in Timaru. Although more than 15,000 people signed the petition in Timaru, which was conducted at about the same time as the by-election there, I was not persuaded by their opinion; I was persuaded by my own conscience to oppose the Bill. I was persuaded by my conscience because the lawmakers of the land must accept the responsibility not only for making the law but also for ensuring that when they make that law they send signals to the population at large about what is right and desirable for society as a whole and what is wrong. At the beginning of the sitting each day we pray to Almighty God for guidance to use the right judgments in the decisions we make, and that those judgments of God should also be a judgment upon us while we make those decisions. During the Committee stage of the Bill we heard many quotations and misquotations from people of all degrees of commitment and of all religious persuasions. I was particularly attracted to some of the comments made by Cardinal Williams in some of his communications to the people of his archdiocese. I shall read to the House one or two of those quotations, because they put many of the issues that are most important in the debate into a proper perspective. He said that he opposed the Bill because he believes it is not in the real interests of homosexuals or society as a whole. In saying that to his people, Cardinal Williams meant that he believed it was very important that the Government, in making its laws, makes laws that are morally right. In so doing, it would then be serving the needs of society. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is definitely moving into material that would be appropriate for a second reading, but it is rather inappropriate for a third reading. I realise that the debate has already widened, but it is not as yet, in my opinion, about the general nature and principles of the Bill. However, the discussions of outside comment on the Bill is undoubtedly within that range. MAURICE McTIGUE: Those issues were debated quite widely during the Committee stage, and many of those statements were questioned. I reiterate them because I believe that they are the basis of my commitment in opposing the Bill. Part II of the Bill, dealing with human rights, was defeated during the Committee stage. While that improved the Bill, it did not take away that which is still most abhorrent to me-the moral and social acceptance of homosexuality as an equal alternative sexuality. I believe that that will give the very worst of messages to young people. I will be deeply disappointed if the Bill is passed this evening. I accept that there are many members who, having gone through a similar process to me, have made a different decision. I respect their right to make that decision, and I respect their right and ability to vote in that way. I would still be disappointed to see them make that decision because I believe that they are wrong. I believe that they are morally wrong, and wrong in the way they are representing the people of their electorates. During the Committee stage it became apparent that many lobby groups had a very strong attitude towards the passage of the Bill. Those strong lobby groups may well have influenced members of the House, but I would ask those members to give further consideration to the attitude they have taken and, even at this late stage, ask them to make the decision to change their minds. For many of those people who have come to Parliament on Wednesday evenings to watch the passage of the Bill, the vote will be a traumatic event whichever way the decision goes. Those people have had their opportunities through the select committee, and in the poll that was taken. In that poll 830,000 people exercised the option to express their opinion on the matter. Even though the poll was severely questioned during the Committee stage, it was never brought into disrepute. I believe it stands as the real poll on the issue, and that it will stand for all time as the real poll on the issue. When members of the House go to the voting lobbies tonight they will either accept or reject the opinion expressed by that large number of New Zealanders who were so committed that they were prepared to place their signatures upon that document. In passing the Bill we are opening the door to members of the humanistic element of society who have set aside many of the value judgments they grew up with. They are now bringing into society a different set of value judgments. I reject in total those value judgments they are trying to set up. Society must revert to the judgments and values of the past, and members must be prepared to say in the House that they believe strongly in the family unit. Many speakers in the Committee stage raised the issue of the family unit, and I believe that it is at the heart of the matter. Heterosexual activity is at the heart of a good marriage. Heterosexual activity brings together loving partners for the procreation and the continuation of mankind, and any rejection of heterosexual activity is a rejection of the family. There were people who from time to time went so far as to propound the idea that in time there would be homosexual marriages as the equal of heterosexual marriages. I totally reject that philosophy. It has been a trying time, during which all members have been torn in different ways and many close friendships have been harmed. We are being asked to make a decision. I hope that, after having made that decision in the House, I will be able to view many of those who have voted in favour of the Bill with the same respect as before. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, it is something to which we should direct our minds, but it will be very difficult for many of us to do. If it is difficult for us to do, it will be even more so outside in the community. We have an obligation to the rest of the community to pay very special attention to people's needs, concerns, and reflections regarding the Bill before we finally decide. The House is well filled this evening, but probably many members in the House tonight have already decided how they will vote on the Bill. I make a plea to them to consider, before they make that final decision, that they will be party to sanctioning the practising of sodomy at the age of 16 years if they support the Bill. They should reconsider their position; they should reconsider the implications for society as a whole of passing the Bill; they should consider the future of good marriages within society, and the future of society as a whole if we allow the degeneration of values that the Bill represents. For many members the debate will be the most important of the session, and I can only trust that members will vote responsibly. Hon. VENN YOUNG (Waitotara): I shall contain my remarks to the Bill as it came out of the Committee, and I hope that that will make your task somewhat easier, Mr Speaker, but first I shall speak of some experience akin to that of the member for Wellington Central. Whatever we may think of the Bill she has been promoting, we must recognise that she shoulders a very heavy personal burden. There is no doubt that her correspondence would not be contained in her office. Ten years ago I piloted through certain stages of the House a reform Bill that was a modest step forward by comparison with the Bill that has just come from the Committee. When the member for Wellington Central said she was prepared to introduce the Homosexual Law Reform Bill, the advice I gave her was that there is nothing more difficult than to persuade the people of New Zealand and one's own colleagues to decide on a definition of what is moral and what is legal. Members of Parliament are not the keepers of the morals of the nation. Our responsibility is to the laws of the nation. Therefore, we must keep that in mind in making a decision about whether the Bill should proceed to its third reading. I do not know if any members are still uncommitted in their views about which lobby door they will move through when the division is taken. My colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that the House is sharply and finely divided. The Bill will be won or lost by two or three votes. In those circumstances we should ask whether we should change the law, which has remained the same for a long time. The legislation as originally introduced by the member for Wellington Central went too far. The 16-year age of consent is the provision that I know troubled many members of the House and troubled the population at large. I have heard speaker after speaker say that no criminal law should apply when homosexual adults are engaged in those practices in private-whatever they may be or however they might offend us. We must ask ourselves who is an adult. Is an adult a person aged 16? Is an adult even a person aged 18, which is a compromise that was sought? The answer is again no. It may seem a modest step forward, but I believe that those who support homosexual law reform, across the broad stretch of people, believe that the law should be changed for consenting adults in private-that is, for those people aged 20 and over. That is why I believe-although it was rejected by a large majority - that the most adequate amendment the House considered in Committee was the first amendment put forward by my colleague the member for Fendalton. That would have resolved the issue. The battle may be won tonight but the war will not be won. As members we know only too well, regardless of where the majority lies tonight, that the battle will be won but not the war. There will be a Pyrrhic victory, and its cost in a divided community will be too great. Time after time I have heard people try to discredit the total of 800,000 signatures on a petition. Even if there were 500,000, that would be half a million people who are concerned at the trend of the law is taking. If the Legislature accepts an age of 16 it is getting too far ahead of the people. I suggest that in the finely divided position in which we find ourselves we should not vote for change, but that at a later stage some member should bring to the House an amending Bill that is more along the lines that the majority the people will accept. The member for Glenfield shakes her head. The House has demonstrated by its rejection of Part II of the Bill that it does not consider equally matters of heterosexuality and homosexuality. It has said that. That is the only reason the age of 16 remains. There are those who will argue for different laws for heterosexual acts and homosexual acts. The population at large does not place them on the same level or give them the same consideration. Whether that is right or wrong, they do not do that. Although I subscribe strongly to the early comment of my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I will not go with him to vote on the Bill. I believe that the decision will be divisive and will not achieve the necessary real reform, which is a reform in understanding, compassion, and tolerance. I shall, therefore, vote against the third reading. TREVOR YOUNG (Eastern Hutt): Tonight members of the House face the final decision they will be called upon to make on the third reading of the Bill. Members have spoken genuinely about their approach to the matter. I listened intently to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and I share some of the anguish he feels-although I might disagree with his conclusion. I know that he, like other members, has wrestled closely with the problem, and we have taken it upon ourselves to reach a decision that we believe is in the best interests of the country. During the debate members have been taunted by various pressure groups urging us to take one approach or another and appealing to our better instincts either to support or not to support the Bill. Strong cases have been made out by genuine people for support for the age of 16, and strong evidence has been shown against it. I urge the House to take to heart the speech we have just heard from the member for Waitotara. The House will be closely divided on the Bill, and I believe that it is not proper that the third reading should be allowed, in view of the close position. I further believe that considerable research is being done internationally and that New Zealand should require deeper study into the subject so that we know the best route to take. While I was in Australia I had some discussions with social workers and psychiatrists who have been working in the field, in particular Dr John Court and Dr Moyes. From my own reading, as the Bill has proceeded, I consider that the House has not had time to study the consequences of some of the research and to know how far the research has moved ahead of the findings of the Wolfenden commission, which originally urged the changes in the law. During the passage of the Bill I supported an amendment moved by the member for Napier calling for an independent commission to study the subject, and for the House to act on a properly researched paper. I regret that that was not agreed to. During the debate I have listened intently to some members who have responded to correspondence and to pressures they have received by way of correspondence from genuine Christians in the community. One thing that has struck me about the third reading debate is that people who have Christian convictions have come to a different conclusion about which way we should go. I listened particularly to the sincere speech the Minister of Education made when the matter was last before the House, and to the member for Sydenham and the member for Hamilton East. While I appreciate members' feelings of Christian love and compassion in trying to understand people's different characteristics-sexual or other-my own conviction comes from what Paul had to say to the Romans. Paul was the great exponent of Christian standards, and he said: " Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid." I quote from the Good News Bible, from the same chapter: “Give yourself to God as those who have been brought forth from death to life. Surrender your whole being to him to be used for righteous purposes. Sin must not be your master, for you do not live under the law but under God's grace." That standard was expounded by Paul. I say to my Christian friends who are members of the House, and who take a different route and come to a different conclusion, that I believe that we need to show real understanding of all people, irrespective of their differences-we are called to do that as politicians. However, I do not agree with the conclusions that some members have come to and the way in which they have advocated their Christian stand. We all know about the huge petition that came to the House. It is right that the public should tell politicians how they feel on important moral issues such as this. Some of us have been influenced one way or another by the size of the petition. Often, the minority can be right and the majority can be wrong. In the end the decision comes back to members, who must determine what they believe the interests of a nation to be when they consider any legislation, particularly the legislation before the House. I am concerned that there are real physiological and psychological problems because of the practice of homosexuality in this country and other countries. We need deeper research and more thorough knowledge of the matter. Despite all the time that the Bill has been before the House, members have not really come to grips with that issue. I oppose the third reading of the Bill. JIM GERARD (Rangiora): I was not going to speak in the debate tonight, so I shall be very brief. However, my conscience has told me that I should take part. I listened to the debate throughout the Committee stage, and I sat on the select committee and heard much of the evidence. I have not changed my mind. I polled my electorate, just as many members polled theirs. In my electorate, 80 percent of the 600 people polled were opposed to the Bill. I personally am totally opposed to setting the age of consent at 16 years. The reason I have risen to speak is that I listened intently to the speech made by my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I do not agree with much of what he said, but I want to protect his right, or the right of any other member, to say it. The matter involves a conscience vote, and I regret the bitter attack launched upon that member. I believe that Parliament is entitled to hear what members have to say, whether others agree or disagree. I respect the sincerity of all members who have spoken. I am opposing the Bill, but I felt drawn into the debate. WINSTON PETERS (Tauranga): The debate tonight is truly " high noon" for all members of the House on both sides of the issue. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that the passage of the Bill would put New Zealand on a par with the remainder of the Western World. On the face of it, that seems to be a very compelling reason to support the legislation, but I wonder how many members in the House would follow that dictum in relation to defence policies and the grounds on which they are predicated in New Zealand at present. I am not making a political issue of the matter; I am just saying that if that dictum had any merit it would apply to many matters other than the legislation before the House tonight. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that the issue was capable of compromise and, like my bench mate the member for Fendalton, he believed that members could agree to a compromise on the age of 18 and satisfy all parties. I do not believe that to be so. Given the slim age differential, the case would have remained the same for both sides. I listened with great interest to the Minister of Education, who I understand has been trained in the clerical world and was a minister. He threw out a challenge to all members, and presumably the public at large, to produce any New Testament argument that would be evidence against the practice of homosexuality. TREVOR MALLARD: That's not correct. WINSTON PETERS: It is correct. The Minister of Education said that he could find no evidence in the New Testament against the practice of homosexuality. He said that the evidence in the Old Testament should not be used, because it had been overridden by the later document, the New Testament. That is the way I understood the argument, as did many correspondents who have written to me, and many who listened to the radio. If the Hansard record were to be checked I am sure my interpretation would be found to be fair and accurate. I do not claim to be a biblical scholar. Hon. RICHARD PREBBLE: The member doesn't claim to be a scholar. WINSTON PETERS: It does not matter how serious, how personal, or how close to one's conscience an issue might get, the Minister of Transport will always play politics, because he is a special creature-he does not have a conscience. I say that with some reserve, but I am supported in that view by Don Goodfellow, the people at East Town, the airline pilots, all the transport industry, and half the country. TREVOR DE CLEENE: The member's going a bit off the rails. WINSTON PETERS: I could be derailed over that comment if I applied it to any other member of the House, but I am right on course when it comes to the Minister. As a matter of interest, I studied the Hebrew language at university, and the text used was the Bible. I was fascinated by the comments made by the Minister of Education, not because I want to demonstrate any biblical knowledge, but because the evidence was so easy to find. The first evidence can be found in I Corinthians 6:9. In addition to the sin about which the verse speaks, there are some other sins that would have some members of the House rather concerned and worried, and which would also worry some people in the press gallery, some in the gallery, and some listening to the radio. The references can be found all through the New Testament. I do not know why a cleric who claims some knowledge of the Bible should say that the references did not exist, and should throw out a challenge in the House. Romans, chapter 1, verse 24, states: " Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves." Verse 26 states: " For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature." verse 27 states: " And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly. . .". The member for Palmerston North seems to be excited. Perhaps those words took him back to the halcyon days of his youth. I shall now detail the reasons for my opposition to the Bill. I was brought up in a small Maori settlement on the East Coast. I know that the people who will be damaged the most by the passage of the Bill will be the Maori youth. I believe I have just cause in defending their future and the future of children yet unborn. It is the way of society. One has only to look around the world to see who is at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, and see what perversity is being performed upon them. I will not have that on my conscience tonight. I am astounded by the number of women who support the Bill. In my view the Bill is anti-women, because it makes them irrelevant. New Zealand has the capacity to escape the scourge of AIDS, but will not do so if the Bill is passed. It has been a custom with both parties that if the caucus is split 50:50 the status quo is retained until there is a clear majority either way. That is the one rule common to both parties. If a vote is taken on the issue tonight it will be almost 50:50 and members will have abandoned that principle. I do not want to make it a personal matter. I count the Deputy Leader of the Opposition as a friend of mine, along with other members on both sides of the House, and I do not care whether they like me or not. I remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of the famous statement made by Sir Winston Churchill: " The trouble with being on the side of right is that you keep so much dubious company." The petition against the Bill was signed by 15,700 people in the Tauranga electorate. I have been a victim of fraudulent signatures, and even if 10 percent or 20 percent of the signatures were false-and I do not believe they were-the number of people who signed the petition was still large. I shall not let those people down. Hon. RUSSELL MARSHALL (Minister of Education): I seek to correct a misrepresentation made in the previous speech: The member for Tauranga said that I had said in my speech last week that there was not one word in the New Testament against homosexuality. I quote from my Hansard the words I actually used: " I challenge the member and anybody who is opposed to the Bill to produce one word from our Lord that condemns homosexuality." I did go on to say: " I am not here to defend some of St. Paul's rather strange ideas about the sexuality of men and women. WINSTON PETERS (Tauranga): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: The particular Standing Order that the Minister of Education invoked specifically denies the right of debate. WINSTON PETERS: If the words quoted are what the Minister said - and I believe him I want to withdraw my comments and offer him an apology. Is that O. K.? Mr SPEAKER: Yes. PETER DUNNE (Ohariu): I move, That the question be now put. Hon. WHETU TIRIKATENE-SULLIVAN (Southern Maori): It would be difficult in 10 minutes to summarise what I said during the Committee stage in the more than a dozen speeches I made, and to say everything I want to say on the Bill. However, I shall try to do so, and I begin by referring to the Sunday News of 12 March 1979. An article in that newspaper headed " Do you, Peter, take this man" referred to a marriage that had taken place in Auckland between the Rev. Peter Alexander Smith and his homosexual partner Damian. The Rev. Smith was asked what his ministry was, and he replied that his most important activity was to move around the gay bars and clubs of Auckland. He also referred to the setting up of groups throughout the country into what I would call gay or homosexual caucuses. He said that they were established throughout the country, that church groups were also established, and that there were many pastors in other mainline churches. There have ben gay bars, ministries, clubs, and gay marriages in New Zealand since 1977. He pointed out that he had been married but it had not worked out-and members were told by the Gay Marriage Association, whose correspondence I have before me, that there are about 50,000 gay men in New Zealand who are married. He decided to opt out of the marriage expected of him by society, and married his partner at the time. I bring such facts to the attention of the House because members are somewhat somnambulant about the progress of the homosexual network in New Zealand, and about the fact that there are gay caucuses in the mainline churches, and in every profession-and I have not been associated with any profession in which there has not been one to my sure knowledge. The House is discussing a Bill that refers to a development that has occurred in New Zealand, following the progress in America. Members supporting the Bill have said that most of the mainline churches favour it. However, that is a claim for the politically naive, because the gay liberation movement has moved to have its members establish gay caucuses in every church. That is a simple reality, and I repeat that there are gay caucuses in every profession. When the House last debated the Bill, many members who supported it labelled themselves as Christians. They appeared to imply that there is sanction in the scriptures for homosexuality. That is incorrect, but time does not allow me to elaborate. I have the Bible before me, and if I had the time I would refer to it. I will leave it at that, but the Bible contains many specific references to homosexuality. Many members have said in the debate that it is virtually impossible to change human behaviour and patterns of sexual orientation. The New Testament explicitly refers to some members of the church at Corinth having been homosexual in orientation but changing after they learnt of Christ. That has continued to happen over the subsequent 1,000 years. I have witnessed this happening to my acquaintances and also to individuals whom I did not know at the time. Representations were made to the select committee by New Zealanders who are no longer homosexual. There is no denying that it is possible to change one's sexual orientation. I believe my observations give me the right to speak with some authority, but there is also the evidence of the many people who came before the select committee. Dr Delany, who has treated many ill homosexuals, pointed out that the very practice of sodomy creates the predisposition to disease. It is a practice in which there is an oppressor and an oppressed, and I am told - and I remind the House that as a social worker I once counselled homosexuals for some years before I came to the House, and I still do-that the pain to the passive or the receiving partner can be considerable. I am open to correction on that point by any member who can speak with some authority. However, I can pass on only what former homosexuals have told me. Much is said about the dichotomy. I have been assured by some who have been the passive partner that it is painful. I can only take their word. What about heterosexual women or heterosexual wives of homosexual husbands? I cannot think of anything more oppressive than to be sodomised by one's husband. The Bill has two revolutionary purposes: first, to establish for the first time in New Zealand that the homosexual practice of sodomy is a legitimate behaviour in the New Zealand life-style; and, second, to enshrine that legitimacy into New Zealand law. The Bill seeks to make a socio-political statement that was begun by the gay liberation movement in the early 1970s. That movement sought to have American law recognise sodomy as legitimate, normal, natural, and legal behaviour. It succeeded, but that success has been short-lived. After 10 years of gay liberation revolution in America, the law has been reversed by the Supreme Court of America, which ruled last week that homosexuals have no constitutional right to engage in sodomy. Why does Parliament want to legitimise sodomy in that way? I oppose the Bill and I oppose the legitimation that some members want to confer on that practice. The member for Tauranga expressed concern about those who are in the oppressed group, and I agree. My own concern is from a vested interest as a mother and a Maori member of Parliament. Maori boys are choice targets for cruising gay predators, whether Maori or non-Maori. I am concerned to represent them, and I regret that I see some members smiling at that concern. I speak with the knowledge of my case-load on the matter. A mother's instinct to protect her son caused her to stab fatally a member of the gay community who had tried to sodomise her 11-year-old boy. The mother was convicted and discharged. Members may or may not be familiar with those facts. My abiding concern continues to be for those young boys. In San Francisco I observed that the favourite subject of the highly promiscuous and predatory homosexual men were the indigenous boys-the Mexicans, the Puerto Ricans, and the blacks. Those boys made up the highest proportion of prostitutes. They were also significant among the ranks of the local unemployed. They needed money and the older men needed their kicks. If the House approves the Bill I shall hold its supporters culpable for the creation of a new business for unemployed Maori boys enticed into homosexual prostitution. New Zealand will become a Mecca for the affluent gay travel organisations from America and other continents. I have proof tonight in the House that already people are soliciting. They are writing overseas, preparing this side of the Pacific to receive on the suggestion of American travel agents. PETER NEILSON (Miramar): I move, That the question be now put. NORMAN JONES (Invercargill): It is 16 months since the Bill was first introduced by the member for Wellington Central. They have been 16 months of tactics. Within 4 months of the Bill's introduction a petition signed by 835,000 New Zealanders tried to show Parliament that New Zealanders did not want sodomy to be legalised at 16 years of age, or any age. Throughout that tactical fight those of us who are opposed to legalising sodomy at any age have stayed constant. On two or three occasions, had a vote been taken, the Bill could have been defeated. If it were not for connivance and agreements being made the Bill could have been defeated last Wednesday by 46 votes to 44 votes. Two Wednesdays previously it could have been defeated by four votes. I know, as well as the Minister of Transport knows, that tonight the Bill will be passed by 48 votes to 45, or 47 votes to 46, depending on who has not made up his or her mind. Irrespective of whether the Bill is passed, it will be a narrow majority. The House is evenly divided against itself. That is not the position that exists in New Zealand. There is no division amongst New Zealanders about the matter. Even though the vote will be won tonight that will not be the end of the matter. The House has heard a lot about compromise from the master of compromise - the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I do not mind tactics-I am as good at them as anybody-but it is nonsense when a member says he voted the way he did against the closure because he was looking for compromise, when 14 hours earlier the House had defeated a compromise by 63 votes to 22 votes. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said he waited until the last minute tonight for a compromise. He received his answer. The vote was 68:18, or something like that. There is never a compromise; there is no compromise on sodomy. It is either right or wrong, and everybody knows that it is wrong. Give the Deputy Leader of the Opposition eight alternatives and he will look for a ninth. That is typical. The House knows where he stands at present. He will vote for the Bill. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that he was looking for an honourable middle ground. At any stage during the passage of the Bill he could have gone to the member for Wellington Central and said: " There are 22 members of the House who are not satisfied with the way they voted for 16 years of age and are happy to vote for 18, 19, or 20 years of age. You join us and we'll have a better Bill." It does no good for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to come to me and my people saying he wants an honourable compromise on sodomy, because to us age is irrelevant; it always has been and it always will be. The honourable compromise could have come from the member for Wellington Central, but, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, she was greedy; she wanted all or nothing. She has it all, but it is not the end of the matter. The House is legalising sodomy at any age, and that is obnoxious. The 835,000 people who signed the petition will indicate to Parliament what they think about that. This is just the beginning of the matter, and members know it. Throughout the second reading and the Committee stage of the Bill the two main arguments of members who supported an age of consent of 16 years have been that legalising sodomy at 16 years of age will prevent the spread of AIDS amongst young consenting adults indulging in homosexual sex. Those supporting the Bill have also argued that the Bill must be passed to enable homosexuals to come into the open and seek medical treatment. Both of those arguments are fallacious on two counts. Whether or not the Bill is passed-whether or not anal intercourse between consenting adults is legalised-section 201 of the Crimes Act 1961 still applies. That section states: “Infecting with disease-Everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who, wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, causes or produces in any other person any disease or sickness." The note reads: " As to a conviction of an offence under this section being a ground of divorce in Tokelau, see regulation 4(2)(e) of S. R. 1975/262." If the Bill is passed, as appears likely, that section of the Crimes Act will still have to be applied to persons knowing they have, or are carrying, the AIDS antibodies or any infection at all if, at 16 years of age, they indulge in anal intercourse legally with another consenting male-or with a 12-year-old, with consent, provided it was thought he was 16 years of age. That is a defence, but under the existing law they are still liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 14 years. That gives the lie to the homosexual lobby's plaint that sodomy must be legalised at 16 years of age to save people from AIDS. That is nonsense, and they know it. So much for the people infecting each other with AIDS; they will be doing it more quickly and legally if the Bill is passed, but they will still be liable under the Crimes Act. During the Committee stage the second main argument from those who supported the Bill was that if anal intercourse were legal-and in the Crimes Act it has been changed from being described as sodomy to being euphemistically called anal intercourse, but there is no difference-a homosexual could come out into the open and obtain the relevant treatment without breaking the law. About 400 or 500 people in New Zealand have AIDS antibodies, and 24 people have full AIDS. There have been 9 deaths, and those 24 people who have contracted AIDS will also die. In Australia 109 people have died from AIDS, yet 12 months ago the number was only half that. AIDS is not a notifiable disease until it is in the full syndrome stage, or until somebody dies from it. What about the Hippocratic oath? Hundreds of homosexuals are receiving treatment from medical practitioners who keep the complaint confidential in the clinics and in the surgeries. That gives the lie to the second argument that homosexuals must come out of the closet to obtain medical treatment freely and confidentially. They are receiving that treatment now, so it is nonsense to claim that sodomy between consenting adults has to be legalised so that they can be free to seek medical treatment. I want to return to the petition, and to say that if it has been ignored the next petition will not be; it will be computerised in the electorates of every member of Parliament voting for the Bill. Adult voters will be asked if they want the Bill to be repealed, and that will be made an election issue-make no mistake about it. According to their voting records, 15 members of Parliament voting for the Bill have majorities ranging between 2,229 in the case of the member or West Auckland down to 394 for the member for Wairarapa. NEILL MORRISON (Pakuranga): The Bill has been debated now for about 1½ years. An Hon. Member: Too long! NEILL MORRISON: Yes, it has been too long. It has been a fascinating insight into people's personalities and into human nature. Many people on both sides of the issue have received threats. I have received threats, and I find that most unfortunate. I commend the member for Wellington Central for being brave enough to introduce the Bill into the House; it took some courage. I consider some of the abuse she has received from people who claim to be Christians to be totally despicable. Many people on both sides of the argument could do much soul searching. As have all members, I have given the issue deep thought over a long time. I know that every member has approached the Bill with a serious attitude. During the past few months I have penned a few lines of my impressions of the Bill and its progress. For some days I sat in on the committee hearings and heard submissions from the public. I heard arguments from both sides, and I was deeply moved by many of the submissions. It is one of the dilemmas that has faced mankind throughout history. It is the dilemma of change, the dilemma of conviction over reason, the dilemma of modern perceptions over a heritage of Christian teachings stretching back for more than 2,000 years. The Bill seeks to put right what many people see as a wrong; it seeks to put right what many people see as an injustice; it seeks to put right what many see as a denial of human rights; it seeks to put right a law that many people would claim was made in medieval times and with medieval attitudes; and it seeks to put right a law put through the House of Commons in the dead of night more than 100 years ago. It seeks to set free from guilt and loneliness those people in our society who have a different sexual preference; and it seeks to change the attitude of the majority to see the minority as equal and normal. The Bill seeks to make logical what many people would claim to be the illogical. The paradox is that humankind is more emotional than logical, and history is littered with proof of that. Since its birth humankind has struggled to keep an equal balance. To deny an emotion is futile, yet to deny logic is futile; it gives humankind the rationale to plan its destiny. However, there is a dimension to humankind that is as irrefutable as logic-it is the dimension of faith. Faith is the foundation upon which millions of people have relied through troubled times. Faith comes under several names and religions; ours is called Christianity. Christianity is the rock upon which our people base their faith. There are many forces in life, and they have all been traversed in the Bill. All those forces need a balanced approach. Henry Kissinger once said: " Society is balanced on a knife edge", and we have had many examples in the past century of exactly that. Thousands of New Zealanders see the balance as being threatened. Thousands of average people who have no real argument one way or the other on the issue feel concerned that there will be an upset in the balance of something that has been built up during many thousands of years. The broad spectrum of people in our society perceive a gradual shift away from a society of reasonable standards. Many thousands of those people are quietly worried. After 18 months of debate, at an estimated cost in time of more than $6 million, the Bill now depends upon a few votes-possibly one, two, three, or four. I believe that an issue such as this, which can fill the galleries and have people waiting outside to get in, is too finely balanced to be passed tonight. A Bill such as this needs to be passed with a good majority. I oppose the Bill, because, fundamentally, I believe that humankind needs a purpose in life. Some would say that the purpose of homosexuality is human pleasure and love. I accept that, and I respect it. However, if I am a member of Parliament for any reason it is to lay a legacy for my children, and their children in the century to come. I do not believe that the Bill will do that. Members are elected to lay a heritage for a fruitful, purposeful, balanced society, which will be carried through to the next century and the century following that. If the Bill is passed it will erode the very foundation upon which a balanced society is possible. If there is no purpose to life, there is steady decay. I oppose the Bill. I know that many of my constituents do not agree with my stand, and I respect their views. They can make a decision regarding my fate at the next election, and I welcome that opportunity. I want the people of my electorate to know exactly where I stand. I do not believe that the Bill will achieve anything. It will not lead to a productive future society. CLIVE MATTHEWSON (Dunedin West): I move, That the question be now put. Mr SPEAKER: Undoubtedly the debate has moved away from a third reading debate, and is becoming a repetition of the second reading debate. However, the member for Papakura has called repeatedly, and I will allow him the call. After that I must follow the practice I have adopted in all debates: when members move away from the subject of the debate it is an obvious signal to the Chair that the debate should be closed. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON (Papakura): I want to make a few passing comments that relate to the proceedings during the Committee stage. In regard to an earlier comment made tonight, I observe the statement made by a leading British politician who said that consensus politics is " the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be resolved". That is all I want to say about consensus, except to add that I absolutely accept that point of view so succinctly and accurately put. The Bill gives the wrong message, particularly to young people. I am sure that thousands of teenagers and young adolescents have been confused by the proceedings of Parliament during the past 18 months. That would be especially so had they listened to the proceedings of Parliament during the Committee stage. If the Bill is passed it will create unwarranted pressures and unthought-of fears in our schools, technical institutes, community colleges, universities and teachers' colleges. I say that against a background of more than 10 years in secondary teaching, as a member of Parliament, and for nearly 6 years as Minister of Education. I believe that it will drive a wedge between teachers and pupils and among parents, teachers, and pupils. None of the chuckling from the member for Wellington Central, in particular, will dissuade from that point of view those of us who have opposed the measure for 18 months. As any master in a boys' boarding school will know, it is the kind of thing to which the honourable member for Southern Maori quite properly referred earlier. I endorse that by saying that having been a boarding school master at St. Stephen's College, which was set up by the Anglican Church in the 1840s primarily for Maori and Polynesian young men, I consider that the member for Southern Maori is absolutely right, and the House would profit from listening to her cry of warning for she is - in a sense, sadly-right on this matter. I could report that in the Committee stage we canvassed the idea that the Bill, having been introduced by a Government Whip-the member for Wellington Central-was essentially an exercise in diversion; but, having alluded to that, I shall not dwell on the matter, for I believe it to have been well canvassed in the Committee. My final comment is made against the background of the announcement made by the Minister of Police today that there will have to be an increase in the number of uniformed men and women in the New Zealand Police. There is no argument with the step she has taken as such, but there is much debate about whether the step is big enough. I find it ironic that a few hours later Parliament is contemplating the passage of a Bill that would strike at the very heart of the principles of law and order in the community. It is as simple as that if one wants to view it from that perspective. In outlining that perspective I add that the first duty of Parliament is to preserve law and order, and it is irrational to move within a few hours to the point at which Parliament contemplates passing a measure that would undermine law and order in the community. This is a time when many people are worried about the safety of their person and their property. My point of view is similar to that of the member for Papakura, in that it is inconceivable, given the anxieties, fears, and concerns that the Commissioner of Police warns about, that we should be contemplating giving licence to a practice that has repelled our predecessors for many decades. There is a simple rule in Government-and having been in Government for some years I can tell the member for West Auckland, to name one, that it is a good rule, which he and a few of his colleagues should have insisted upon: “If in doubt, don't". As we come to the point of the division, that is a simple but profound rule that the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues, who for a few months yet have the final responsibility by the weight of their majority in Parliament, should heed: " If in doubt, don't." ANNETTE KING (Horowhenua): I move, That the question be now put. Mr SPEAKER: I have decided to accept the motion, and the House can decide for itself whether it wishes the debate to continue or to terminate. Motion agreed to. The House divided on the question, That this Bill be now read a third time. Ayes 49 Anderton; Austin, M. E.; Bassett; Batchelor; Boorman; Burke; Butcher; Caygill; Clark; Cullen; de Cleene; Dillon; Douglas; Dunne; Elder; Fraser; Gair; Gerbic; Goff; Gregory; Hercus; Hunt; Isbey; Jeffries; Keall; King; Lange; McLean; Marshall, C. R.; Matthewson; Maxwell, R. K.; Moore; Moyle; Neilson; Northey; O'Flynn; O'Regan; Palmer; Prebble; Scott; Shields; Shirley; Sutton, J. R.; Sutton, W. D.; Tizard; Wetere; Wilde. Tellers: Mallard; Woollaston. Noes 44 Angus; Austin, H. N.; Austin, W. R.; Banks; Birch; Bolger; Burdon; Colman; Cooper; Cox; East; Falloon; Friedlander; Gerard; Graham; Gray; Jones; Kidd; Knapp; Luxton; McClay; McKinnon; McTigue; Marshall, D. W. A.; Maxwell, R. F. H.; Morrison; Muldoon; Peters; Richardson; Rodger; Smith; Storey; Talbot; Tapsell; Terris; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Townshend; Upton; Wallbank; Wellington; Young, T. J.; Young, V. S. Tellers: Braybrooke; Lee. Majority for: 5 Bill read a third time.[A disturbance having taken place in the gallery, a member of the public was removed on the instruction of the Speaker.]