Homosexual Law Reform Bill - second reading continued

Debate resumed from 23 October 1985.

DEREK ANGUS (Wallace): Today there will be many New Zealanders who will be disappointed about the cavalier fashion in which the largest petition ever to be presented to Parliament was reported back to the House by the member for Hamilton West. The people will not forget that. This is the Government that was elected to discuss and to take note of the people's views. I suggest that the people have spoken. Before the debate was interrupted I had spoken about the danger of homosexual activities on the health of our people. If the Bill is passed there will be a large increase in the number of people affected and hospitalised with, in many instances, quite unfortunate results. Those facts cannot be denied. The perilous combination of a disease-ridden population and increasing promiscuity led to the recent worldwide epidemic that has brought those facts to public attention. AIDS burst into prominence in 1981, and soon had more fatalities than Legionnaires disease and toxic shock syndrome combined. Fewer than 14 percent of AIDS victims around the world have survived more than 3 years, and no victim is known to have fully recovered. Responsibility for sexual practice is shuffled to one side by the claims that homosexuals are born that way or merely discover and affirm their natural tendency, and that they cannot change their nature. On that point the factual evidence is increasingly clear and well documented. Although there were early studies that suggested a biological reason for homosexuality, nearly all modern analysts support the conclusion that homosexuals are not born that way; they learn to be that way. A professor at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine recently said: “Homosexuality—the choice of a partner of the same sex for orgiastic satisfaction-is not innate. There is no connection between sexual instinct and the choice of sexual object. Such an object choice is learnt, acquired behaviour. There is no inevitable, genetically born propensity towards the choice of a partner of either the same or the opposite sex. Homosexuals do not simply discover an alternative, perfectly normal form of sexual behaviour somehow natural to them. They acquire it through a variety of decisions, a variety of influences, and a choice and orientation towards a behaviour and later a pattern of behaviour that is disordered and dangerous.” Dr Armand Nicholai of Harvard University recently said: “I have treated hundreds of homosexuals. None of them deep down thought he was normal. Simulating eating is not eating; simulating being female is not being female; simulating sex is not sex.” Another frequent comment is, “I am for more rights, not fewer.” Giving special rights to homosexuals takes away the rights of others, and, once a homosexual makes an accusation, can even make those others guilty until proved innocent. That shift of the burden of proof is made as a typical privilege given to classes protected by homosexual rights laws. Another common saying is that we should show compassion. I certainly do. The homosexual is without doubt a proper subject for the exercise of compassion, but compassion is not shown by pretending that homosexual behaviour is normal or healthy, any more than by pretending that an alcoholic should celebrate his alcoholism. Compassion for the homosexual comes from treating him as a responsible moral being who can and must change his behaviour. Compassion must also be shown to the innocent victims of homosexuals, such as those who have been medically or psychologically damaged by them. To give homosexuals special treatment or to accept their life-style as healthy is compassionate neither to homosexuals nor to society at large. Most leading psychologists now agree that homosexuality is not innate and does not have any genetic connection. Dr Charles Socrates, author of papers most frequently used by medical scholars on the subject, has pointed out in a leading work on homosexuality that homosexuality is learnt, acquired behaviour. Other studies have demonstrated that homosexuality has nothing to do with hormones or hormonal imbalance. Another saying is that homosexuals cannot change. I have spoken to two people in the House in the past fortnight. I admire them for coming forward to members within the House who wanted to discuss with them their decision to leave the group. Recent evidence has shown that the homosexual can be changed, and they proved that to me. Another saying is that a person should be able to do what he wants to do in the privacy of his bedroom. That is simply not true, and were it to be codified society could not protect itself from incest, child abuse, bigamy, prostitution, and a host of other private acts that have more severe social consequences. Another saying is, “I am against discrimination in any form." Everyone is against discrimination. The word has a connotation of prejudice and bigotry. However, there is a difference between permitting discrimination on an irrational basis and permitting employers, landlords, or others to exercise a sound discretion based on a legitimate factor. Refusing to pass laws giving special privileges to homosexuals is not discrimination. In fact, it would be discriminatory to do so. Important decisions in life such as the decision about who may associate with one's children must naturally turn on considerations of moral character. Moreover, deep-seated religious convictions that homosexuality is wrong ought to be respected.

Hon. RUSSELL MARSHALL (Minister of Education): I say at the outset that I support the Bill in its entirety as it was introduced, and I congratulate the member for Wellington Central on at last enabling the House to have the opportunity to discuss these matters. I have personally supported the proposal for reform ever since I have been in the House, and I shall go into the reasons for that shortly. I shall begin my speech with a brief recapitulation of the history of this matter in my time since 1972. When the Labour Government took office at the end of 1972 there were high hopes that some homosexual law reform legislation would be introduced. Several people were approached and names were canvassed, but unfortunately our collective caution prevailed, and before we had time finally to resolve the matter, whereby somebody in the Government ranks would introduce the Bill, the member for Waitotara, as he is now, introduced the 1974 legislation. I commend the member for his courage at that time. I know something of the travails he went through. I suspect that it is a little easier for people in metropolitan communities, although I doubt that the member for Wellington Central would agree with me; but I know that the West Coast of the North Island would not be the most popular place for a private member's Bill such as this to be introduced. However, although it was a cautious Bill the House did not have sufficient courage to pass it and it was declined. Although there were various discussions in the intervening years about the possibility of reintroducing legislation, it did not happen until the present Bill appeared. I was one of those who was involved in discussions on a number of occasions with members of the Homosexual Law Reform Society about the form of legislation that could be introduced, and who might introduce it. For example, some members will remember that when the Labour Party was in Opposition the Hon. Warren Freer was close to introducing a Bill. During those discussions it became clear that the proposal to introduce a Bill with the age of consent at 18 years did not have the support of the gay community, and that if a Bill were to be introduced the job should be done properly and the age of consent for homosexuality should be the same as for heterosexuality. I was one of those who took some time to work my way through to that view, and I shall return to my reasons for that later. I am now strongly convinced that we ought to have the same legislation across the board. I am also strongly persuaded that sexual determination is made long before anyone reaches the age of 16 years. People will not be turned into homosexuals at the age of 18 years, 17 years, 16 years, or even some years before that. I pay tribute to the efforts Marilyn Waring made during some of those years, when she was a member of the previous Government, to try to get legislation through. I remember that one of the people with whom we had discussions from time to time was the present Leader of the Opposition, who was then Attorney-General and Minister of Justice. He was encouraging to us about the manner in which we might introduce the legislation. I have been surprised and very sorry to hear the attitudes now expressed by him in the House, which are very different from the attitudes he expressed during the discussions that several of us took part in over the years. The first set of issues to which I want to give my attention arise from my position as Minister of Education. Several questions have been raised. Some have been genuinely responsible, but there has been a good deal of grossly irresponsible scaremongering. People have asked questions about the impact on schools and children if the legislation is passed. I want to answer some of those questions to the best of my ability and with the briefing I have received from my staff. The first set of questions arise from the fact that a health education syllabus has been introduced with a component that is sometimes called sex education, but is really puberty information. It also gives teachers the right to answer questions openly and honestly as they arise. There have been suggestions that, now that the syllabus has been approved and some schools are giving it a trial, homosexual teachers might seek to influence the attitudes and behaviour of students through the teaching programmes based on the revised health education syllabus, especially in discussing aspects of sex education or family life. I assure members that the contents of the programme of the health education syllabus for junior, middle, and senior primary classes do not support that claim. The suggested programme for health education is clearly spelt out at every level, and it does not include any topics that would open the way for discussion of sexual preferences. Up to standard 4 we have allowed teachers to answer questions as they arise, but not to go on at any great length. At forms I and II we are talking about coping with bodily pubertal change—nothing to do with relationships whatsoever. There is no room in the new syllabus material now prescribed for promotion of either heterosexual or homosexual attitudes or points of view. Homosexuality could arise as a topic for discussion, but all the evidence is that sexuality is determined in the earliest years of a child's life. In all aspects of the health syllabus teachers are expected to be sensitive to the parents' views and to cultural and community values. Guidelines to this effect have been drafted, and will form part of the resource materials to remind teachers that their personal viewpoints should not be promoted either through formal programmes for sex education or in answering students' questions. I have had a further briefing on this matter from officers of the curriculum development unit of the Department of Education in response to allegations made by the Concerned Parents Association and others. In replying to my queries they pointed out that the Concerned Parents Association made several references to difficulties that parents, school authorities, and employing bodies might have in taking disciplinary action against individual teachers. I am advised that the passage of the Bill would make no difference when a justifiable complaint is made about either the conduct of a teacher or a teacher's advocacy of particular values or life-styles. Parents will still have the right to complain about the actions of teachers whether the orientation is heterosexual or homosexual, and they will be able to complain to the principal of a school or to the employing authorities. The passing of the Bill will make no difference to the present position—that disciplinary proceedings cannot be taken against a teacher solely on account of his or her sexual orientation or private life-style. The memorandum goes on to point out that the Concerned Parents Association sought to raise parents' fears that homosexuality could be presented to students as “normal”, and it urged parents to require schools to uphold heterosexuality as normal and natural. Given the likely proportion of homosexuals in the community, I am informed that there could be several students in a class for whom at least one close family member will be homosexual. I am responding to remarks made in a paper, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I want to give the lie to some of the charges that have been made, in case you are uncertain about the outside comment on the legislation. I am making the point that I have been advised that some sensitivity has to be given to the number of homosexuals in the community. The chances are that at least one child in a class will know somebody, even be related to somebody, who is a homosexual. For those students the suggestion that homosexuality should be labelled as deviant behaviour is clearly an insensitive response. Students wishing to discuss their own emerging sexuality with a counsellor will also feel inhibited in doing so if such labels are rigidly applied. As the law stands at present, school counsellors experience difficulty in being able to assist those students—a difficulty not dependent on the counsellor's own sexuality. This difficulty would be removed by the passage of the Bill as it stands, as it would remove the threat of criminal proceedings in regard to a student's possible future life-style. The Concerned Parents Association also suggested that there was a possibility that children would have the act of sodomy explained in class. The excessive use of that term and the apparent view that homosexuality is principally, even exclusively, to do with sodomy reflects a very narrow view of homosexual conduct. In view of the widespread use of that word it would not be surprising if children were curious about the term. Teachers in primary schools other than those designated to use the revised syllabus would not, at present, be entitled to answer any questions relating to the term. Even in designated schools it is hard to envisage a situation in which the term would arise other than in response to questions. Neither with the health education syllabus in place nor with the passage of the legislation is it likely that there will be demonstrations or comprehensive discussions about acts of homosexuality, any more than under the new terms of the health education syllabus relating to heterosexuality. One other matter of concern raised by the proprietors of integrated schools was that teachers could promote or affirm the morality or acceptability of homosexual activities or practices, and that teachers, and pupils over 16 years of age, might be able to engage in homosexual activity on school premises. I took advice on those matters also, and have been informed by the officers of the Department of Education that the promotion of the acceptability of homosexuality is outside the curricula and syllabuses prescribed by the 1964 Education Act, and is contrary to the special character of Catholic integrated schools. Teachers would leave themselves open to disciplinary proceedings under the Act if they engaged in such promotion. If teachers were discovered on school premises engaged in sexual activity, whether heterosexual or homosexual, they could be charged with a disciplinary offence of conduct unbecoming to a teacher under section 158 of the Education Act. Pupils over the age of 16 who engaged in sexual activity, either heterosexual or homosexual, could be suspended under section 130 of the Education Act. The controlling authority has the ultimate say as to whether the suspension is lifted or the pupil is expelled. I am satisfied, both personally and as Minister of Education, that the fears—and I acknowledge the genuineness with which some of those fears have been expressed-raised about the impact of the Bill and the coincidence of the health education syllabus are entirely unfounded. I now want to refer to the major constituency that has opposed the Bill. As many members are aware, before I was elected to the House in 1972 I served for some years in the Methodist ministry. I must say that I have had some difficulty in accepting some of the people who have claimed to speak for the Christian faith and for the Christian community over recent weeks. I hope that members on both sides of the argument will at least accept that there are sharply divergent views within the Christian community about the legislation—and I shall go into some of the reasons later. The church to which I belong, and joined as long ago as 1960—25 years ago-decided in the aftermath of the Wolfenden report in Britain that it would, as a matter of Christian conviction, support homosexual law reform. That view was shared at the same time by the Presbyterian Church, although I am bound to say that some of its members seem to have resiled from that somewhat in the past few days. Several other Christian groups went to the select committee, and some of them spoke officially on behalf of their churches. We all have miles of paper on this matter, but amongst the papers that came in were statements from the Anglican provincial and social affairs committee, the Methodist Church, the joint Methodist-Presbyterian public questions committee, the public questions committee of the Religious Society of Friends, and the National Council of Churches general meeting. One of the things that concerns me about the debate and about the criticism of the Bill is the preoccupation with sexual activity of a rather narrow kind, and the way that it, rather than relationships, has been described. Surely it ought to be a matter of our most fundamental concern to make people whole, to liberate people, and to help to set people free--all of which are phrases that most of the churches use from time to time. We ought to be concerned about the acceptance of people for what they are. I want to tell honourable members who might be concerned that in voting for the Bill they are acting contrary to the Christian gospel, contrary to the scriptures, and contrary to the wishes of the church, that is not true. There is a substantial body of theological opinion within the Christian community that thinks we ought to take our major lead from the gospels, that we ought to recognise what the attitudes of Leviticus were, and recognise them for what they are.

WINSTON PETERS: Is that the gospel according to Marshall?

Hon. RUSSELL MARSHALL: No, I am concerned about the Christian gospel. I am not concerned about the Book of Leviticus. I quote two or three points that have been made to us by the churches on this matter: “As Christians we are on more reliable ground when we go back to the teachings of Jesus. In terms of proclaiming the Kingdom of God and identifying the obstacles to membership of the Kingdom, Jesus had vastly more to say about the dangers of wealth than the dangers of sexuality, and while he comments frequently on the character of loving relationships he offers no word on personal sexual orientation.” Again: “God places a unique value on each of us, and that includes homosexuals. When heterosexuals learn to value homosexuals both as persons and for the contribution they make to our communities, those devaluing myths and stereotypes which have no place in Christian witness will disintegrate.” If we are so utterly convinced of the remarkable rightness of our own point of view we are bound to be led to judgmental attitudes that make real understanding and sympathy for other people impossible. If we are so convinced of our own moral rectitude that we cannot see other people as human beings, but only their defection from our own standards, whatever they may be, I suggest that we have become very sorry specimens. Contrary to some of the impressions that are given, homosexual people are no more promiscuous than heterosexual people. Contrary to some of the things that are said, some of the most sensitive, gentle, caring people in our community are amongst the homosexuals. Contrary to what some people opposing the Bill would have us believe, all members of the House, whether they are aware of it or not, know people who are homosexual. Many people, wittingly or unwittingly, are related to them, and every time we are so rigidly judgmental in terms of our criticism of that community we are saying things about people who are closer to us than we realise, even within these buildings. It strikes me as utterly inconsistent with the spirit of the Christian gospel that we should try to put people within our own strait-jacket, and I cannot begin to comprehend those people who, in the name of the Christian gospel above all, would seek to cast these people to one side. There is nothing of Christ's spirit in that attitude. There is not one word in the Christian gospel that justifies it. I must say that I have been pained, hurt, and angry at the arrogance with which some people have sought to hijack the scriptures to their own use, purporting, by taking texts out of context, to be speaking for God himself. I am sure that the implications of the Christian gospel of the loving God, with which the member for Hauraki was brought up, as I was, are that we ought to accept people as they are; that we ought to encourage them to develop their own full personalities as human beings; and that we ought to accept that we should not try to change people to our standards and practices when they are adult and when those characteristics were formed in early childhood. I very much hope that we pass the Bill in this form. Finally, I urge those members who are nervous about the age provision to accept that heterosexual preference and homosexual preference are both determined long before the age of 16. There is no valid argument that says we should pass it half-pie. It should be left at 16. I support the Bill.

ROGER MAXWELL (Taranaki): I agree with some of the statements made by the Minister of Education, particularly his statement that it is a controversial matter. It is a matter of widespread interest and there has been a good deal of debate. Some extreme views have been expressed on both sides of the argument. Before speaking about the substance of the Bill, I shall reflect on the submissions made to the committee. I remind the House of the responsibility of the committee that was charged with hearing those submissions. Its responsibility was to convey a balanced view of the evidence put forward. I shall have to put to rights some of the impressions given by the member for Hamilton West in his reporting back to the House. I remind members once again of the depth of evidence that came forward. There were 1,096 submissions, 903 of which were written; 111 oral submissions were heard, but 85 oral submissions were not although requests were made for them to be heard. There were 1,138 supporting letters. Of those, 379 were for the Bill but 759 were against it. The statistics are huge and there was a great deal of evidence to be absorbed. People were genuine in their submissions. I was embarrassed by the way some of the Government members on the committee dealt with members of the public who came forward in good faith to put their points of view. There was much intolerance, and I apologise to some of those people. Unfortunately, the same members who had illustrated that intolerance in the committee initiated the cut-off of the submissions put before the committee. I refer to the submissions of 85 people who had requested to be heard orally but were not given the opportunity. The initiator of the Bill, the member for Wellington Central, produced several telegrams indicating that people who were in favour of the Bill were prepared to forgo that opportunity; she did not produce the telegrams from people who indicated their desire to be heard on this important public issue. That was undemocratic. The chopping of the hearings while they were incomplete constitutes grounds for not supporting the Bill at this stage. People who genuinely wanted to put forward their points of view were not given an opportunity to do so. I produce the evidence of one individual who dearly wished to have the opportunity to put forward that evidence but was not able to. It related to a health worker's point of view—a point of view expressed by my colleague the member for Waikato—and to the threat perceived by many people, certainly many hospital workers, of the likelihood of an AIDS epidemic, and the account that should be taken of that when considering the passage of, or voting against, the Bill. That evidence and the evidence of my colleague was denigrated at the time by a person supporting the Bill, but there has since been further supporting evidence from several senior health officials on hospital boards. I am sure that evidence would have come forward if that individual had had the opportunity to express his point of view to the committee, which could have duly reported it to the House. I shall quote from his submission, and want the supporters of the Bill to deny its accuracy if they can: “The Wolfenden report, which was the origin of the gay liberation, stated in paragraph 52: ‘We do not think that it is proper for the law to concern itself with what a man does in private unless it can be shown to do so is contrary to the public good, that the law ought to intervene in its function as a guardian of the public good.'” The point is made that had an AIDS epidemic, for example, been concerning health authorities at the time, the Wolfenden report might well have produced a different final report. In the reporting back from the committee the point was made and the impression given—and I was in the House and heard it—that the churches were in favour of the Bill, but for every church group that came before the committee there was an opposing faction within the church group that opposed the Bill. Once again members can see the division. It is not correct for the chairman of the committee to mislead the members of the House in his report by saying that churches support the Bill. The evidence was detailed and came from a wide spectrum. The submissions illustrated much compassion and acceptance of the homosexual orientation. I accept the evidence that came forward for the work by Kinsey. That was one of the strong submissions that affected my view of whether or not to support the proposition in the Bill. I believe that the supporters of the Bill are working from a flawed proposition. The evidence given on the Kinsey work was aptly described by one of the supporters brought in from overseas especially to encourage support for the measure. That individual explained that there was a spectrum of heterosexual and homosexual orientation within individuals in a community. That could be drawn as a bell-shaped graph. If a line is drawn down the centre dissecting the bell, there would be 50 percent of people with a homosexual orientation of varying degrees on one side, and on the other side a heterosexual orientation. On both sides there would be extremes of people who might not be able to have much control over their orientation. The evidence went on to show that, while it affected both females and males, a concern expressed by many in other evidence was that male members of the community could well be more easily diverted than females from their orientation by their peer groups and the ruling social environment and attitudes. That means that if the Bill is passed and homosexual activity is given some kind of public approval, certainly more than at present, according to Kinsey a large group of people would be likely to be influenced by homosexual activity. I believe that increased activity in what could be described as a bisexual group would have an adverse effect on adolescent youths, the most vulnerable group in our community. That is one of the central points I must consider before deciding whether to support the Bill. The other important matter is whether society will condone the formal expression of individual sexuality. Many arguments have been put forward that the Bill should allow people to express individual sexuality. The record shows that society in the past has not allowed that, and that a bias has often been shown. I accept that there has been some persecution, but I suggest that that is not so now. Society has shown a better understanding of people's sexual orientation, and there will be a much better understanding overall as a result of the submissions received and of the present debate. The present legislation reinforces society's attitude by imposing quite severe legal penalties. Under sections 140 and 142 of the Crimes Act, a maximum penalty of 5 years' imprisonment is set down for any male of any age convicted of an indecent assault on another male of any age, and the consent of the other person is no defence of the crime. In the case of consenting adults I accept that that might be looked upon as a severe penalty, but during the Committee stage there might be an opportunity to consider reducing it. I cannot support a complete abolition. The existing law provides for a penalty of up to 10 years' imprisonment in some circumstances, and I understand that such penalties have been extended in the present Bill. That is a positive move that has come out of the changes. No evidence was presented to the committee that the penalties in the present law are being vigorously enforced, and people would presume that to be the case if there were a need to change the law. I have no knowledge of any person being persecuted by the law. On that basis, what is the justification for seeking the change? The important provisions in the Bill, which should be spelt out but have not been yet, are central to my conclusion that I cannot support the Bill. Clause 5 changes the circumstances under which an offence occurs. The explanatory note states: “... the new section 142 is limited to consensual anal intercourse, and then only where it is committed upon a person who is under 16 years of age or is severely subnormal. As with the new indecency provisions, a distinction is drawn between the case where the person upon whom the act of anal intercourse is committed is under 12 years of age, and the case where that person is between 12 years and 16 years of age. In the former case, the maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years, and consent is no defence." It goes on to say—and this is very important, given Kinsey's work, which I have accepted—that: “Where the person upon whom the act of anal intercourse is committed is between 12 years and 16 years of age, the maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term of 7 years. It is a defence if the defendant proves that the other person consented (unless the prosecution can show that the consent was improperly obtained), and that he is younger than that person. It is also a defence if the defendant proves that the other person consented (subject to the same qualification as above), that he himself is under the age of 21 years of age, and that he believed on reasonable grounds that the other person was of or over the age of 16 years." That is probably one of the most important points on which members have to make a judgment, and I believe that these provisions build in some protection within the law for those charged. Indeed, it places the onus of proof that anal intercourse took place without consent on the victim, and that is very important. If the victim is older or if it is believed that consent was given, the practical application of the law creates some real problems. Unfortunately, the number of assaults has increased, and the proposed legislation provides a ready-made defence for the perpetrators of those assaults. The proposed legislation conflicts with the provisions of the Rape Law Reform Bill, which proposes that the stress faced by victims should be minimised. This legislation increases the stress on the victim and therefore would seem to contradict what is being proposed in other areas. The laws of the land by their very nature restrict people's freedoms, and freedom is one of the reasons given for this Bill. The fact that freedoms are curtailed is the price society faces for an orderly society in which minority groups are often disadvantaged. We are talking about society's morality, and, although I accept that it is very difficult for society to regulate morality, we have taken that opportunity in other laws and I am not convinced that we should not do it this time. If we decriminalise sexual intercourse between homosexuals we will be condoning it in law and I believe that would be a retrograde step. The Bill does not set out to legislate against the affection that exists between homosexuals because of their orientation. I stress that it makes anal intercourse between consenting adults legal and I believe that many members of our community are not prepared to accept that provision. One of the unfortunate aspects that was brought out by the submissions was that not much help has been available for those who have some form of homosexual orientation, and, indeed, evidence was given that many groups in our society will put a great deal more effort into that. As has already been pointed out, there is evidence that people can be helped-steered in a different direction, if one likes to put it like that. Given that that is so, the reason for implementing the legislation is lessened. I bring to the attention of the House the view of a former gay activist, Noel Mosen, who maintains that homosexuality is a learnt habit that can be reversed. I believe that as time passes there will be increasing evidence that that is so, and I applaud those who have said that they will continue to put more effort into counselling. That has not been given sufficient attention in the past. I shall go on to Part II and say that I cannot support the restrictive nature of that provision. It creates problems for the armed forces, for institutions such as boarding schools, and for landlords. I believe it should be the individual's right to choose his tenants. I do not believe that denying the rights of one group and giving dubious benefits to others is sufficient reason to change the law. I do not believe that trying to legislate people's attitudes will work, and if there has been persecution of homosexuals in the past that, unfortunately, might well continue. The Bill and the discussion and debate that followed its introduction will help the understanding of the problem in the community. In rejecting the Bill we are not abandoning the 5 percent to 10 percent of people who have a strong homosexual orientation. It is much better that we understand the problem. It has been an educational exercise for me, but I have not been convinced that I should support the Bill. Numerous amendments have been put forward, but they do not change my view. I do not believe that the Bill was handled in the way it should have been in the select committee. I have some sympathy with the suggestion put forward that a commission should be a forerunner to this kind of legislation. A great deal of sympathy has been expressed for people with a strong homosexual orientation, but I believe that there is still insufficient evidence to allow me to support the Bill, and I shall vote against it.

DENIS MARSHALL (Rangitikei): The issue of homosexual law reform is certainly one of the most controversial debated by the public in New Zealand for many years. Unfortunately, much of the debate in the public arena has been somewhat uninformed, but over the three successive evenings the House has debated the issue there have been some excellent speeches by members, and they have expressed many and varied points of view. Some of the more technical information such as that provided by my colleague the member for Waikato has been relevant, particularly in today's society when the issue of AIDS is a new one and is of real concern to all. Six months ago I replied to many of those who wrote to me on this issue in the following manner: "I am totally opposed to the Bill in its present form, which in effect legalises homosexual activity between consenting males over the age of 16 years. However, because of the fact that society does not enforce the present law, which imposes a term of imprisonment for up to 5 years for homosexuals, I believe there is a case of reviewing the law and decriminalising homosexual relations between consenting males at the age of 20." I consulted my constituents on that matter. "I do not believe in fact that we should have laws that are not enforced, and this change could put the law on a similar basis to that in England when it was amended some 18 years ago. Nevertheless, I believe it is absolutely essential that adolescent males must be protected and that the change and the increased penalty in the proposed legislation to 7 years' imprisonment for indecent assault in the proposed law is an example of such protection. In the Bill which is before the House the age limit for decriminalisation is unacceptably low and the clauses amending the Human Rights Commission Act is unacceptable also in my view. I will be recording my vote against the second reading of the Bill.” I consulted my constituents widely, and without a doubt the majority opposed the Bill on the grounds of their disapproval of homosexuality. However, even the strongest opponents of the reform do not want the position whereby consenting males could be convicted as criminals for homosexual acts and face a term of imprisonment of up to 5 years. That is the difficulty in which most members of society find themselves: they disapprove of homosexuality, and, of course, they should always remain free to do that. However, they do accept that the criminality accorded to homosexuals today is inappropriate. Even some of those church groups that have taken a strong stand on the issue, such as the Salvation Army, have said that imprisonment is inappropriate. I understand that the Presbyterian Church has also expressed that view during the past few days. There has been much speculation about the effect on society of any possible reform in the present law: There have been descriptions of societies centred on gay bathhouses, as in San Francisco, and references to the law as it stands in the United Kingdom. Frankly, I am attracted to the degree of reform that has existed in the United Kingdom for the past 18 years. Having spent some time in the United Kingdom 20 years ago and again 2 years ago I could not identify any particular moral deterioration in that society, which, apart from our neighbour across the Tasman, is the society with which we most closely relate. After studying the Wolfenden report the British Parliament decriminalised homosexual acts between consenting adults from the age of 21. In today's society we could, perhaps, support decriminalisation from the age of 20. However, the new disease of AIDS, which was not apparent 20 years ago, undoubtedly clouds the issue. I believe we need the medical profession to alleviate strongly the widespread public concern about that disease. Many constituents who contacted me expressed their abhorrence of homosexuality. It certainly does not appeal to me, either, but I must say that some of the most highly respected members of the community came to me and revealed that they are, in fact, homosexuals. I certainly feel for them, because they have undoubtedly lived under tremendous pressure. As a member of the Church of England I want to dwell for a moment on the issue from a Christian point of view. From the many letters I have received expressing different interpretations of the Bible I know that Christians are deeply divided on the issue. The Council of Churches supports reform, while other churches are opposed to reform. However, the prejudice, bigotry, and intolerance expressed by many certainly have no place in my understanding of Christianity. Personally, I agree with the view that the Bible is a standard for moral and ethical behaviour-it is not a legal code. It is a guide to direct us how best we can reflect Christ's life within our own culture and our own experience. I also believe that society wants to express its disapproval, and I do not believe that we should necessarily treat homosexuals as criminals. Most of us would condemn adultery, but few would want to see it lead to arrest and prosecution. One religious forum that expressed its views on the issue was the Inter-Church Council on Public Affairs, which believes that extreme positions on both sides of the debate are not consistent with the gospels or Christian tradition, nor are they helpful to homosexuals or society. The council called for tolerance and understanding among those who hold sincere and deeply felt differences of opinion on the issue. It said that at one extreme are those who seek to promote homosexual behaviour and life-styles as desirable alternatives to marriage and family life, while at the other extreme are those whose disapproval of homosexual behaviour has become distorted into a cruel rejection and disparagement of homosexual persons. Neither of those positions is consistent with Christian tradition now, and the council's view was that they were particularly unhelpful. It felt that it was necessary to look more deeply into the complex issues involved. However, as with most people in New Zealand today, the council stopped short of commenting on the provisions contained in the proposed legislation, because its members were divided on the Bill. The Church of England has also had difficulty in reaching a common view on an acceptable degree of reform. As far back as 1981 the diocesan commission on homosexuality reported to the Dunedin Synod, and that report was generally a cautious document. There was unanimous agreement that homosexual acts in private between consenting adults should not be the subject of police investigation or criminal prosecution, but, once again, the commission could not agree on the exact nature of an acceptable law reform. I shall deal with the section of the Bill that seeks to amend the Human Rights Commission Act. Would any reform of the present law in relation to that Act change people's attitude to one another? I do not believe it would. We have heard many personal stories during the debate relating to the degree of acceptance or non-acceptance of homosexuals. I can think of people who have been ostracised by their families and friends as a result of their homosexual orientation. Will a degree of reform to a particular age change the attitude of such a person's family or friends to his orientation? I think not. I should say that the family or friends of that person who want to ostracise him should have the right to do so. If an employer does not wish to employ a homosexual, we cannot force the issue. On those grounds I cannot support the amendment to the Human Rights Commission Act that is contained in the Bill, because I believe that the ultimate human right is not to associate with a person, or not to employ a person if one has a moral objection to that person's activity or orientation. On those grounds I shall vote against that clause in the Bill. It is unfortunate that the need for homosexual law reform was prompted by such an extreme measure as the Bill. In its present form it has proved to be amongst the most divisive legislation ever introduced into the House. Unfortunately, it was introduced at a time when a new dimension of homosexuality became apparent because of the spread of AIDS and its effect on society. Some members have already given notice that further legislation will be introduced to repeal the Bill if it is passed. I think that is unfortunate, because it indicates that the matter has not been fully understood by the public and Parliament. It prolongs the argument. It could have been most beneficial to have the matter studied by an independent body and I certainly believe that the member for Napier made a reasonable suggestion when he proposed that a royal commission should study homosexuality and bring down a report such as the Wolfenden report that went before the British Parliament. I refer to the new dimension of AIDS that was not apparent when the Wolfenden report was introduced to the British Parliament. Whatever course of action is taken, I should have preferred the House to have such an authoritative document to debate so that the public could refer to it, and members of Parliament could certainly debate it. In those circumstances, although I support a degree of reform and I shall support an amendment to the Bill replacing the age of 16 years with 20 years if that amendment is moved in the Committee stage, I cannot support the second reading of the Bill as it is. At this stage it is far too extreme.

NEILL AUSTIN (Bay of Islands): I say at the outset that I oppose the Bill in all its forms and with whatever amendments may come before the House. I cannot find it in my make-up to support any aspect of it. I reached that conclusion the day the Bill was introduced. I appreciated the letters of support I received from within my own electorate and from many areas of New Zealand when the public learnt by way of the newspaper that I opposed the Bill's introduction. It has not taken public comment, private letters to me, or any other form of communication-spoken, written, or whatever—to persuade me that no good will come if the Bill is passed in whatever form. I am my own best friend and also my own worst enemy. I have to look at my image in the mirror every morning when I shave. Sometimes that image is a little clouded, but never have I been afraid to look at myself and say that I believe I have not done so badly the day before in the stand I have taken on a particular issue. On this moral issue I can say quite truthfully that the mirror I look into each morning is as clear as I would hope it to be. I regret that I cannot quote the scriptures at length and cannot quote chapter and verse to support my reasons for opposing the legislation. There has been much talk in the Chamber-well meaning and sincere—from both sides of the argument. I too am sincere and well meaning when I say that I shall not support the legislation in any form. It is comforting to me to know that I have made that decision without pressure and without advice from any person in my electorate. I acknowledge that subsequent to my making that decision I had dozens of letters from people throughout the country. The ones I value particularly are those from my own electorate that support my stand in opposition to the Bill. At public meetings I have attended and spoken at, not only in my electorate but also in other parts of New Zealand, on topics that have no relationship to the legislation, the question has inevitably arisen of what the public's attitude is to a lowering of the moral standards of the nation. I am not prepared to be party to going below the imaginary code or line of moral conduct beneath which I believe we as a nation and as individuals dare not fall . None of us has exactly the same argument or exactly the same opinions about that imaginary line. I have attended public meetings in my electorate on many topics. I am proud to say that not once did I receive threats or any adverse comment about my judgment on the matter from any person attending those public meetings. However, I am rather distressed to report that I have received letters from people who suggested that if I lend my support to the Bill my political future could possibly be in jeopardy. I say to those people about half a dozen at the most—who wrote to me in that vein that I value my integrity, for whatever it is worth. I shall not subjugate my moral standards, which have been imposed upon me by no one, to the demands of those people who suggest that I will be out of public office unless I support their particular point of view. I have said to my electorate, and I say to the House, that I would far sooner be out of public office than not to be able to look at myself in the mirror in the way I mentioned a few moments ago. An individual's stand on a moral issue is his decision, and his alone. Some members have been assisted in formulating their opinion by taking opinion polls. I make no criticism of them for that. However I did not find it necessary to do so. I took my stand before the pressure built up by way of petitions to the House or by the progression of the Bill through the House. My decision was made without the need to conduct opinion polls. I am pleased to say that I have received many letters of support from my own electorate. I have one here that I value as much as I value letters of support received from individuals. It is from my own home town of Kaikohe, from the Kaikohe Union Parish Church, which conducted a survey amongst its members. The letter from the session clerk stated: “The response to our circular requesting opinions we consider was significant, and also the resulting correspondence is very interesting and indicates that many people and congregations have given a lot of consideration to this subject.” I am not a particularly good church-goer, and I say that with a degree of sorrow. If I wanted to I could make all kinds of excuses about why I do not attend a church regularly, but I do not propose to do that. I have to live with myself, and I do not have to attend church and prayers to know that in my own estimation I am conducting myself as I would wish. My wife and family accept that that is my moral standard of conduct. I have also received letters from almost every locality within my electorate supporting my decision, which was made in isolation away from the pressures and advice of good and well-meaning people. Having made my decision I was encouraged by the 8,742 people who signed a petition that was circulated in my electorate opposing the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. Only one person who signed that petition has written to me and said that the signature on the petition was not supported, and asked to have it removed. I wrote back to that person and said I was more than happy to tell the organisers of the petition to have the name removed. That means that 8741, not 8742, citizens in my electorate signed the petition opposing the Bill. I was also particularly pleased and humbled to receive letters from the Maori people within my electorate. I might add that they were not on my electorate roll, but on the Northern Maori roll. They supported the decision I have made before any pressures built up. I shall quote from one of the many letters I received from my good friends the Maori people of Tai Tokorau: “So many of our Maori folk and pakeha folk feel about this Homosexual Law Reform Bill, which we believe if passed could spell disaster to this small country of ours, New Zealand-most Maori folk feel that this Bill, if passed, would negate many of the teachings that we have learnt in this last 150 years from the Christian faith.” It goes on to state that if their Maori ancestors who signed the Treaty of Waitangi had realised that there would be legislation before the House to lower the moral standards and the moral teachings that they were taught by the Christian faith, many if not most of them would not have signed the Treaty of Waitangi. That is how many of my Maori friends regard the prospect of the lowering of our moral standards if the Bill is passed. In conclusion I repeat to any who may wish to take note of what I say that I would much rather be out of public life than lower my moral standards by supporting the lowering of the morality of this country if the Bill is passed. I oppose the introduction of the Bill and I propose to oppose the legislation every step of the way.

PAUL EAST (Rotorua): I have listened with interest to the speeches made on the second reading of the Bill and I have to say that Parliament hears some of the best speeches from members on these vexed conscience issues. I do not doubt for one moment the sincerity with which the speeches on both sides of the argument have been delivered. I shall not speak at any great length, but I feel that members should explain to the House and to their constituents why they have reached certain conclusions on the legislation. I voted for the introduction of the Bill because I believed—and I still believe—that the decriminalisation of homosexual acts is a subject that Parliament should properly consider and study, and that we should all inquire whether those acts should be legalised. I sat on the Justice and Law Reform Committee-formerly the Statutes Revision Committee-month after month, listening to the submissions made on the Bill. During the whole time that the legislation was referred to the committee I was the senior Opposition member present, and having heard all the evidence I believe there are grounds for the decriminalisation of homosexual acts.

TREVOR MALLARD: The member came 9 times out of 26.

PAUL EAST: We are getting the immediate reaction one would expect from the more vociferous proponents of the legislation. I want to set out my views clearly, irrespective of their behaviour, which, now they have raised it, is a matter that I feel I must deal with. At the appropriate time I shall seriously consider supporting the amendment that my colleague the member for Fendalton proposes—that homosexual acts between persons of 20 years of age be decriminalised. It is my personal view that homosexual acts should not be punished by the law, but I must say that the legislation the select committee studied and that was brought before the House goes much further than that. There are two points on which I disagree strongly with the legislation. First, in my view the age limit of 16 years is far too young. Boys of 16 years are still struggling with maturity. I believe they are not of an age at which they can properly consider whether they should indulge in homosexual behaviour. I disagree strongly with the provisions in the Bill that would enable youths of 16 years of age to engage in homosexual practices. I also strongly disagree with the human rights provisions contained in the legislation, which imply total acceptance of homosexuality by the public. I, for one, am not convinced that New Zealanders totally accept homosexuality, and I do not think that Parliament should, by legislation, force that acceptance on a society that is not ready for it and does not want it. At this stage, New Zealand society is not in a position to accept such a dramatic change to the law. In this legislation we are not seeking just decriminalisation; we are seeking acceptance by society, and in that respect the legislation goes too far. I have to say that it goes much too far when one considers the other human rights legislation and realises that there are discriminations in relation to age, race, religion, and sex. The police service, the armed forces, the prison service, and churches are not required to comply with human rights legislation in certain areas, but there are no exceptions in this legislation. That means that the police service, the armed forces, and the prison service will be required, by law, to accept in employment active, visible, practising homosexuals. It also means that organisations such as the boy scouts will be required to accept into full-time employment active, visible, practising homosexuals, and that schools run by churches that can have very strong fundamental beliefs about homosexuality will be required by this legislation to accept into employment active, visible, practising homosexuals, when that would obviously cause considerable problems for those organisations. We are not aware of any normal human rights exceptions that relate to race, religion, creed, and sex. The debate has covered extreme points of view on both sides of the argument, and that has not helped Parliament reach a conclusion on the legislation. On the one hand extremist statements have been made in the name of religion, and on the other hand there have been the activities of the homosexual community, and we have witnessed on television members of the Salvation Army being abused and molested on the way to church. Those on both sides who have acted in that manner have done their cause and Parliament a grave disservice. They should know that their actions have not convinced any member of Parliament that their cause should be supported, but in many cases have driven reasonable, sensible members to think again about the legislation. For those reasons, when a member finds himself in agreement with perhaps 25 percent of the Bill but cannot support 75 percent of it, I believe he should vote against the second reading. I shall be doing so, and I am particularly reinforced in my view by the manner in which the select committee handled the Bill. I take the strongest exception to the manner in which the Government members of the Justice and Law Reform Committee dealt with the Bill. I refer particularly to the select committee hearing on Wednesday, 2 October, which must be regarded as a black day in the history of Parliament in relation to a select committee hearing submissions from concerned members of the public. It was on that day that the two Opposition members of the Justice and Law Reform Committee came to that select committee hearing, prepared to hear evidence from the considerable number of people who still wanted to make their point of view known to Parliament on this very important Bill. I have to report that it was obvious to the two Opposition members present—the member for Waipa and me—that the Government members had already decided how best the Bill would be disposed of. They moved a motion that the committee deliberate immediately on the Bill, although some 70 or 80 groups, organisations, and individuals had taken the time to present submissions to Parliament and still wanted to make sure their point of view was made known to that committee. That was an affront to our democracy. Government members, by exercising their majority and overruling the two Opposition members denied those citizens, groups, and organisations their democratic right to come to Parliament and present their views to a select committee. Not only did the committee do that, but the Government members, again by weight of numbers, again over the vigorous protests of my colleague the member for Waipa and me, moved that a large number of parliamentary petitions on the issue of homosexual law reform-about 34 petitions—be dealt with in that cavalier fashion. It is one of the most ancient rights of a citizen to petition Parliament and to present one's views. I do not mind what side of the argument those petitioners are on; the simple fact is that it is their right so to petition Parliament, and they have been denied that right. The submissions were dealt with in a disgraceful way, and as a parliamentarian I was ashamed that a select committee dealt with the matter in the way it did. When I put the issue to Government members they could not produce one valid reason why the committee should stop hearing evidence and report back. The only reason they could produce was that it was a matter of convenience to the committee, that it had been sitting for 5 months, that that was long enough, that it might as well pack up the hearings and report back, irrespective of the people who had taken the trouble to prepare submissions and who still wanted to be heard. What made matters worse was the move to deliberate after hearing only part of the evidence. The committee did not discharge its duty to Parliament. When a Bill is sent to a select committee it is sent there for all the evidence to be heard, not just the evidence decided on by a gang that jacks up the committee and wants to steamroller its views over those of other members. The committee was given a job by Parliament that it did not fulfil, because it did not consider all the evidence. Not only did the committee deny an opportunity to many worth-while organisations and groups—and the National Council of Women was one organisation whose views I would have liked to hear but which was denied the opportunity of being heard on the matter—but it denied the departmental advisers of the Department of Justice, who had been sitting through committee hearings for 5 months, the opportunity of discussing those matters with the select committee. The Department of Justice reports were prepared. The committee received one, on the first half of the Bill, at the time it moved straight into deliberation, and it had no opportunity to consider it. The second Department of Justice report on the Bill came to members of the committee after the committee had already been forced to deliberate and to report back to the House. What use is it to have Government officials sit on the committee for 5 months and then deny them an opportunity to discuss those matters with committee members? The advisory officer to the committee then prepared a massive report, which again the committee members had no opportunity to consider before deliberating. I would also have liked to have the opportunity to seek the advice of the Human Rights Commission and to ask it to come before the committee, to explore with it the commission's views on the second part of the Bill dealing with human rights. But no, the committee was denied that opportunity. To make the position even worse, half way through that charade the Government members realised the damage they were doing to their cause so, in the interests of open government, they ordered the press from the room and took a vote to exclude the news media from the consideration of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill before the Justice and Law Reform Committee. The consideration was effectively held behind a shroud of secrecy because the Government members insisted, over my wishes and those of the member for Waipa, that the press should not remain. As a only now do we have the opportunity to inform Parliament of the disgraceful way in which the Justice and Law Reform Committee was forced to deal with the matter by weight of numbers of Government members, who had obviously come to the committee with a predetermined course of action on Wednesday, 2 October. It is an affront to Parliament that the Bill should proceed further in those circumstances. I hope that members will vote on the measure by saying to the sponsors of the Bill, who have a considerable measure of public support, that they should go away, start again, and do the job properly in the proper, traditional, democratic way, and not try to force the Bill through the House as they are doing. Having said that, I think I have outlined to the House and to my constituents the reason for the stand that I am taking on the second reading of the Bill.

CLIVE MATTHEWSON (Dunedin West): During the election campaign before the last election I was asked several times what my reaction would be to a Homosexual Law Reform Bill, and I replied that I would vote for reform but that I did not consider it a pressing issue beside such matters as the economy, justice, and so on. Since that time, however, some water has gone under the bridge, a Bill has been introduced, members have all received a lot of mail, and I have done much study of the issue. I end up with no question about how I want to vote; but I end up also wishing to speak. I am speaking because I now consider the issue to be more important than I did at the time of the election. I consider the issue to be that of tolerance versus a morally judgmental view; of the role of the law; of rationality versus fear, and of sexual equality. I shall argue rationality, I hope. However, I have acquired strong feelings on the issue since the election. Those feelings came to a head when the petition against the Bill was presented. I watched the presentation of that petition, and I was offended by others taking over God, family, the country, and the national anthem to their cause, because I, too, feel some affinity with those items, and I do not believe that they belong to only one side of the argument. I found offensive the certainty, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that the view of those people was not only right but that it alone had moral force, and that it should be forced on others. I accept and respect the fact that many people in my electorate, and in other electorates, are opposed to the Bill, are genuine in their feelings, and have very real fears about it. However, there are not more than 9,150 of those people in my electorate, because of those issues that have been canvassed already about the method of counting. That is not the real matter as issue. I was surprised by the way the petition was presented on the steps of Parliament. The boxes that were brought up the steps were not full. Why would the presenters of the petition bring a lot of empty boxes up the steps unless they were trying to impress people about the number of signatures collected? None of the boxes was even half full, and many of them had only an inch or two of paper in the bottom. Anybody can examine them and verify that. What was the reason behind that deception? If the petition had the force of reason behind it, it did not need to be made defective in that way. The presenters of the petition have threatened those who vote for the Bill with electoral defeat. I resent the idea that I am here just because I want to stay here. I must take notice of my constituents, but in the end I must vote for what I think is right, and I resent the implied threat, and the suggestion that I should vote against what I believe just for electoral advantage—and I shall not. I believe that sometimes a law should not be there, simply because there is no consensus on that law. I think law is generally bad law if only 50 percent agree that such a law is needed, because if only 50 percent agree that such a law is needed then clearly it does not have the respect of the majority of people, as I believe laws need to have. We all agree that we should have a law against murder, but we certainly do not all agree that we should have a law against homosexual activity. I believe that the standard of consensus required for us to have a law on moral issues such as this needs to be a great deal more than 50 percent, and that is not so. More than 50 percent of people believe that the law against homosexual activity should not exist; nor do I believe that we should keep a law just because it exists already. We should start from scratch and decide whether we need a law that is on the books, which is what the debate is all about. My principal concern is that it is not the role of the law to tell adults what they can do in private with consent, when no one else is involved, let alone hurt, apart from those consenting adults. In that respect I shall quote from the report of the Department of Justice, which the previous speaker said had not been able to be considered by the committee. It could have been considered, because committee members had the report to read—as the rest of us had—and even though it could not be presented orally the fact remains that the report was there. I quote from the report about the role of the criminal law: “By and large the criminal law of countries such as New Zealand does not intervene in the private lives of citizens to enforce any particular moral viewpoint. In a democratic and pluralistic society it is generally accepted that the law ought to recognise individual freedom of choice in matters of private morality, except where it is necessary to prohibit behaviour which occasions identifiable harm to others. “Broadly speaking, New Zealand's criminal code is concerned with restraining conduct which causes harm to others, protecting public decency, and maintaining public order. There are very few offences contained in the Crimes Act of which it could be said that the principal purpose of the prohibition is to enforce a moral standard. This approach is not really surprising. There are few moral issues on which society at large would be capable of reaching substantial agreement. To the argument that the criminal law is an appropriate instrument for enforcing one particular code of behaviour, the question then becomes which or whose morality should prevail. It would be quite inappropriate to expect the State to make such a choice. "If public debate on the Bill illustrates nothing else, it illustrates that there is no consensus in the community about the morality of homosexual conduct and the proscription of such conduct by criminal means. In these circumstances it would be normal for the criminal law to stand aside. To that extent the continued prohibition of consensual homosexual acts is an exception to traditional concepts about the proper scope of the criminal law.” That is a clear statement about the criminal law and I believe that an understanding of that is necessary for members of Parliament, who must examine the arguments for and against the legislation in a rational way. We do not have the luxury of having a view that can be held against the evidence. We must examine the arguments for and against the Bill and examine them in the light of the evidence. I shall refer to the arguments that have been advanced against the Bill. The first is that it is against Christian values. We have already canvassed whether one morality should be enshrined in the law, but also there is the question of what the Christian view is. I, like other members, have had many letters and communications from Christian people who favour repeal of the law as it stands. When I look at both sides of the argument I see the logic of decriminalisation from a Christian viewpoint because of the tolerance expressed on the side of reform. One of the other arguments against the Bill is that homosexuality is “curable”. That should not matter, even if it were, but the evidence is that that is not So-that homosexuality is fixed as a sexual orientation in people well before they reach the age of 16 years or, indeed, puberty. That is the overwhelming weight of the evidence and that is what we should listen to. To do anything else ignores that evidence. The third argument against the Bill is that homosexuality will cause the break-up of the family. I find that argument hard to follow, because the first element of it is that a change in the law will create more homosexuality and more homosexual activity. That is simply not the evidence from countries overseas that have changed the law. The second point is that I cannot see the mechanism for the break-up of the family in the passing of the Bill. Homosexuals are born into families, and decriminalisation of homosexuality will surely not cause them to lose their mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters. If they are not going to lose their mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters because of the Bill, perhaps it is because homosexuals generally do not have children. Surely that could not be a reason to rate them as criminals, because celibacy is accepted as a valid life-style if it is chosen, and celibates do not have children and we do not decide to make criminals of them. Perhaps it is thought that husbands will all suddenly rush off and become homosexuals? That simply does not accord with the sexual orientation of heterosexuals, who will not suddenly decide to become homosexual when the Bill is passed. That argument is not rational. The argument that the Bill will break up families is not logical. The fourth reason advanced against the Bill is that homosexuals indulge in child abuse and homosexual rape. I have received a letter stating that there will be hordes of homosexual gangs sodomising innocent citizens if the Bill is passed. The answer to that is that countries that have already decriminalised homosexual behaviour have not seen the kind of behaviour described in that letter. I would like to list some of the countries that have decriminalised homosexual acts. The idea has been advanced that we should have an inquiry. However, we are not exactly trying something new and radical. The United Kingdom has been mentioned, and homosexuality was decriminalised there many years ago. In Sweden the age of consent is 15, the same as for heterosexuals; in Norway the age of consent is 16, the same as for heterosexuals; in France the age of consent is the same as for heterosexuals; in Denmark the age of consent is 15, the same as for heterosexuals; in Austria the age of consent is 19; in the Federal Republic of Germany the age of consent is 18; in Italy the age of consent is the same as for heterosexuals—in Italy there has never been a criminal law against homosexuality; in Switzerland a commission has been established which recognises a liberalisation of the law, in the Netherlands the age of consent is 16, the same as for heterosexuals; in Belgium the age of consent is 18, and for heterosexuals 16; in Spain the age of consent is the same as for heterosexuals.

JOHN BANKS: This isn't new!

CLIVE MATTHEWSON: If it is not new, and the member for Whangarei knows it, why does he seem to think that we are doing something strange by introducing such a Bill? I am emphasising that New Zealand is not doing something new, strange, or radical, compared with other countries. In 1981 the Council of Europe, in a committee on social and health questions, adopted a draft recommendation on the elimination of discrimination against homosexuals, and particularly recommended that criminal liability for homosexual behaviour between adults should be abolished. More than half the states in the United States have decriminalised homosexual conduct in private. In Australia, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory have done the same. South Australia decriminalised homosexual conduct in private in 1976. It is interesting to note that up to a month ago not a single case of AIDS had been reported in South Australia, and that state has had decriminalisation of homosexual activity since 1976; whereas Florida, where it remains criminal, has the third-highest level of AIDS in the world. Those facts are contained in the Department of Justice report, so they are well documented. New Zealand is not doing something strange. The fifth argument advanced against the Bill relates to AIDS. I do not expect that any member would argue against the need to contain AIDS. However, one should consider the evidence about whether AIDS will increase with decriminalisation, or whether it will decrease. I have already noted the cases of Florida and South Australia, and the Director General of Health in New Zealand has said that there is no reasonable correlation between the incidence of AIDS and the law, and I accept that to be an authoritative opinion. I am not sure that the Bill will reduce the prevalence of AIDS, but I believe that it will certainly not make the position worse. If the threat of AIDS itself will not cause people to refrain from anal intercourse then the existence of an Act that is hardly enforced surely will not do so. That is a logical argument, and I invite members to try to argue with it. The only question that really must be decided is that of age, accepting that consenting adult behaviour should be decriminalised. It is logical to have the same age as for heterosexuality, or there is a discrimination between homosexual and heterosexual behaviour and between male and female persons. I believe that 16 is the age that should apply. I understand the reasoning of those who support the first part of the Bill but not the second. I understand their idea that personal freedom is the motivator-the freedom to hire whoever one likes, and so on. However, personal freedom must sometimes be curtailed. For example, we do not have the freedom to drive on the right-hand side of the road, for obvious reasons. I regard discrimination against homosexuality as no different from discrimination on the grounds of race or sex. People who apply for a job have a right to be treated according to the characteristics relevant to the job and not according to prejudice against what they do privately. Therefore I shall vote for the second part of the Bill. Morality has been mentioned tonight and on other nights. I regard values such as honesty, justice, caring for others, and intellectual honesty as moral values. That indicates to me that the moral position to take on the Bill is to support it, and I do not regard my view as being less moral than the view of the Bill's opponents. They are entitled to the view that they are more moral than I, but I certainly do not accept that. The Bill will be passed and it will lift a weight from perhaps 10 percent of the male population. Perhaps even more important, it will signal maturity and tolerance in our society. I am pleased to be able to endorse the Bill, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

NORMAN JONES (Invercargill): We have heard the story about homosexuality and AIDS being prevalent in Florida, where homosexuality is still illegal. That has happened because Fidel Castro got rid of 207,000 of his prisoners and criminals, including 72,000 homosexuals whom he let out of communist Cuba into Florida, and that is why AIDS is prevalent. I give notice of an amendment at the second reading stage under Standing Order 213. I intend to move that the question be amended by omitting the word “now” and adding the words "this day 12 months”. It opens up the second reading debate for anyone who wants to have a second go, and that will give all the members who think it is a good idea the opportunity to continue. I shall give the reasons that I think the Bill should lie on the table for another 12 months before the House does anything further with it. I am sure that many members will rise to keep the debate going. The homosexual community received one hell of a shock in March. When the Bill was introduced the homosexual community thought that it would go into Parliament and be passed. It did pass the first reading by 51 votes to 24 votes, with 20 members absent. They had planned to bring the Bill in with the connivance of the Labour Government caucus as a diversion.

TREVOR MALLARD: Rubbish!

NORMAN JONES: There is no question about that. Not one voice was raised against the Bill in the caucus. The member for Wellington Central brought the Bill in as a diversion 8 months ago. The Government thought that it would pass through the House in a few weeks, but here we are, 8 months later, and we are still not through the second reading. Those people who are missing out on something outside the House and who have come here for the past three Wednesdays had better all go back to work, because they are missing out on their money and will not make any here. They did not expect the tremendous opposition that would be generated by the Bill, and thought it would be passed through its introduction stage easily—as it was, by 51 votes to 24 in early March. But here we are in November and they are not overjoyed about that today. I will wager a dozen bottles of whisky with any member that the Bill will not pass through the House in its present form. I am confident of that, because I have been doing my counting. I have been in the House during the debate over the 3 nights, and I have done my homework. There are perhaps 36 members who will vote against the Bill at every stage. There are probably 34 or 35 members who will vote for it at every stage. The homosexual task force has given instructions that the Bill must be passed with the 16 years of age provision. I know that amendments are proposed to increase the age to 18 years or 20 years. I shall vote against fixing the age at 20 years or 18 years. However, the final voting will be for the age of 16 years, or nothing, and I pick that the House will vote against the Bill. It is not over yet. The Bill will receive another second reading, and members will be able to speak again. There has been an internationally organised campaign by homosexuals.

JIM ANDERTON: Organised?

NORMAN JONES: The member for Sydenham who is trying to interject is the buddy member for Invercargill. Every time he opens his mouth in Invercargill he puts another 500 votes in my pocket. He is the best buddy one could have, and long may he remain the buddy member for Invercargill. I assure members that if the Bill is passed in any shape or form the repeal referendum petition will start the next day. It will be based on computerised electoral rolls. Every elector will be given the opportunity to sign the repeal petition that I, or someone else, will present in the House in 12 months' time. The matter will not go away. I tell members that it can be done.

CLIVE MATTHEWSON: The member's obsessed.

NORMAN JONES: Well, if I am obsessed it is a magnificent obsession. I am a liberal person. I am prepared to agree to disagree on matters such as abortion and adult adoption. I can see both sides of an argument, but on this matter an argument is either right or wrong. I shall not be mealymouthed and say that I agree to disagree. The Bill is wrong. I do not distinguish between sinners. I am no table-thumping, Bible-bashing Christian. I probably represent three-quarters of the 835,000 signatories to the petition who, like myself, do not go to church. I shall go to my Lord on Judgment Day and say: “Lord, I drink whisky, I swear, and I used to chase women, but there is one thing for sure—I do not chase blokes." I do not go to church; I go down to the stables and watch my horses work out. I will go down to hell, and I will have the company of the Anglican parsons, the Presbyterian parsons, and the Methodist parsons who go to their congregations and say that sodomy can be condoned because it is not a sin. They are being paid to preach the gospel. They will have more trouble with the Lord on Judgment Day than I will. I would like to be a fly on the wall when they are making their excuses. I want to return to the seriousness of the matter. It is not a laughing matter when the whole of the heterosexual population-not only the 5 percent or 4 percent homosexual population-is deliberately at risk from the homosexually induced venereal disease of AIDS. There is an internationally organised campaign amongst homosexuals in every country in the world.

Hon. BOB TIZARD: People like the member are more in danger of Legionnaires disease.

NORMAN JONES: The Minister of Energy is more in danger of senility than anything else. Throughout the international homosexual community there has been a campaign to pressurise the non-homosexual population to legalise sodomy to prevent the spread of the homosexual disease AIDS. That is what homosexuals have been doing. It became obvious 5 years ago to homosexuals in the United Kingdom, Europe, America, and all over the world that they were killing themselves by the thousands with AIDS. It was obvious to them that no Government or major multinational corporation would spend millions of dollars on research on a homosexual disease when homosexuals make up only a small percentage of the population. They would not be able to get the kind of money spent on AIDS research to stop this fatal disease that other people were receiving to spend on multiple sclerosis, cancer, arthritis, and so on. Therefore, the only hope for the international homosexual community was for the world's blood banks to become sufficiently contaminated with AIDS and for enough innocent people, women and children, haemophiliacs, wives of bisexual men, and members of the heterosexual community-to become contaminated with the AIDS virus and be poisoned to death by that homosexual venereal disease. World Governments, corporations, medical foundations, and local governments are spending millions of dollars on research. The homosexual community is bloody minded. It has blamed the heterosexuals for the complaint, and has deliberately spread the AIDS disease into the world's blood banks. Until Parliament can assure the heterosexual community that the Department of Health and the New Zealand medical profession can protect haemophiliacs against the AIDS virus, and that the blood banks are not contaminated, we should not legalise sodomy at 16 years of age. If the Bill is passed, AIDS will increase, not decrease.

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