12 December 1985, New Zealand Parliament.
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 Speaker
Mr 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.