Homosexual Law Reform Bill - first reading

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.