Homosexual Law Reform Bill - second reading continued

Debate resumed from 16 October 1985.

SPEAKER: I shall check which member was speaking when the matter was adjourned last week. Mrs Hercus.

JOHN BANKS (Whangarei): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You were about to say who was speaking when the House rose. Whom did you say it was?

SPEAKER: I have called the Hon. Mrs Hercus, and the reason for that is that, on the information available to me, I am trying to arrange the debate so that members speak alternately for and against the Bill.

ANN HERCUS (Minister of Social Welfare): Before I was elected to the House in 1978 I made a commitment to my electorate that, if elected, I would hold a poll or referendum within my electorate on each of the four conscience issues if they should arise, and provided no such conscience issue moved so quickly through the House that a referendum was physically impossible to arrange. That was a hard commitment for me to make to my electorate. I have strongly held views on each of the four conscience issues. I had in 1978, and still have equally, a strong sense of being a representative of my electorate. I wanted to ensure that the voters of Lyttelton had an opportunity to express their views, and so to guide me. My decision to hold a referendum to guide me about the electorate's opinion on a conscience issue.

Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek clarification. A week ago I was speaking in the debate. Am I not entitled to conclude my speech? Would you clarify the ruling you made 30 minutes ago?

SPEAKER: I draw it to members' attention that the Journals of the House of Representatives record that the leave of the House was granted to the member for Papakura to register his vote on the Homosexual Law Reform Bill, which is order of the day No. 1 for private members' Bills. The House moved that the member for Papakura be suspended from the service of the House, and that is the position. I presume that the member understands the motion that was passed.

DON MCKINNON: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek clarification. The member for Whangarei asked you which member was speaking when the House rose last after debating the Bill. You said that you were still trying to determine the issue. Can it be clarified whether the member for Papakura was speaking when the House adjourned last Wednesday?

SPEAKER: Yes, he was, but because of the motion that has been passed the House may no longer take notice of the member for Papakura; but he may still vote.

DON MCKINNON: I raise a further point of order, Mr Speaker. I request that you take the leave of the House to allow the member for Papakura to conclude the speech he was making last Wednesday.

SPEAKER: That would be an extraordinary concession, as the member for Papakura had finished his speech at the time of the conclusion of the debate.

WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker, relating to the concession the House has given to the member for Papakura enabling him to register his vote. I understand that members can register their vote in two ways: by being in the lobby, or, usually, by voice in the House. Does that mean that the member for Papakura is entitled to be in the House in accordance with the motion passed by the House, or have you given it the interpretation that he must remain in the lobby?

SPEAKER: There is no difficulty about the matter. The member may return to the House when the question is put, but that does not entitle him to be present in the House at any other time. The House has granted the member leave to vote. That leave is absolute and total as far as voting is concerned, but it does not affect any other procedure. I have made it clear that the member is entitled to be heard on a vote on the voices, and he is also entitled to vote in the lobby.

WINSTON PETERS: I raise a further point of order, Mr Speaker. Does that mean my colleague will be denied the right to return to the House on a vote that the question be put?

SPEAKER: That was not granted by the leave of the House. Leave was granted solely that the member might vote on order of the day No. 1 for private members' Bills.

Hon. ANN HERCUS: I was saying that I have a contract with the people of my electorate to hold a referendum. I do not give up my own views; I choose to share my conscience vote in Parliament with those who sent me here to be their representative. Therefore I am speaking in the debate tonight as the member for Lyttelton. Later in the debate I shall speak as the Minister of Police. It is beyond my resources to hold a poll as a secret ballot if a general election is held. However, I have done my best to ensure that every voter in the Lyttelton electorate has had a fair opportunity to participate in this referendum, and I have done my best to ensure that it has been done by a means whereby their opinions remained confidential to them. There is a particular reason for that. I am the Minister of Police, and in the past few months I have received anonymous letters from people who have identified themselves as coming from my electorate but who did not wish to sign their names because they were afraid of the consequences of admitting to a Minister of Police that they were homosexual. Therefore there was, and is, a compelling reason for a secret ballot to be held in my electorate. For that reason I had two ballot papers delivered to each house with no requirement for them to be annotated with a name or address. A mechanism was provided for more ballot papers to be acquired if there were more than two voters in a particular household. Such a system is obviously open to some abuse, so I took several steps to inhibit that. First, the ballot paper was printed in an ink colour that could not be reproduced or xeroxed. Secondly, extra ballot papers were made available only after a roll check. Thirdly, assuming that a single person in a household might fill in both the ballot papers delivered, it would be statistically likely that those on either side of the issue would abuse the system in the same manner and even each other out. As it was, enough ballot papers were returned with only one of the two connected ballots filled in to convince me that the voters of the Lyttelton electorate were fairly honest. Out of the 25,000 ballot papers distributed or requested, 3731 were returned, 13 of which were invalid, mainly because no voting was recorded in any way on those papers, only obscenities. Thus, 3718 valid ballot papers were returned. The primary purpose of the Bill is decriminalisation of the law to remove criminal sanctions against homosexual acts between consenting adults. The first question asked was therefore the central one: “Do you support a change in the law to remove criminal sanctions against consenting homosexual acts? Yes or no.” Of the valid replies, 1982 voters stated yes, and 1736 stated no. On the basis of nearly 4000 returns, a majority of 53.3 percent of the Lyttelton electorate supported decriminalisation and 46.7 percent did not. It may be fairly said that the vote was evenly divided in my electorate. Taking account of the majority view expressed in my electorate, I intend to vote for the removal of criminal sanctions against consenting homosexual acts. There is an additional interesting element that should be noted. The Hay petition against the Bill claimed that 5139 people in the Lyttelton electorate had signed that petition. I and a team of helpers went to a great deal of trouble to search every one of the boxes containing the petition sheets presented to Parliament, and then to xerox every sheet I could find with a Lyttelton address on it. I could only find 1500 names, not 5139. I then had those names and addresses checked: only 1300 of them were on the Lyttelton roll or had been added to the roll since it was last published. The return from my own referendum of those who opposed the Bill was 1736. Therefore I think I can reasonably speculate that the Hay petition seems somehow to have totally overrepresented and misrepresented the numbers of those opposed to the Bill who live in the Lyttelton electorate. I asked two supplementary questions on the ballot paper flowing from the central question of decriminalisation. One related to the age of consent, and the other to the change in the Human Rights Commission Act to include sexual orientation amongst the grounds on which it would be unlawful to discriminate. As those who did not support decriminalisation made it very clear to me in notes that they did not support any age of consent whatsoever, I turned to the views of those who supported decriminalisation. The referendum showed that 75 percent of those who support decriminalisation support the age of 16 as the age of consent, and 25 percent support other ages. As I have said, the third question related to the amendment to the Human Rights Commission Act. Of those who supported decriminalisation, 85 percent also supported that change. On the basis of the Lyttelton referendum the majority supported decriminalisation, and, of those, there was majority support for the age of consent to be 16 years, and for a change to the Act to prevent discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. My personal views coincide exactly. I am a Christian and a family woman. My God is not punitive or oppressive; my church submits that the present law and attitudes in society are harmful to the individual who has a homosexual orientation, since they force him to deny his sexuality as a person and an integral part of his identity as a person. The values of a loving New Testament God are reflected in an acceptance of homosexuals in a non-judgmental manner as fellow citizens equal under the law. I am a family woman and homosexuals are part of families. I support strong, loving, and tolerant family life in which every child is loved and accepted for what he or she is—and adults are children of parents. As a law student in jurisprudence, I remember lectures studying the question of distinguishing morals from law. John Stuart Mill asserted the view, reasserted much later by the British Wolfenden report on homosexuality, that legal coercion-the weight of the criminal law—can be justified only for the purpose of preventing harm to others. The Bill makes it very clear that a sexual act between males, to which one party does not consent, is a crime. The Bill also provides that any homosexual act with anyone under the age of 16 years remains a crime, as is now the case with heterosexual acts. In those circumstances criminal penalties—legal coercion-are justified for the purpose of preventing harm to others. Law and morality are overlapping circles. Morality condemns murder, as does the law. Morality may condemn adultery; the law does not. As lawmakers, we have the responsibility to decide not where morality lies but where the law should lie. In my own opinion the criminal law has no place in the sexual behaviour either of men or of women when there is consent between two caring partners.

Hon. PETER TAPSELL (Minister of Internal Affairs): I commend my colleague the member for Wellington Central for her courage and tenacity in promoting the Bill . I know how sincerely and deeply she feels about it, and we all know the tension she has faced during these past few months. At the same time I want to mention those people who, feeling equally strongly that the Bill should not proceed, have gone to tremendous lengths—some would say inordinate lengths—to prevent its passage. Despite the tremendous publicity the Bill has aroused throughout the country, the general public is poorly informed about its effects. The member for North Shore summed the matter up clearly. He said there were two parts to the Bill: the first part modifies the Crimes Act; the second modifies the human rights legislation. In the first part there are two essential changes. The first is to remove or modify section 142 of the Crimes Act, which makes sodomy and certain indecent acts illegal. The second part relates to the age of consent, and the first part in the second part of the Bill—it sounds peculiar, but it is so-relates to the human rights legislation and would provide that those persons—whatever their sexual orientation-enjoy the protection of the human rights legislation. I will comment on one or two matters that have arisen during the debate before going to the first part of the first part of the Bill, which modifying section 142 of the Crimes Act, making sodomy between consenting adults legal. That is the crucial element of the Bill; the other two sections are in the main consequent upon the first part, which I will go back to shortly. I make it clear that what I have to say is in no way condemnatory of either of the two major groups or of any other member who has spoken. First, I want to mention the polls. If the polls have shown nothing else they have shown how unsuccessful and how inaccurate that method is in determining the wishes of the majority of an electorate. For example, a member might state his or her own view publicly and at length, and then seek the electorate view. One would have been surprised to find that an unbiased opinion was obtained in that way. More important, the essential feature is the question that was asked. If, for example, the question had asked “Do you believe that homosexuals are at present persecuted and that that ought to change?"-and many would say that that was the effect of the Bill-I think the answer would have been in support of the Bill. Equally, if the question had asked, “Do you believe that sodomy between consenting adults ought to be condoned by the law?" I think the change might very well have been to the alternative. Many people put forward the view that they would support part I of the Bill-making sodomy legal on the grounds that it was not abnormal, with no danger to the participant or to anyone else—but they could not bring themselves to support the other two changes. If sodomy is normal, and no danger to the person or to anyone else, what justification is there for making the age of consent for homosexuals different from that for heterosexuals? If a homosexual is not to break the law, what good grounds are there for denying that person the protection of the human rights legislation? Someone said-and it was the major part of the argument—that sending homosexuals to jail is clearly a mistake and so it is. If that is so, why are we sending to jail those homosexuals who would carry out sodomy in public places, or, for that matter, why are we sending anyone to jail? As an aside, my own view is that no one ought to go to jail apart from those who are a threat to public safety, or who persistently refuse to take part in community rehabilitation. Several people said that other countries have already passed similar law and that New Zealand has lagged in some way, yet I heard not one shred of evidence that any one of those countries was the better as a result of the change. Many people said it was unreasonable that lesbians—homosexual women-should be treated differently from male homosexuals. It seems to me that anyone with the meanest intelligence and no more than a passing knowledge of human physiognomy would see there is a very real difference that cannot be denied. I want to draw attention to the almost pitiful reliance on so-called expert witnesses, particularly on lawyers or doctors. There is an almost craven obeisance to medical evidence. How often in select committees have we heard a person say, “I am a doctor of 2 years' standing; this is my view”, and then hear that person recount the most ridiculous rubbish. I was a consultant surgeon for nearly 30 years. In the early part of my career I did a good deal of surgery, some of which I now know was at best worthless, some of which was harmful, yet at the time it was backed by irrefutable evidence and we did it with the best of intentions. Expert medical witnesses are a very useful tool in the hands of those who know something about the subject, but a fearful weapon in the hands of those who do not know a lot about it or are determined to use it to support their own case. The medical evidence presented by the Department of Health was an example. I read that evidence. Many people put forward a view saying that it was from the Department of Health, but it was not. I want to come back to the essence—that relating to Part 1 of the Bill, concerning whether sodomy and certain indecent acts ought to be condoned by the law. In general, our law is concerned with a set of rules determining the use of force by the State—those occasions on which the State ought to interfere in the activities of private persons in the interests of the majority. It should be noted that we are not concerned with whether sodomy is good or bad, and still less with whether it is right or wrong; we are concerned with whether it should be condoned by the law. That is the difference. All the actions of the human race have been promoted by passions, impulses, and desires. It may well be said that a person acting on the spur of the moment could be forgiven for some action the majority would not condone, but there is no similar case to be made for the person carrying out an action that he or she has had time to consider. Indeed, the one feature that distinguishes us from all other animals is our capacity for conscious discretion and conscious determination. It may well be said-and some have said it—that sodomy is a normal variant. Many human desires are physiological and strong, but second only to that of self-preservation is procreation—the sexual drive. It is well known to us that complex physiological reactions such as the sexual drive are bound to go awry at times-(Interruption.)

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before the member proceeds it should be made clear to people in the public gallery that they are not participants in the debate, and they are not entitled to intervene in the debate by verbal or other means. I hope I have made myself clear, and that members of the public will not take the matter to the point at which more appropriate action will have to be taken.

Hon. PETER TAPSELL: Human activity is governed by passions, and second only to the drive for self-preservation is that for procreation-sexual procreation. It runs awry at times, and we do know that the sexual reaction can run awry to the extent of progressing to events of shuddering aversion that are clearly abnormal in any sense. The law may not have any part in private morality, but clearly it has a part in civic morality. It seems unreasonable to me to say that the law is concerned simply with the protection of property and the person, but has no action in civic morality. It seems quite clear to me that it does. It seems to me that the law ought to have some say in whether sodomy is condoned, and, moreover, that persons ought to abide by the law in some way. I come to my own particular concerns about the Bill, which are three. In the first instance, whatever happens to the Bill—whether it is passed or whether it fails, and it will probably be passed— I wonder what people expect of the change. What will the change do? My own view is that it will make no difference to anyone, or very little. I think it will be a 9-day wonder, because the sanction against homosexual acts of severity-sodomy-is not the law. The sanction against such acts is public obloquy and that will not change. The mother who discovers suddenly that her son is a homosexual will still feel that chill from now to the end of time. The public obloquy will not change. The second point I want to make—and it would be wrong to leave the debate without mentioning it—is the disease of AIDS: the acquired immune deficiency syndrome. My view is that there will be a quite severe epidemic of AIDS. That has been the problem overseas, and I do not think there is any reason it will not be the case here. Whatever the grounds for saying that AIDS is a heterosexual disease in other countries, one certainly could be forgiven for believing that it is still very much a homosexual disease in New Zealand. Regretfully, we are in the position we were in with cigarette smoking about 10 or 15 years ago, when it was believed that we could conquer an epidemic by using filter tips, which would in some way ameliorate the carcinogenic effect of cigarette smoke. We know now that the one way to prevent the carcinogenic effect of cigarette smoke is not to smoke. That needs to be made clear to everyone. There is some wild belief throughout New Zealand that we will conquer the epidemic of AIDS with the provision of contraceptives. That will prove to be false, and we will regret it. The last point I want to make is that throughout history human societies have set a standard for themselves. Some acts have been enjoined, some acts have been forbidden, some acts have been applauded, and some acts have been abhorred. Human reaction to any particular act has changed to a remarkable degree in the course of time towards the acceptance of an act, and away from the acceptance of an act. It has not been, as we would think, a gentle oscillation such as that of a pendulum, but a gradual and consistent movement away from the accepted norm of the day—always probing at the borders, always going beyond what is generally accepted, always going beyond until the swing-back eventually comes. It is not a smooth swing-back; it is often sudden, and sometimes savage. As humans, we can see ancient history a lot more evenly than recent history. We can all consider the classical Greeks or the industrial Italians, and see the light. We can all see the hills in the distance, but none of us can see the ground just in front of us. We have forgotten that in this century, in the most sophisticated, civilised country in the world, we saw just that—a gradual move away from the standards until there was a sudden reversal. It is true that, in the main, the reversal was due to economic changes, but it affected the middle classes and the upper classes, who were not dependent on economic changes. It was due to a backlash against deteriorating moral standards. Hitler and his group depended on the view of the middle classes. The objection of the middle classes was not economic; it was an objection to the sudden loss of the standards of the people. Hitler was voted into power, and, indeed, he retained the majority support of the German people right up to within months of his final collapse. Among the middle classes and the upper classes the support resulted not from the economic change but from the fear that public standards were declining. It is my belief that the New Zealand public is getting close to the stage at which the change will come. I regret it. I hope it does not occur, but I feel the cold winds of history drawing closer to us. I think there is a feeling—and often the morality of homosexuality will be unreasonably blamed for it-of lack of respect for the law, with murder, rape, beatings and bashings, the more far-out pressures of the feminist movement, and the more violent activists in the Maori movement, along with the change in morality and the shift away from the standards of the day. There will be a change, and when it comes those who are responsible will not be solely those who lead the march back, but, in part, those who, in the decade earlier, laid the grounds that made it inevitable. I did not have the facilities to carry out a poll in my electorate, and if I had I believe my electors would have had sufficient good sense to put it in the fire. But I have been around the electorate, and have spoken to people on marae and at meetings. I believe that I could fairly accurately sum up their feelings—as accurately as some of the polls I have heard about. They would not want homosexuals to be persecuted. They would not want sodomy to be condoned by the law. They would want the individual to retain the right to decide whether to employ or provide accommodation for a person whom they considered to be homosexual. That sets out very clearly the view of my electorate. It is also my own view, and I will vote accordingly.

MAURICE MCTIGUE (Timaru): This is a matter of conscience, and, as such, members have to decide whether it is right or whether it is wrong to decriminalise the act of sodomy. It is not a matter of persecuting homosexuals but of dealing with a physical fact, and, in dealing with that physical fact, the law of this nation has seen fit to proscribe that activity as being contrary to the best interests of society as a whole. For all members it is time to be counted. We must exercise the standards and values that are part of our nature. Are not all the matters we refer to in the House matters of conscience? Should we not always exercise those standards and values we have been brought up with? It has been said that we should keep God's law and man's law separate, but is most of the law we pass here not part of God's law as a whole, and do we not make an appeal to God at the beginning of each day before we sit down in the Chamber to consider the affairs of the nation? It is not a time for aggressive rhetoric, because aggression enthuses those who support one on an issue such as this, antagonises those who oppose one, and tends to alienate those one needs to convince, to win one's cause. The value judgments I have used to form my opinion on the issue are based on my life experiences, my family background, the kind of family I live in, the kind of things my parents and brothers and sisters and the rest of my family and community around me taught me to be the basis for exercising my judgment, and the education I received. Emerson once described education as the sum total of our experience. That is crucial to the argument before us. In my opinion, and according to the evidence of experts that I have been able to glean information from, homosexuality is not a condition someone is born with, such as a club foot. It is not a hereditary or genetic condition; it is a result of conditioning. Perhaps that conditioning is the result of bad family experiences. Perhaps it is the result of peer pressure. Perhaps it is the result of the environment in which a person is nurtured, but, in my opinion, it is conclusively a learnt experience and is a learnt condition. As a learnt condition it can be dealt with by the standards and the values we have lived; by the standards and values that teach us self-discipline in other areas; by the standards and values that teach us to exercise the judgment of right or wrong in our dealings with other people. It is a learnt, deviant activity. It is an aberration of normal sexual behaviour. Many people are trying to convince us that it is just different sexual behaviour. It is not different sexual behaviour. As the speaker before me said, one of the strongest emotions that mankind experiences is the emotion to procreate, and normal sexual behaviour is the fulfilment of that emotion to procreate. The perpetuation of the species is instilled in that emotion to procreate. It goes back many thousands of years, and has meant that the species has been able to sustain all kinds of shocks during that time. The cult of humanism says that if something is pleasurable why not do it; it is only an alternative expression of sexuality. I totally reject that view, because if we were to use that code for the determination of our lives, our values, and our laws, we could apply it to all kinds of deviant behaviour, and that would be totally unacceptable. The codes of society have always regulated and disciplined the exercise of sexuality. We have laws that proscribe sex with a heterosexual partner before the age of 16, and we accept those laws. We have laws that proscribe incestuous relationships, and we accept those laws. Often when both participants agree that the activity will take place it is no doubt pleasurable, yet we proscribe it by law. Why should we now decide that homosexuality is an acceptable demand of the flesh? Some people describe it as an alternative expression of sexuality. I cannot and will not accept that. Homosexuality is the total rejection of the normal love patterns between man and wife that lead to procreation and bring the family into being. The family is the cornerstone of our society. Anything that brings about the degeneration of the family unit will ultimately bring about the degeneration of society as a whole. For those reasons members should be prepared to act, as have lawmakers before us, 10 ensure that the fabric of society is not torn apart. If we allow that to happen, not only will we see the degeneration of the family, but we will see degeneration in the form of violence among members of society; we will see degeneration in the home and family life that is provided for the children of those families; and we will see degeneration in all the values that have gone to make this a very pleasant nation in which to live. If one accepted the cult of humanism, what else would one have to accept? If one accepted the concept that homosexuality is an alternative expression of sexuality, one would have to accept that the same principle applied to sadism, to bestiality, to prostitution, to euthanasia, and to incest. There is a time and place for society, through its lawmakers, to say “Stop”. On this issue society has given just that direction: 830,000 people have said that. Many people will try to discredit the petition, but even if they discredit one-fifth of the signatures 500,000 people will still have said “No”, clearly and distinctly. No other issue in the history of this nation has brought people forward voluntarily in such numbers to express their determination. I have not polled the people in my electorate. At the time of the by-election I told them that they should accept me with my standards and my values, and that they could expect me to use those standards and values in exercising my judgment on their behalf as their representative in Parliament. That is what I intend to do today. My values are not negotiable. They will not be swayed. However, 15059 people in my electorate signed the petition. During the election campaign the Timaru Herald conducted several polls, and it is interesting to note the comments that were made in response to some of the questions. A poll conducted by the Timaru Herald on Wednesday, 12 June 1985, showed that moral issues and the state of the economy remained the issues that most concerned Timaru voters in the lead-up to the by-election. They remained the leading issues in the latest Timaru Herald poll conducted 2 weeks ago. Of the 600 people polled, 21.8 percent said that moral issues were particularly important issues in voting. Among the intending National voters, moral issues were identified as the most important, followed by the state of the economy, taxation, inflation, and the cost of living. Labour voters identified moral issues as the most important, followed by the state of the economy, unemployment, and the cost of living. Moral issues and taxation were of most concern to those who intended to vote for the former Social Credit Party. So it went, across the spectrum of the parties. The supporters of all political parties were polled across the electorate, and, regardless of their political affiliation, they all expressed their concern about the Bill and their desire for a representative who would take their concerns to Parliament. There is an additional provision to the Bill that I find totally repugnant—that is, the provision that brings the legislation under the protection of the Human Rights Commission Act. It is, I believe, incredibly important that the people of the nation should have the right to have their children educated in a climate in which they can determine the morality to be taught. The recent passage through Parliament of the Education Amendment Bill fills me with grave concern that the provisions under the human rights legislation attached to that legislation would mean that, when teaching sexuality in schools, teachers would be obliged by law to teach alternative sexuality-homosexuality and lesbianism-on an equal basis.

Hon. Members: That's not true.

MAURICE MCTIGUE: To me that is totally repulsive, and it is one of the main reasons I would never be prepared to accept this provision. I also want to preserve for all time the ability to determine whether the person I employ as a vestryman in a church, a dormitory master in a school, a nurse, a policeman, or a person in any other role that comes into constant contact with the public, would not be able to exploit people by means of aberrant sexual behaviour. I am not prepared to move from that position. The provision is abhorrent to me, and it is most important for the protection of the life-styles of young people that that is not forced upon us. Many issues will be canvassed during the debate. Many prejudices will be aired. Many people will find the decision made by Parliament—whatever it may be-quite unacceptable. In many instances those people have brought their considerations to Parliament with the best of intent, but many of them have been gravely misguided. The experience of ancient history has taught that society as a whole begins to degenerate as soon as relaxation of its moral standards is allowed. If we sanction the Bill and legalise the act of sodomy we will begin that process of degeneration. There are so many problems within society now that I do not believe we can place another problem on its shoulders. I believe that the homosexual within the community is a predatory being. The investigations I have conducted personally indicate to me that a homosexual will have a multitude of partners during his lifetime.

TREVOR MALLARD: It sounds like an interesting experiment!

MAURICE MCTIGUE: It may well be an interesting experiment for that member, I am pleased to say that it will never be an interesting experiment for me. The protection of the nation is dependent upon the passage of the Bill. I urge my colleagues in the House to accept the importance of the Bill and to give it the consideration it deserves; not to be swayed by the feelings that might have been engendered by colleagues who have tried to force them to give it favourable consideration; not to be swayed by the vocal people who have tried in recent weeks to persuade good people to change their attitudes. I believe that members must take a stand now for the protection of the moral fibre of society. That is the opportunity that Parliament has.

Hon. FRANK O'FLYNN (Minister of State): For the second time in only a few weeks the House is confronted with a private member's Bill to which no party will be applying its Whips but on which all members will be free to vote as they wish, some of them according to polls, and some according to their conscientious view of the matter. In those circumstances I consider it necessary to give a brief explanation of my views and the way in which I intend to vote, but there are one or two preliminary things that ought to be said. The first-and I think I said the same kind of thing to the member for Waitotara, formerly the member for Egmont, 10 years ago-is that I congratulate the member for Wellington Central on the courage she has displayed in producing and promoting the Bill. I was here when the member for Waitotara introduced his Bill, and I have also seen other private members' Bills; I know what happens to members who are in the eye of the storm. My second point was illustrated by the first two speeches this evening. Members heard two eloquent, telling speeches giving contradictory points of view. To some extent that indicates the difficulty dealing with the matter. As is usual in these circumstances, the debate has done the House considerable credit in the main. I thought some of the speeches contained much wisdom, even when I did not agree with the end result. There have been many prophecies—some of them gloomy, and, I hope, wrong. There have been many shrewd observations about human nature, and those who have listened to the debate would have learnt something, although they might not be entirely sure what it had to do with the Bill. Usually I try to keep my moral views to myself—unlike some of the opponents of the Bill, I regret to say, or, indeed, some of its supporters, who have tried to shove their moral views down other people's throats and have sometimes been not very scrupulous about the way in which they have dealt with them. I actually hold a reasonably unemotional and pragmatic view, but I shall start by saying what my view about the problem really is. I regard homosexual conduct as wrong, immoral, and sinful—to use a word that is out of fashion because it expresses a moral judgment, and that is not popular. It is impossible to argue that such acts are either normal or natural for man. That conclusion is self-evident, because, as has been pointed out already this evening, mankind's instinctive sexual urge— perhaps the strongest, or at any rate the second strongest after self-preservation is linked to the act of procreation, and that, of course, is necessary for the perpetuation of the race—as it is for all living creatures. However, I do not propose to pursue those moral problems any further, because the Bill does not raise them. The question raised by the Bill is not whether that kind of conduct is normal or abnormal, moral or immoral, but whether it should continue to be criminal. As another speaker pointed out earlier this evening, it is not the purpose of criminal law to condemn everything that is immoral, and still less must it condemn everything that is abnormal. Some conduct that is immoral or abnormal is also criminal, but some, indeed much, is not disapproved of by the criminal law. It is equally clear to me, and I am glad to say to most members of the House, that in exercising a conscience vote a member ought not to give rein to his personal opinions or what some members might think are his personal prejudices. He ought to exercise his vote in the way he thinks is best for society. That view was expressed quite well by the member for North Shore. When the member for Waitotara, previously the member for Egmont, introduced his Bill 10 years ago I said that, after giving serious thought to whether this sort of conduct ought to continue to be criminal, I reached the conclusion on balance that it ought not to, and I still believe that. I did not reach that conclusion either lightly or easily, and I am certainly not persuaded that large numbers of people are being deprived by the present law of some right to sexual expression, but that is a matter I shall discuss very briefly when I come to Part II. I shall concentrate first on Part I. There are three quite narrow and somewhat pragmatic grounds on which I reached the conclusion that homosexual acts between consenting males of a proper age—and I choose that expression carefully-should no longer be criminal. First, I know, and experience in legal practice serves to confirm it, that for many years criminal proceedings have hardly ever been taken in the circumstances to which the Bill is mainly directed—acts by consenting adults of full age in private. Secondly, I know, and again my own experience in legal practice confirms it, that tremendous and dangerous pressures are exerted on male homosexuals under the present law and that those pressures lead to all kinds of objectionable activity and frequently to serious crimes such as blackmail. I looked up the speeches I made on the Bill 10 years ago and I see that during the second reading debate I mentioned that several charges of murder had arisen not long before that debate—if not out of homosexual conduct itself, at least in a setting of homosexual relations. Thirdly, in the light of my experience of the operation of the law, I believe that the passing of the Bill will eliminate the evils to which I have just referred, without increasing the risk of the spread of what I regard as immoral conduct. In 1975 I chose to abstain altogether from voting on the Bill, because of the concern I felt at that time about the behaviour, actions, and statements of some of its over-enthusiastic supporters. They were trying, as indeed they are now, to say that this is a permissible alternative life-style, or even that it is a good life-style. They were threatening to encourage and spread it as far as they could. It was that kind of conduct that actually persuaded me in the end that the only course available to me was to decline to vote. The conduct of the supporters of the Bill has been much the same this time, and even worse in a way. This time they have been joined in that by many of the opponents of the Bill, and their conduct has been rather worse. There has been gross intolerance on both sides, shouting down of the opinions of others, personal insults, and objectionable forms of pressure by both lobby groups. In 1975, as a result of electoral misfortune, I had to return to the practice of the law, and soon afterwards one case in which I was professionally involved illustrated for me once and for all the gravity of the pressures to which homosexuals are subject under the present law. That incident persuaded me in one hit that reform of the law was necessary in the public interest. I am sorry to have to say that the case concerned also showed how very badly some members of the police service treated homosexuals, at least at that time. It was clear from the evidence that they were harassed beyond belief in the street and elsewhere, simply because they were homosexuals. The case itself concerned disciplinary action against a policeman, and that at least showed that the Police Department management was opposed to such conduct. The evidence was an absolute object lesson to me. Without going into the details, I was shocked at what was revealed at the hearing. It is for that reason that I shall support Part I of the Bill in principle, though I do that rather as one choosing the lesser of two evils, or supporting without too much enthusiasm a legal reform that seems to me to be justified in the imperfect world we live in. The way I vote may in the end depend on the age that is decided upon. It is 16 in the Bill. I would prefer 20, although I am prepared to go along with 18. If that is defeated I have an anxious question in front of me and I shall not reveal at present what the answer may be. In fact, I have not actually determined that. I may be loath to see the reform defeated. I shall leave that there and go on to Part II, which is a different matter. It seeks to forbid discrimination against any person on the grounds of sexual orientation. If it is passed it will become impossible to treat homosexuals differently in almost any way because of their homosexuality. The proponents of the reform say it is unjust that they should be treated differently. They say that homosexuals have a basic or a fundamental human right to act as they do. Some even say—as they did 10 years ago—that homosexual liaisons are a valid alternative life-style. I am totally unable to agree with claims like that. One speaker earlier this evening said that if that kind of conduct is normal it might be appropriate to pass the amendment to the Human Rights Act. I have already said that in my view homosexual acts between males—which is what we are dealing with—are unnatural and abnormal, and I cannot see that there can possibly be anything that could be described as a basic or fundamental human right to act in a manner unnatural to man. Holding the view of homosexual acts that I do, it is quite impossible for me to vote for Part II of the Bill. I also believe that people who find homosexual acts totally repugnant-as I do—are entitled to shun homosexuals if they want to do so. I do not think that a person letting a part of a building-particularly if he lives in it himself—should be obliged to accept a homosexual as a tenant. I do not think that an employer ought to be bound to accept homosexual employees, at least when he is going to come into personal contact with them. There might be other examples, too. It is possible that some forms of discrimination practised by people against homosexuals are unnecessary and indefensible and might even be cruel in some instances. If that part of the Bill were directed solely at them I might consider supporting it. That would be quite different from what is in front of us, which is an amendment asserting that the right to treat homosexuals in any way differently ought to be totally withdrawn. I am unable to agree with that proposition and I shall vote against it. Finally, I tell the House that if the Bill receives its second reading I shall introduce provisions to preserve the law at present administered on this topic in the armed forces. An amendment to the Bill will be necessary in Part II, but it may be possible to preserve the present military and disciplinary law relating to homosexual acts without an amendment to Part I. Those matters are still under consideration and can be dealt with in the Committee stage. In short, I am in favour of Part I in principle, but I am having difficulties in the way I have indicated with the age, and I am totally opposed to Part II.

BILL DILLON (Hamilton East): The Bill has been previously described as decriminalising or legalising homosexuality. Therein lies the nub of the difficulty of dealing with the Bill. I believe it is important to distinguish between legality and morality. One of the earlier speakers this evening suggested that the kind of answer one received depended on how the question was raised. If a petition opposing the legalisation of homosexuality is circulated, a majority is likely to accept that viewpoint. However, if the same petition were to be circulated, wanting to know how many supported the decriminalisation of homosexuality, probably the same kind of majority would support the petition. Sodomy used to be dealt with in the ecclesiastical courts; so did adultery. I believe that that is where it should be returned, particularly as covered in the Bill in relation to adult consenting males in private. I appear to be the third consecutive practising Catholic to speak on the Bill, and I have the third different viewpoint. Right at the outset I say that I hold no brief for homosexuality. I consider it contrary to Christian moral standards, but I have a sympathy for the plight of homosexuals. I have had the advantage of chairing and being on the committee that dealt with the submissions on the Bill, and, consequently, hearing more than 1200 submissions and sighting the material made available to that committee. I have read letters both for and against the Bill. I have received some letters that horrified me, and some that gave me great heart and support. Medical and scientific research do not appear to have advanced from the findings of the Kinsey report in 1948. That report determined that there was a continuum of sexuality of a grade of 1:6. Later research during 1981 supported and updated those findings, but the continuum of 1:6 is still relevant. At one extreme is the person who is an outright homosexual, while at the other extreme is the person who is an outright heterosexual. It has been concluded that between 5 percent and 10 percent are at the homosexual end, their orientation being established probably before the age of 5 years. Consequently, we are dealing with a group in our community of up to 10 percent who, like those who are lefthanded, cannot—are unable to—avoid their sexual orientation. Given that, we then take the minority that we are being asked to consider when dealing with the Bill. I believe it is important that that be considered as a starting-point. No doubt, in the middle area between the grades of 1:6 there are many who can be persuaded to go one way or the other-heterosexuality or homosexuality. I am not concerned with those people—they must rely upon their education and family upbringing, and determine for themselves which choice they make. I speak as one of the members of the House who is particularly at risk over the total Bill. I say that because, according to the petition taken by those who opposed the law reform, the petition in my electorate contained 20 299 signatures. That amounted to an almost unbelievable 97.25 percent of the electorate. The Heylen poll conducted on 22 June recorded that 61 percent were in favour of reform, 35 percent were opposed to reform, and 5 percent were undecided. As a result of the publication of those figures for Hamilton East, Professor Pool of the University of Waikato undertook to check the poll. He conducted a random survey of 667 people in Hamilton East on 19, 20, and 21 September. His results showed that only 37 percent signed the petition. An editorial in the Dominion commented in the large divergence between the numbers claimed to be in favour of the petition and the numbers claimed against the petition. However, the final comment in the editorial was most important. It posed the question, “What is the use of determining the question on a number-crunching principle?" I accept that, even if 40 percent of the signatures are genuine, 8000 people in my electorate are opposed to the reform. That ought to give weight to the position 1 take and the attitude I adopt towards the Bill. However, I do not accept the article in yesterday's Waikato Times, which stated: “M.P.s unmoved by call”–

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but it is appropriate for me to point out—with some regret, because I do not want to interrupt his flow—that Speakers’ Rulings state several times that members may not quote newspaper comments on a measure before the House. The member may paraphrase, but he must not quote directly from the material he has in front of him.

BILL DILLON: I have been moved by the call; I have been moved by the number of letters; and I have been moved by the number of people who signed the petition, even if the number has been reduced to 8000. However, I put to one side the extremists on either side of the debate. Extreme positions are not consistent with the Gospel or with Christian tradition. I agree with the member for Porirua who, when the Bill was first introduced, said that tolerance and understanding were needed. The people of Hamilton East need to have that tolerance and understanding in accepting the way that I propose to consider the Bill, having had an opportunity of going through all the submissions that were put forward. I am supported in that by an announcement from the New Zealand Interchurch Council on Public Affairs that represents 11 Christian denominations, including the Catholic Church. The middle ground is the area where people ought to see my vote being cast. The member for North Shore has very accurately described the three issues—the decriminalisation, the age of consent, and the human rights issue. On the first of those issues there are those who seek to promote homosexual behaviour and life-styles as desirable alternatives to marriage and family life. At the other extreme there are those whose disapproval of homosexual behaviour has become distorted into a cruel rejection and disparagement of homosexual persons. I reject both of those views. I suggest that the enlightened understanding is that while I approve and uphold moral norms, designed for the sanctity or wholeness of individuals, it is still necessary to be compassionate towards any form of human weakness and necessary for Christians to be ever mindful of the dignity of all persons. I believe that the arguments that have been put forward require the law to decriminalise homosexuality. The second question then is that of the age of consent. By logic and principle it would seem necessary to have a uniform age for both heterosexual and homosexual relations. There is no clear evidence that boys need a further period of protection in relation to homosexual acts, in comparison to girls. However, being a father, and having had two boys and two girls in my own family, I am aware, as most parents would be, of the differences in their maturity rates. I am also conscious of those people who have expressed concern that the age of 16 for male homosexual acts is too low and, accordingly, I am not yet convinced that I should not support the age of 18. I suggest that age would give some solace to those people who are so firmly-perhaps blindly-opposed to the reform. It is a question for me to determine in my own mind as to whether the age of consent should be 18 or a lesser age. I refer to the third section of the Bill, which deals with human rights. There has been some misunderstanding of this human rights proposal. It is as a shield, not a sword. It is not available for people to use to claim something; it is available to them to protect them from being discriminated against. Our history shows the position of Maoris, women, and Catholics. In the 1930s a ghetto mentality was adopted by Catholics and there was evidence of their being discriminated against in relation to jobs. If there were two people going for one job and one was a Catholic it was quite possible that that Catholic could be discriminated against. That is not so now and I do not believe it has been for the past 40 years. It hurts me to find, as seems to be the case throughout the world, that those who have been persecuted become, in turn, the first and the most vocal to persecute. I refer to those who now form that brave little nation of Israel. Forty years ago they were the persecuted; now they appear on the world scene as a very feisty nation. It seems odd, but with that ghetto mentality one finds a vociferous method of challenging, of getting out of that minority group. There are those in the United States who would remember the Jews who had all the “Chutzpah”—the bravado. There would be those who would remember the Negroes who were referred to as being uppity niggers. It is the way that those minority groups have traditionally fought back. Consequently, I ask on behalf of those who have fought for the law reform that they be forgiven if they appear to have gone beyond the bounds, because it is in the nature of people to fight back in that way when they are a minority. This is a conscience vote. I intend to exercise my conscience vote as I have described. I ask my constituents who have heard me tonight to recall what I have said and the explanation for the way I shall vote.

Hon. JOHN FALLOON (Pahiatua): I did not come to Parliament necessarily to impose my views on moral issues on other members of society. However, I am not prepared to run away from the responsibility that a member of Parliament has in exercising the right to vote according to his or her beliefs or his or her electorate's beliefs. My decision has been made on the basis of personal experience and also on what I perceive my electorate believes. I am bound to say that personal experience is more important to me than what I have seen coming from the electorate. However, it happens to coincide with the views of correspondents and the people with whom I have discussed the matter. We cannot run away from the issue. I think my views would be somewhat different if homosexuals were being persecuted and confined to prison because of their sexual preference; but, given that that does not appear to be so, I will oppose the Bill in all its stages. The reasons were covered in part by the previous speaker when he said that the Kinsey report suggested that people could be graded on a 1:6 scale, and many could go either way. I do not perceive that as a society we are ready to accept that homosexuality is normal behaviour; I also do not see that as a society we would be prepared to accept that those individuals who, in the privacy of their own homes, in a relatively stable relationship, practise homosexual acts should be prosecuted. Like most members, given a choice I would back away from the issue and let society make up its mind according to its views. But, we cannot run away from what is happening in the community, and, in particular, the effects of a law of this Chamber on the vulnerable in our society. Parliamentarians have the unenviable task of making moral judgments on others by voting in the Chamber, and we are certainly not perfect. But, once again, we must take that responsibility and explain it to our electors. I said that I had had personal experience. I went to a boarding school where there was some homosexuality. I was one of a group of prefects who helped to remove from his job a headmaster, a man whom I respected. To this day I do not know whether we were right or whether what we did was just, but I do know the effect of the actions of that person on those who came to us and told us of the interference that occurred. Thai matter typifies why I am strongly opposed particularly to the age of 16 years—and, in fact, to the older age as well, for reasons I shall later discuss. I do not think the country is yet ready to see schoolmasters or headmasters with young vulnerable people, who may go either way, in a position in which they can be exposed to the kind of indoctrination so often espoused by the gay movement.

Hon. RUSSELL MARSHALL: That will still be illegal.

Hon. JOHN FALLOON: I believe that if the human rights part of the Bill is applied the Minister of Education will have difficulty in preventing the large number of active gays from being recruited in such schools. It will put the individuals responsible for the recruitment and employment of the teachers in the unenviable position of having to oppose the law. I take that view after discussing the matter with the people concerned. It is not something I have dreamt up, but is as a result of discussion and analysis. I also consider that if society were mature and prepared to accept the different deviances with more tolerance, perhaps we could have a different view on the law that is before the House. However, when there is a lack of tolerance on both sides—but, more particularly by the activists in the gay rights movement—I do not think we should accept a law that encourages that kind of behaviour. A meeting held in the Hutt Valley was supposed to be started with a prayer. When the Salvation Army major stood up to say “Our Lord Jesus” the gay people chanted from the floor, “Don't give us that Jesus Christ garbage here. He sodomised his own disciples." I do not accept that kind of behaviour any more than I accept the extremists on the other side. But I do not think the extremists on the other side are 100 concerned about trying to change the sexual preference of 16-year-old boys. They may well be trying to help the moral standards as they perceive them, and those moral standards are generally accepted by the majority of our society, including some people in the gay movement. However, sexual preference is different from moral standards and values. I return to the point that we should ensure that those people who can enjoy a heterosexual opportunity in life receive the advantage of that, as opposed to the possibility of being indoctrinated by the alternative life-style of the gay movement. I believe that, because I believe very much in the family as the stable part of our society. I do not accept that the gay communities of the world are stable. They may well provide an opportunity for people with a certain preference to come together and do the best they can, and good on them if that is what they believe, but I believe that would cause great divisions in attitude and great stress on our kind of society. Because they become politically active in all respects I am sure that the next stage of that development in New Zealand would be that they wished to bring up children. I would oppose any opportunity for people who are not prepared to be involved in precreation having the right to bring up a family. [Interruption.]

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I have already said that people in the public gallery do not have any part in the debate. I am not sure whether the same people are involved, but I point out to them that the gallery will be cleared if there is a repetition of the kind of sniggering that has been going on. I hope that is clear.

Hon. JOHN FALLOON: As I said earlier, the law must be a benchmark. The House must stand for certain standards of behaviour that we believe in. Many members who intend to vote in favour of the Bill say they find homosexuality repugnant. I must ask those members why, then, they wish to encourage it, because that is precisely what the Bill will do. They can still salve their consciences, if they want to be tolerant, by voting against the Bill, because the present law is being applied in a tolerant fashion. If we do not have that benchmark, the strong activist element in the gay movement will take it another step further and it will be the family and then the fabric of our society that will be under threat. I am not prepared to tolerate that when people are in such a vulnerable position in modern society, anyway, when so many of their options are not determined by a stable family background but by what people perceive as being the experimental society we are shaped in and exposed to. However, I am conscious of those people in the gay movement who feel strongly about human rights and attitudes. That is why, as I said earlier, if there were clear evidence of discrimination on the basis of those people being charged with offences, and if they had to meet jail terms or fines, I would have a different view, particularly about the age of consent. But at present I do not feel that either the gay movement or society is ready to be tolerant enough to accept the change to decriminalise homosexual activity in law, but not in practice. The behaviour of the camp in favour of the Bill has shown that this is only the beginning of the changes it wants to achieve in society and in society's attitudes on the issue. Being a politically active group, it is trying to increase its numbers. That illustrates to me that if the law is changed those vulnerable people will be more vulnerable than before. That condemns them to a position that the majority of our society would not ever accept as normal behaviour. I do not want more people in that group to be exposed to such a position. That is why I am opposed to all parts of the legislation.

DAVID BUTCHER (Hastings): I want to congratulate most of the participants in the debate on the second reading of the Bill. It has been of a high standard, with only one or two people descending to a narrow, partisan level; most people have seriously debated the issue. There are several reasons why I have not previously contributed to a debate on one of the personal morality questions that come before the House. One is the innate reluctance of many of us to discuss private and personal matters in public, even when they relate to other people. I also have a disinclination to preach or lecture others on how they should behave. As one who has never been blessed with a family, I am reluctant to parade my beliefs on this kind of issue in public at any time. However, on the present Bill I feel I owe it to my constituents to put my views on record. I intend to support decriminalisation of consensual homosexual activity. I believe that is the weakness in the argument of the member who immediately preceded me, in that the Bill refers only to activities that are consensual. I intend to support the greatly strengthened penalties against indecency with young children and the great improvements the Bill represents in that respect. I also intend to support the same age for males and females in activities with people of the same sex. At this stage I am inclined to oppose the human rights clause in the Bill, because of what I perceive to be the potentially divisive diversions that could be created if there is decriminalisation. I am prepared to listen to argument on the matter, and I look forward to that debate at a later stage of the Bill. The main issue, therefore, for me, turns on the vexed question of the age of consent. My initial preference was for an age of at least 18 for both males and females. However, experience has surely shown us all in recent history that the present age of 16 is breached more than it is honoured, and I believe it would be unfair for the age to be different. Reluctantly, then, I have come to the view that if the Bill is to be passed, the age of 16 is probably the only logical age to be incorporated in it. In fact, I believe that because the Bill relates only to consensual activity, there would be very little practical difference, irrespective of the age written into the Bill. Originally, like many members, I felt obliged to make an effort to sound out the views of my constituents. I published my views in a local newspaper that circulates to every household in my electorate and I received a number of letters and telephone calls as a result. However, over the years—and I have held these views for many years, I have entered into commitments based on my beliefs and the evidence I have seen. In those circumstances I believe that a poll of the kind many members have conducted could confuse people into believing that numbers would decide the issue. I do not think that is so. The validity of polls can always be questioned, as my colleague the Minister of Internal Affairs pointed out in his eloquent speech earlier this evening. In addition, many polls have been conducted by reputable polling organisations, and their conclusions have been very similar. If one is to support a measure of this kind it is important to put on the record how one came to that point of view. Many of my age group became involved in politics in the mid 1960s because of an abhorrence of persecution of the few by the many, and of the weak by the strong. We were involved in issues such as the war in Vietnam, apartheid, and corruption and dictatorship as they appeared around the world. That led us to a concern for issues closer to home, such as poverty, exploitation, and discrimination. That state of affairs leads naturally to opposition to laws that mark a minority of the population as being different because of matters beyond their personal control. For that reason, since the 1969 election—the first I contested— I have always said that I would support a law aimed at decriminalising homosexual acts between consenting adults. Following the reiteration of my views to the electorate I received many submissions both for and against. I believe that most of those submissions were made with the highest of motives and expressed sincerely held views. They certainly challenged my beliefs and required me to detail my views in my replies. I enjoyed the vigorous debate the letters engendered. I would not vote for the Bill if I did not think that the very real and sincere fears expressed by many people were groundless. I resented the threatening tone of some of the communications I received. I do not respond favourably to political threats. I believe firmly in a pluralistic society, and that involves several aspects, including the whole issue of religious freedom and the laws that apply to all religious faiths. I believe that an attempt to impose one set of beliefs on the entire population is a threat to a pluralistic society. Three arguments against the Bill have been mounted by many of its opponents. I shall mention briefly those arguments and what I think about them. The first has been that the Bill is against God's law. Frequently cited in support of that contention was chapter 20 of Leviticus, particularly the contents of verse 13 stating that if a man has sexual relations with another man both shall be put to death. However, those who drew that verse to my attention did not as enthusiastically draw to my attention verses 9 and 10, which refer to rebellious children and to adultery. Under our law none of those things attracts the death penalty prescribed by the scriptures. Only one attracts a criminal sanction under our present law. To those who say that the Bill is against the law of God, my reply is that that may well be so. The House has no capacity to change the law of God, but it does not imply that we have to write that into our criminal law. Many people say that the Bill is immoral because homosexuality is immoral. I would be quite prepared to accept the proposition that many people find homosexuality immoral; many others find it distasteful. I certainly find some of the practices described by the member for Hauraki very distasteful, but neither of those is a sound ground for making homosexuality illegal, because those practices are not confined necessarily to homosexuals. If it is the practice that we consider distasteful or destructive, it is the practice to which we should direct the attention of the law. That leads to the third argument, that homosexuality is unnatural—and that can have two meanings. The first meaning can be that it does not occur in nature. Certainly that is not so, as has been pointed out already. It attracts mention in the Bible. The best evidence available indicates that at least 5 percent to 10 percent of the population are that way inclined. Much evidence points to the determination of sexual preference occurring before the age of five. I ask those heterosexual people who believe that homosexuality is a matter of choice how they chose their sexuality. An argument based on unnaturalness in that sense cannot be sustained. The second context in which the word “unnatural” can be used is that certain parts of the body are designed for certain functions and should not be used for any other. As I have said before, the member for Hauraki and others have described some practices as distasteful, but certainly they are not confined to homosexuals, and, if it is the practice the member wants to proscribe, it is the practice that should be made illegal, and not the practice of it by only some people. All those things having been said, I point out that as a member of Parliament one does, of course, become involved in the personal affairs of many people as they come to make representations and to seek help. One of the representations I have received over the years illustrated dramatically, as much as anything, the reason the Bill, or something similar to it, should come forward. A young professional person from Hastings came to see me. He said he had discovered in his early twenties that he was a homosexual. He revealed that information to his parents who promptly threw him out of the house and wanted nothing more to do with him. He went to England on a scholarship, and in the course of his work there he met a man with whom he subsequently became very intimate. Shortly afterwards he had a major accident resulting in a prolonged period of hospitalisation. The only person in the world who was interested in him, and was prepared to look after him at the time, was his male friend. After making a partial recovery he was required to return to New Zealand because his British visa had expired. He wanted to bring his friend with him but was unable to do so, because his friend did not qualify under the immigration policy. Had his friend been female, and had they been married, the friend would have qualified automatically for admission to New Zealand. As the law stood then I could not approach the Minister of Immigration to exercise his discretion, because the very act of their living together was illegal under the law. No other person in the world was harmed by their relationship; it was a very sincere and meaningful relationship, and both of them gained a great deal from it. A law that creates such distress cannot be fair. A further case brought to my attention concerned a person who told me that as a 14year-old in the 1950s he knew where his sexuality lay, although he had never heard the word “homosexual”. He said he still remembered the agony as a 16-year-old after a school dance when he escorted his partner home. He was expected to kiss her goodnight, or even to hold her hand, and he could not do so. But he said that during his first brief experience at 17 with a homosexual, his body and his whole reactions were totally different. He said that after many years he reconciled his sexuality with his religious beliefs. He is now a lay reader in the Anglican Church and his lover is an elder of the Presbyterian Church. He said they have lived together for 10 years as happily fulfilled criminals. I do not believe that a law of that sort is fair. As somebody said earlier, the whole matter is really one of community attitudes. I do not believe that the Bill will make much difference to community attitudes, but in this House we pride ourselves on democracy. What is democracy if it is not the absolute right to be different and, in some circumstances, the absolute right to be wrong in the eyes of everybody else? I intend to support the Bill for that reason.

Hon. JIM BOLGER (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): I rise to speak on this important issue. I know there are many other important issues out in the community, whether the level of interest rates, the debt of the nation, the value of the New Zealand dollar, the crisis in farming, or the problems of exports—all of which are important. But tonight we are seized with the responsibility of discussing a private member's Bill, the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. It is a private member's Bill, but I think it is fair to observe that many would see it as a Labour Party Bill, inaccurate though that description is in technical terms. In most matters that members speak on in the House we have, as it were, the support of our colleagues, the support of a caucus position, a consensus that has been reached. We speak and vote in general and, almost universally, according to that consensus. On this Bill, as with a few others, we have no such support. Members individually have to make their own judgment, do their own research if they are of a mind to, take their own counsel. Some canvass the views of their electorates. Some gather their thoughts together in other ways. However, finally we have to stand alone in the Chamber, make a judgment, and vote according to that judgment. Some find making a judgment extremely difficult, and I cast no aspersions on them because of that difficulty. Others find it much more clear-cut, and their views are perhaps more firmly held. Pressure is the norm with legislation of this type-pressure from those in favour and pressure from those against. Lobby groups emerge. Issues are promoted, some with great vigour and some with a complete lack of subtlety. There is concern at times at the tactics of some of the enthusiasts, whether they be for or against, and that tends to obscure the real issues. As I have said before publicly, all should display tolerance in dealing with issues such as this. It is not consistent with the views of either side or the views of anyone that there should be a lack of tolerance for the views of others who may have a different viewpoint on homosexual law reform. I do not believe that any member's view will be changed because of abuse or threats. I do not believe that on a moral question members will be so easily dissuaded. That undervalues the integrity of members. I was one of the few members at present in Parliament when my colleague the member for Waitotara proposed reform in a much more modest fashion than the proposal at present before the House. On that occasion I spent some time with him and talked to those he believed it would be beneficial for me to talk to in order to give me a fuller understanding of all the issues involved. I welcomed that opportunity to listen and to assess, and I finally voted against my colleague's Bill. It is also my intention, despite the passage of the years, and despite all that has been written and said and stated and commented on, to vote against the Bill before the House. Much has changed. Attitudes have certainly changed in the community on several issues, and it would be correct to observe that what is termed a more liberal view—although some would dispute the word “liberal”—has now a greater measure of support than before. But one other issue has changed dramatically in the specifics of the debate and the Bill that we have before us at present, and that is the emergence of what was then unknown but is now known-the deadly disease of AIDS. AIDS is a fatal disease. It cannot be wished away. It cannot be pushed under the carpet. We cannot presume that it does not exist. It does. It kills. There is no known cure. The most common way to catch AIDS is through male anal intercourse. That is a statistical fact that no one is the Chamber can deny. The importance of that in terms of the Bill cannot be overlooked, because the first part of the Bill seeks to legalise male anal intercourse. It is as simple as that. It does not consider the issue of whether people can have homosexual love, because there is no law against that. What is against the law is the act of sodomy. The act of sodomy—to use a word that was for many years outdated but is now more commonly used—is the means by which most people will contract the killer disease AIDS. Others may be persuaded, but I am not persuaded, that Parliament can lightly put that matter to one side when considering the Bill. That is one reason, at least, why I am not persuaded to support the Bill, even though I have listened carefully to the argument that by legalising anal intercourse the control of AIDS will somehow be facilitated. I cannot, by the application of any logic, come to that conclusion. I cannot see how making something legal will prevent that disease. Again, there may be others who can so persuade themselves. I am not one of them. If more people were encouraged to engage in the act of anal intercourse, inevitably there would be an even wider spread of AIDS. That, again, is logical. That is the experience, according to the statistics that I have read, of other societies in which there has been legalisation or practice. AIDS is a major health threat, and while I do not want to put a financial sign on a moral question I must observe the financial aspect as well. The Chamber must very carefully consider that aspect before it votes on the issue. A major argument in favour of the law change is the simple proposition that the law has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. That has been said on many occasions with conviction. On first hearing, it has a comfortable ring about it. It sounds a comfortable notion, and one that perhaps one should be persuaded to accept until one thinks a little more deeply and finds that the law states very precisely that in many circumstances it has a place in the bedrooms of the nation. It certainly states that it has a role when dealing with the young of the nation. It certainly states that it has a role in the bedrooms of the nation if one is dealing with heterosexual sex with girls under the age of 16. So there is no basic proposition that the law has no place there. We are then left with a qualified statement that the law from time to time has a place in the bedrooms of the nation. Therefore, it is a question of whether it has a place at the present time or in the present issue. I do not believe that any member would dispute the belief that young people should be protected. It must be said also that there are people active in promoting the acceptability of homosexual acts who dispute that. Some people believe that sex between a man and a boy is normal. I say that to illustrate the point that there are other reforms—if I may misuse that word—that some people would want Parliament to approve at a later date. I am sure it will not approve such reforms in my time, and I hope it will never approve such reforms. The House must make a quite simple decision on a complex matter: does it legalise, and thereby give some public sanction to, homosexual acts between consenting males over the age of 16 years, 18 years, or 20 years, depending on which viewpoint is accepted? I add here that one of my colleagues has told me that he is prepared to accept the Bill if the age is 94 years, though I doubt whether that amendment will be put. Members must accept that if they vote in favour of reform they are giving sanction to homosexual acts. We must not mislead ourselves by saying that we would simply be ratifying the status quo—and, to some extent, we would be; but we would be going one step further and saying that it was normal in the eyes of the law, and that, of course, would widen the occasions when homosexuality could be promoted as a normal and acceptable life-style. Many New Zealanders who have great sympathy for active homosexuals would not want anal intercourse to be promoted, or be seen to have been promoted, by Parliament as normal behaviour. I am one such person. Another argument that is advanced is that the law must be amended to prevent harassment because harassment is wrong, and the only way to prevent it is to amend the law and, therefore, to give a cloak of normalcy to what is presently proscribed by the law. Again, it sounds attractive to say that if Parliament makes the practice normal the harassment would not take place. The first question that must be asked is whether the level of harassment makes that a major issue. I know that an earlier speaker tonight drew on some historical evidence and reminded the House that perhaps it did happen in an earlier time. I have not read, heard of, or been presented with any case of recent times in which the behaviour of adult males in the confines of their bedrooms has been brought to the attention of the courts. The harassment argument tends to fall down on the ground that it did not have substance in the first place. In deciding whether or not I want to put my name beside the legalising and, therefore, the normalising of anal intercourse, I cannot persuade myself that it is a biologically normal function for the human body. Some may be able to, but nothing I have read or seen suggests to me that to engage in that activity is a normal biological function of males. Therefore I would have to say that I have listened; I have been sympathetic to those who have seen me to talk about the issue; I have tried to understand their views; I have tried to see the issue from their point of view, which, I believe, one must do; but, having done all that, I have to inform the House that I shall vote against the Bill.

FRED GERBIC (Onehunga): I propose to vote for the second reading of the Bill. I believe that adult homosexuality should be decriminalised to the extent that the Bill proposes. The fact that the law has not been enforced in relation to homosexuals indicates that it is unenforceable, and that it is, in itself, an ass. The law has been no restraint on the development of homosexuality in society. In my experience, homosexuals are in general good citizens. They do a lot of good work in the community, in social welfare and for voluntary organisations, and they should not be classified as criminals or subjected to the criminal law. Other members have covered that point more eloquently than I could. I have some concerns about the Bill. I have to report to the House that I conducted a survey in my electorate. I sent out 1000 questionnaires to randomly selected electors, and the result was that the electors in Onehunga are roughly equally divided on the subject-in fact, within seven votes. Like other members of the House I have received much correspondence on the subject, and a substantial majority of those letters from the electorate favour the Bill. Members of the House have made some very eloquent and sincere speeches. Like every member I have been subjected to submissions from electors, but I have not had the benefit of attendance at the select committee hearings so I have had to rely on the evidence that has been presented to me. I shall refer to the submission from the Department of Justice to the select committee, which was sent to each member—and I refer particularly to a section of it that deals with a policy advisory committee on sexual offences that was convened in the United Kingdom in 1980. It stated that a majority of 10 members of that committee considered that the age for consensual homosexual relations should be reduced from 21 to 18 years. It went on to state: “It is our experience that between the ages of 16 and 18 girls are on the whole more mature than boys in their approach to sexual relationships and that in so far as it is possible to generalise boys have caught up with girls in the process of maturing by the age of 18." The report stated that the majority expressed some doubts about contemporary medical opinion that a young man's sexual orientation was fixed by the age of 16, although it was accepted that sexual orientation was firmly established by the age of 18. I noted also in the report that in England, Scotland, and Wales the age of consent for homosexual activity is 21, compared with 16 for heterosexual activity. In New South Wales the age of consent for homosexual activity is 18, compared with 16 for heterosexual activity. The report advises that, from a pragmatic point of view, to make the age of consent 18 would be likely to lessen what appears to be the genuinely held concern of a considerable number of people in the community, and would also place the Bill in the mainstream of overseas reforms. The survey conducted in my electorate proved that a substantial majority preferred the age of either 18 years or 20 years. When I considered the Bill at the outset I used a simple yardstick: I am satisfied that adult homosexuality should be decriminalised. I then considered the question of adult age, and I believe that the age of 18 is appropriate. I believe that 16 is too young, although I know that whatever age is fixed will be an arbitrary figure. I believe there is a need to establish a differential between homosexual activity and heterosexual activity. Despite hundreds of years of homosexual practice, I cannot accept that homosexual activity is a normal activity. Some people have said that the age of consent should be equal between the sexes, and that to have a higher homosexual age would be to discriminate against young men. They questioned why young men need more protection that young women. In fact, discrimination is already practised against young women in regard to heterosexual activity, which is prohibited under the age of 16. Young men do not have any restrictions in law—they can practise heterosexual activity from capability. The age of consent is an arbitrary judgment. However, considering all matters, I believe that 18 is the appropriate age for homosexual activity. I am also concerned about the amendment regarding human rights. I have not heard any evidence to support the need for that amendment. I have not heard of any cases of discrimination against homosexuals in housing or employment. I question the need for the amendment. If I were the owner of a house property for rent, I should be delighted to let my accommodation to homosexuals. I think they are careful, fastidious, and proper people in a tenancy. I also note that the Residential Tenancies Bill, which will be passed in due course, provides protection for tenants who are evicted from their homes, or who are under threat of eviction. They can appeal to a tenancy tribunal. Members will know that I have had considerable experience in the employment area-not less than 23 years in the industrial field. During that time I did not have referred to me, or have occasion to take up, a case of discrimination relating to the employment of homosexuals or the dismissal of a worker because that worker was a homosexual. I believe that with the passage of the amendment homosexuals would be given a privilege that no other person holds. A homosexual worker, covered by an award, who was dismissed from employment, would have the same right as every other person to go to a personal grievance hearing and have his case against the dismissal appealed or determined finally by the Arbitration Court. Every worker is entitled to make such an appeal. I am willing to be convinced on those issues. I have a relatively open mind, but I must say that I have not heard any evidence so far to convince me that I should change my mind about the age of consent and the amendment to the human rights legislation. I should like to hear a response by the sponsor of the Bill to the issues I have raised. In conclusion, I compliment her on introducing the Bill to the House and on placing the issue before the House and the people so that the people can have a voice, through us, on the subject. She has done the work with dignity and courage, and I certainly compliment her.

BILL SUTTON (Hawke's Bay): There is no doubt in my mind that the matter we are debating is of great importance. It raises fundamental issues, many of which have been adequately debated already. I am sure it will play a part in determining thousands of votes in the next election. I congratulate most of those members who have already spoken on their sincerity and restraint. However, I find myself with a great deal more to say on the matter, and some of it has yet to be canvassed in the debate. I wish to speak as a scientist and to make some comments on the biological evidence relating to homosexuality. I wish to report the views of my Hawke's Bay constituents in so far as I have been able to determine them, and, finally, to foreshadow certain amendments that I intend to move in the Committee stage. The widespread occurrence of male homosexuality is a matter of common knowledge, and also a matter of scientific record. Barrett et al. have stated that homosexuality is one of the oldest and more commonly indulged sexual behaviours. They refer, as many members have, to Kinsey's report and to later reports that confirm all the main conclusions of Kinsey. They state that most children pass through a stage of homosexual exploratory activity that is not considered to be either criminal or deviant. They further point out that oral-genital sexual practices are no longer considered deviant, and marriage manuals now include those behaviours in their normal list of precursors to sexual intercourse. They also refer to the fact that a smaller proportion of men persist with exclusively homosexual behaviour throughout their lives. The biological basis of that behaviour is still a matter for scientific debate. Barrett et al. hold the view that it appears that neither genetic defects nor hormonal influences play a part. Other scientists who have studied the field come to different conclusions. Money and Erhard hold the view that gender identity is critically determined by levels of hormones, particularly sex hormones, during either the pre-natal stage or the early post-natal development of the brain. In other words, their view—and it appears to be a strongly held view among scientists who have studied the field—is that there are actual changes in brain structure during development as a result of the hormonal environment that determine gender identity. If that view is correct, it follows that homosexuality is not a chosen behaviour; nor is it likely to be curable. That is the view strongly put forward by the Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, which stated in its submission to the select committee that the notion that homosexuality can be treated as a disease is inappropriate and unacceptable. Many homosexuals lead well-adjusted lives and have no need for medical treatment. If I turn from matters of scientific record to my own personal observations, it is apparent that male homosexuality is widely prevalent in New Zealand. Like some of the other members who have spoken in the debate, I attended a boys' boarding school for 5 years. I observed several instances of adolescent homosexual behaviour, such as mutual masturbation. When I was at school a small group of boarders openly adopted a homosexual behavioural pattern. They were, by and large, tolerated by the majority. I have since been told that that is a most unusual occurrence in New Zealand high schools. Several members of the group were involved in a scandal in which they were discovered engaged in sexual activities with boys who had not previously been suspected of having homosexual inclinations. Interestingly enough, it was the latter group, not the former group, that was regarded by most of the boarders as being disgraced. Some of those involved have since attained responsible and respected positions in New Zealand provincial towns. With respect to broader fields of homosexual behaviour, a men's discussion group that I joined in the late 1970s included two adult male homosexuals, one of whom introduced me to several of his friends. In that way I learnt that many practising homosexuals lead outwardly normal lives in our provincial towns. The question of the basic human dignity of male homosexuality has received little attention in the debate. Nobody who values literature could fail to be aware that the world of homosexual love is seen as being as rich and multifarious for homosexuals as the world of heterosexual love is seen as being for heterosexuals. One of the finest love poems I know was written by a practising male homosexual, W. H. Auden. I will quote it in its entirety because it is a reasonable antidote to some of the long descriptions of homosexual behaviour made by people who regard such behaviour as disgusting. The untitled poem reads: Lay your sleeping head, my love, Human on my faithless arm; Time and fevers burn away Individual beauty from Thoughtful children, and the grave Proves the child ephemeral: But in my arms till break of day Let the living creature lie, Mortal, guilty, but to me The entirely beautiful. On the stroke of midnight pass Like vibrations of a bell, And fashionable madmen raise Their pedantic boring cry: Every farthing of the cost, All the dreaded cards foretell, Shall be paid, but from this night Not a whisper, not a thought, Not a kiss nor look be lost. Soul and body have no bounds: To lovers as they lie upon Her tolerant enchanted slope In their ordinary swoon, Grave the vision Venus sends Of supernatural sympathy, Universal love and hope; While an abstract insight wakes Among the glaciers and the rocks The hermit's sensual ecstasy. Beauty, midnight, vision dies: Let the winds of dawn that blow Softly round your dreaming head Such a day of sweetness show Eye and knocking heart may bless, Find the mortal world enough; Noons of dryness see you fed By the involuntary powers, Nights of insult let you pass Watched by every human love. Certainty, fidelity. There are many testimonials in literature to the profound loving feelings that some male and female homosexuals experience. We should treat those feelings with the respect we accord to all human love. Anal intercourse has occupied the attention of a number of members who have spoken in the debate. I believe it is a minority practice for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. The anus is anatomically placed close to the genitals, and some anal stimulation is virtually inevitable during sexual activity. Anal touching and other forms of behaviour are said to be experimented with by many heterosexual couples. Anal intercourse is perhaps less common. However, I note that in many of the rape trials reported in the New Zealand news media there are also charges of heterosexual sodomy. There were 331 charges and 46 incarcerations for sodomy in New Zealand between 1973 and 1983. Although there is no record of how many of those sodomised were female and how many were male, it is my impression that most of the victims were female. Those numbers are dwarfed by the reported sexual crimes against children. In 1983 alone there were 549 reported sexual crimes against girls under the age of 16 years, and 153 against boys under 16 years of age. Only 11 of those involved sodomy. My personal view is that homosexual law reform is overdue. However, as the member for Hawke's Bay I have tried to ascertain the views of my constituents. The number of people who signed the petition against the Bill was 4849, or 15 percent of the total electoral population in Hawke's Bay. That was a lower proportion than in many provincial seats. There is evidence that that number may be underestimated, and that many of those who are opposed to the Bill would probably not be prepared to sign a petition. In April and May I had a telephone survey carried out in Hawke's Bay using 120 names selected at random from the electoral roll. Eighty percent agreed to answer; of those, 57 percent agreed that homosexual acts between adult males should be permitted, and 43 percent were against. Only one of the respondents did not know. In other words, the majority were in favour of decriminalising anal intercourse. The majority of those who were in favour supported either 18 years or 20 years as the age of consent. Similar answers were given in respect of lesbian acts. When asked whether it should be illegal to discriminate against homosexuals as in the provisions of Part II of the Bill, 68 percent were in favour of making discrimination illegal. Those figures are in good agreement with Heylen polls that have been carried out in New Zealand. The most recent poll showed that 61 percent supported law reform and 34 percent opposed it, but that only 22 percent would support 16 as the age of consent. Therefore the majority view appears to be clear enough. However, I must report that this has been a bitterly divisive issue in Hawke's Bay, as it has been in other parts of the country. I have received 117 letters and telephone calls on the subject; 59 percent of them were opposed to the Bill, and 41 percent were in favour of it. Some of the views on both sides were highly extreme, and I felt that they revealed a frightening depth of hatred. One constituent declared that the passage of the Bill would condemn more souls to hell than 1,000,000 nuclear bombs. Another constituent described homosexuals as arrogant, vicious liars, and stated that he would not want them in the school, the office, the factory, or the services. On the other side of extremism one woman declared that heterosexual men were responsible for rape, incest, venereal disease, and unwanted lives, and that those opposed to the Bill were a radical fringe of inhuman religionists. I am glad to report that I also received many sensible and sincere letters from people holding both liberal and conservative views on the matter. The most moving messages I received came from adult male homosexuals. I shall not read extracts from them because without the personal human details they would lose their impact, and I do not want to risk revealing their identities. Finally, of the six personal letters I received from Hawke's Bay ministers of religion, two were opposed to the Bill and four supported it. Coming to the proposed legislation, it is clear to me that I must support reform of the law as a matter of conscience and in response to the majority view of my constituents. As there is such extreme division, I believe that it is necessary to try to reach some pragmatic stance that will broaden the agreement and reduce the division. I see no valid reason for criminal law to be invoked against adult male homosexual acts when similar heterosexual or lesbian acts are permitted. Other members have spoken adequately on that matter. However, I do not support the full provisions of Part I or Part II, and I serve notice that I shall move several amendments in the Committee stage. In Part I, I believe that 16 years as the proposed age of consent for anal intercourse is unacceptable to most New Zealanders. If that provision were to be passed it would move substantially ahead of public opinion, not only in Hawke's Bay but also throughout the country. Therefore I shall move an amendment to the proposed new section 142 suggesting 18 years as the age of consent. That would have the purpose, first, of making the Bill more broadly acceptable, and, second, of reinforcing the current medical opinion that anal intercourse is a dangerous practice. I shall speak at more length on that in the Committee stage. The suggested age is the same as the voting age. Finally, if that amendment to the proposed new section 142 were confined, there would be no discrimination between homosexual and heterosexual practices. The proposed new sections 140 and 140a, which relate to indecency with boys, should, in my opinion, remain unchanged, as they would bring that section of the Crimes Act into line with sections 133 and 134 relating to indecency with girls. I propose to put forward several amendments to Part II of the Bill. First, the definition of sexual orientation in clause 9 should be amended to read “sexual orientation in relation to any person means that heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual preference of that person". Second, I believe that sections 15(3)(c), 15(6), and 21(2) of the Human Rights Commission Act should be amended to permit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation as well as on the grounds of sex. Those provisions relate to domestic employment in a private household and to any position, authorisation, or qualification that is for the purposes of an organised religion and is limited so as to comply with the doctrines or rules of the religion or to avoid offending the religious susceptibilities of the adherents. Provided those or similar amendments can be passed, I intend to support both parts of the Bill. I believe that the amended Bill will be acceptable to most of my constituents in Hawke's Bay.

DEREK ANGUS (Wallace): First, I congratulate the four members who have given up so much of their family life and spare time to campaign against the legislation in order to preserve and maintain some kind of decent order in our society. On behalf of the many good and well-meaning New Zealanders who worked to solicit support, I also congratulate the organisers of the largest petition to be presented to Parliament. It could be argued whether the numbers are 800,000 or 500 000; it is still the largest petition to be presented to Parliament. It was amazing to see the mover of the Bill appearing on television on the same day as the petition was presented to Parliament, looking like a startled hen that was being chased off her nest—and well she might! She looked startled, confused, and shocked because many New Zealanders had spoken clearly in that petition. She was in a state of shock because it was clearly shown that the legislation is not needed, supported, or wanted by most people. The Government and the member for Wellington Central are clearly trying to destroy the normal strong structures and the very fabric of family life. Clearly the Bill was brought in to create a smokescreen to divert people's attention from the failure of the Government in the economic field and from the real issues of inflation, interest rates, and the cost of living. To try to legalise homosexuality for 16-year-olds spells disaster, and I certainly will not support any part of the Bill—nor would most people in my electorate want me to do so. I would go so far as to say that there will be some members in the House who will even regret their support for the Bill at the next election. Members should think for themselves and vote with their own consciences on this particular issue. Homosexuality is a complex issue, which must be considered with compassion and concern for the individuals involved. However, in the long run, society and many individuals in it will be worse off if the Bill is passed. The argument is frequently put forward that homosexual practices are not immoral, but are an alternative sexual orientation that is as moral and normal as heterosexual practices. It is certain that if Parliament passes the Bill homosexuality will eventually become acknowledged as a morally accepted sexual practice. That is certainly the expectation of the so-called gay rights movement. What then is morality? Are moral values merely relative to the present social mores? On what ground can homosexual practices be moral and, say, violence be immoral? A popular concept is that any action is O.K. as long as it does not harm others—we should live and let live; we know the sayings. If that is so, then practices such as orgies, prostitution, pornography, polygamy, adultery, incest, sodomy of animals, drug abuse, and so on, should not be interfered with by law or condemned by intolerant objectors, as long as all parties involved consent. Is that not what some of the supporters of the Bill are saying? Surely it is inconsistent to say that violence in society will always be wrong, whereas homosexual practices may be regarded now as an acceptable moral standard. We are talking about violence. I was disappointed to read today in an article in the Tablet that supporters of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill have savagely attacked church leaders. The latest attack is made in the most recent issue of Out, in which it is stated: “The. language used shows that whatever happens in the Bill the gays plan an aggressive strategy against all opposed to them-churchmen and politicians." The article also warns that “if the Bill does not pass, the active element of the gay movement could become very active indeed in spite of the law. It would be unrealistic not to expect a reaction against supporters of the petition who may have been seen to be unwise in identifying themselves. However wrong it may be, gay bashers and their families could well find themselves and their property at risk.” Do the people who make such statements deserve any compassion or support? I have been reliably informed that the gay task force around the world is watching the progress and, it hopes, the passage of the Bill. I wonder why? For many years many homosexuals have remained in the closet, so to speak, concealing their behaviour from employers, from friends, and even from spouses. Many wrestled against their impulses in much the same way as an exposer wrestles against the compulsive behaviour that makes him feel guilty and ashamed. But they are not the people for whom the gay rights laws are primarily designed or who lobbied for them, because they keep their sexuality private and they are seldom if ever discriminated against. I really do not argue against that group. However, members of the militant homosexual community have sought to overcome the natural revulsion against their behaviour by making largely successful efforts to polish their image. That group has won the support of many people of good will, including prominent religious and political leaders, and then its members make statements such as those published in the Tablet. What spill over effects does homosexuality have on society? Homosexual behaviour leads to problems far beyond the circles of homosexuals themselves. As a group, for example, homosexuals release both disease and crime into our society to an extent far in excess of their percentage of the population. Research around the world confirms that. The connection between homosexuals and health has been underscored more recently by the rise of AIDS. The medical community has long known the medical facts of homosexuality. Medical specialists have known about the disproportionate impact on the sick homosexual community of diseases such as syphilis, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, and so on. Although homosexuals may be small in number—some estimate 1 in 10 or 1 in 20 of the United States population—they carry more than 44 percent of that nation's cases of syphilis, 51 percent of gonorrhoea of the throat, and 53 percent of intestinal infections. Forty percent of homosexuals in the United States admit to that infection. One survey in Amsterdam showed syphilis in about 34 percent of homosexuals who were attending saunas in that city. In San Francisco and Minneapolis, diseased homosexual food handlers in public restaurants have been responsible for major outbreaks of serious diseases such as hepatitis A. Unfortunately, homosexuals have a rate of infectious hepatitis B that is 20 to 50 times greater than that of heterosexual males. It is no wonder that Dr Seymour Dritz, an official of the San Francisco health department, wrote that special precautions are required to protect the public from carriers who work as food handlers, bartenders, attendants in medical care facilities, or as teachers and aides in day care centres for infants and young children. In the last decade, since gay rights laws have been in effect in San Francisco, there has been a sharp increase of venereal disease in that city-22 times the national average. Infectious hepatitis has increased by 100 percent. Infectious hepatitis B has increased by 300 percent in other large areas. In San Francisco there are 75,000 patients each year, of whom 80 percent are homosexual males. It is interesting to note that despite efforts by the South Australian Government and agencies, and the AIDS task force, to alert homosexuals to the dangers posed by AIDS, a survey in South Australia has found that most have not changed their sexual habits to prevent the spread of that horrific disease. In Adelaide, more than 300 young homosexuals were interviewed in city bars and discos where homosexuals are known to meet and most said they had not changed their life-style or sexual behaviour because of the threat of AIDS. There is another constant question: are homosexuals born that way? Although gay rights laws customarily speak of the affectional preferences, homosexuals on the defensive frequently say they have no choice.

Debate interrupted. The House adjourned at 11 p.m.