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