Homosexual Law Reform Bill - third reading continued (9 July 1986)

The third reading of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill having been called, Dr BILL SUTTON (Hawke's Bay) said: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker, under Standing Order 235. I move, That the order of the day for the third reading of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill be discharged, and that the Bill be recommitted for consideration of the amendments set out in Supplementary Order Paper 33. I am speaking under part (2) of the Standing Order. The Homosexual Law Reform Bill is finely balanced between victory and defeat. If the Bill had been voted on last week it would have been defeated by one vote; if it is voted on tonight it may well pass or fail by a similar margin. That is not the best way for the House to dispose finally of such important legislation when, with a further small amendment that does no real damage to the principles of the Bill, it could be passed by a convincing majority and receive majority support from the New Zealand people.

The House divided on the question, That the order of the day for the third reading of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill be discharged, and that the Bill be recommitted for consideration of the amendments set out in Supplementary Order Paper 33. Ayes 18 Austin, M. E.; Austin, W. R.; Burdon; Colman; Cox; Dillon; Gair; Gerard; Graham; Jeffries; Luxton; McKinnon; O'Flynn; Storey; Sutton, J. R.; Young, T. J. Tellers: Elder; Sutton, W. D. Noes 68 Anderton; Angus; Austin, H. N.; Banks; Bassett; Batchelor; Birch; Bolger; Boorman; Braybrooke; Burke; Butcher; Caygill; Clark; Cooper; Cullen; de Cleene; Douglas; Dunne; East; Falloon; Fraser; Friedlander; Gerbic; Goff; Gray; Gregory; Hercus; Hunt; Isbey; Jones; Keall; Kidd; King; Knapp; Lange; Lee; McClay; McTigue; Marshall, C. R.; Marshall, D. W. A.; Matthewson; Maxwell, R. K.; Moore; Morrison; Moyle; Neilson; Northey; O'Regan; Palmer; Peters; Prebble; Rodger; Scott; Shields; Shirley; Talbot; Tapsell; Terris; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Tizard; Wallbank; Wellington; Wetere; Woollaston; Young, V. S. Tellers: Mallard; Wilde. Majority against: 50 Motion negatived.

Third Reading Debate resumed from 2 July 1986.

Hon. GEORGE GAIR (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): This is one of the hours in the life of Parliament when one makes a decision whether one likes it or not, one hopes for the better, and one does one's best. There is not a member in the House who is not presented with this problem. I am conscious that the House is divided fairly evenly on the issue. I am conscious that the community is divided, the political parties are divided, and the churches are divided on an issue that has gone on for too long. However, it was better to try to stay the distance and get the right answer than to come to a wrong answer in a short time. As members know I have tried to find a compromise between two extreme positions. The positions did not start as extreme, but they became extreme as the debate developed; positions hardened; attitudes became more and more intransigent; the community became divided; and that is bad. Sometimes change is inevitable, and responsible change is necessary. In 1974 my colleague the member for Waitotara introduced legislation that was defeated by-as I recall it-only seven votes. Had it been passed there would have been no such division in the country today, because New Zealand legislation would have been on a par with that of much, indeed most, of the Western World. In our present legislation creating criminals of homosexuals, who live their lives and do their thing in private away from the public scene-we share honours with a handful of states in the United States, the state of Queensland, Ireland, and South Africa. The rest of the Western World has learnt to adapt to changing times, but for New Zealand that was not to be. Attempts at changing the law since then have not been successful until now-partly because of the zealous support of the enthusiasts for change. The Bill that is now being considered in its final hours presented the House with two suggestions: first, to change the Crimes Act, with which I agree; and, second, to change the Human Rights Commission Act, with which I disagree. Most members of Parliament and most New Zealanders are against that, and Parliament has already defeated that measure. With the best of motives, the people who have sponsored the Bill may have asked for too much. By asking for too much they created a bow wave of opposition that produced the arguments that now divide New Zealand. Until the past few hours I had felt that some compromise, particularly on the matter of age, might still be possible. It was not until last night that I finally realised that the hardening of opinion over the months of the debate meant that a compromise was no longer possible. The attitude was "Like it or lump it—the whole deal, or nothing at all". It is not a satisfactory position, but that is the choice that each member must face tonight. The last opportunity for a compromise, which I could have supported enthusiastically, was lost in the wrong vote on Wednesday night when the member for Fendalton had his motion defeated by 63 votes to 22. The protagonists of change in an unchanged form-in other words, the Bill with Part I as it stands—and the opponents of the Bill joined forces to defeat any reasonable attempt to find a middle ground. The argument has been going on for so long that, inevitably, Parliament must now face the final crunch. That there has been no willingness to compromise is as much on the heads of those who are opposed to the Bill as of those who are in favour of the Bill in its present form. Each could have worked with those in the middle ground to find a compromise that would have produced a change in the law, but with an age limit a little higher than that proposed in the Bill. Those who, like myself, represent the middle ground are presented with three options: to vote against the Bill; to abstain; or to vote for the Bill unamended. I cannot vote against the Bill, because a change is long overdue—and that I have sought to make clear. For some time I considered that perhaps the course was to abstain, and I agonised over that. I must say that some aspects of abstention are appealing, but, in the final analysis, an abstention would pass the responsibility over to others, and that I am not prepared to do. Therefore, I was presented with what I feel is a difficult choice between two propositions, neither of which I like, but one of which I like less than the other. So when the vote is taken I will vote in favour of the Bill but with considerable reluctance. New Zealand has been badly divided on the issue. I should like to feel that the hard things that have been said in the Chamber, and the hard things that have been said outside the Chamber, will be eased and forgiven, whatever the result. From the middle of a great foot-deep heap of correspondence that has deluged my office recently I plucked two letters. Coincidentally, they involve two communications that represent the diversity of the extremes in the argument. The first is a simple thank-you card, which states: “Thank you for saying yes to the law reform Bill.” I have no doubt that that was written with total sincerity. The second is a letter that, among other things, states: "With your stand on the homosexual reform Bill you have just determined where you are going to spend eternity", and it refers me to Romans, chapter 1, 24-27. Both those letters were written with total sincerity, and I received them with equal sincerity. After the vote has been taken, and no matter what the outcome, our big task will be to heal the wounds. There is no future for a society that is divided by zealots on the one side and bigots on the other side. New Zealand is a society that stresses tolerance. It is a society that has prided itself on its ability to accommodate gradual social change. That the Bill has asked for too much of the loaf, and finished up with only half, should be accepted as an honourable middle ground. Part II of the Bill, which I believe produced the greatest amount of opposition, has been defeated-it is not before the House. Tonight the House is being asked to approve the decriminalisation of male homosexuality, and that is a strongly justifiable measure. The arguments that remain relate to the matter of the age of consent, and I am sorry that we were unable to make the age 18 years. Had the amendment of the member for Fendalton been accepted I believe that it would have been agreed to by a substantial majority of members and the issue would have been closed. If the vote tonight is finely balanced, it is certain that the argument will return. It will haunt the Chamber until New Zealand society finds a way to live with change. I make a final plea: that whichever way members vote tonight they be not judged too harshly, because even those who oppose the position I hold are voting with their consciences; they are voting for what they believe to be right.

JOHN BANKS (Whangarei): What we have just heard was shallow humbug and weak rhetoric from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It was a historic dissertation of negligible substance. Until 70 percent of his speech had been delivered, it appeared to be a speech of abstention. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has obviously had considerable difficulty with his own conscience. He said that the options were to vote against the Bill, to abstain, or to vote in favour of the Bill. Although he said that the sponsors of the Bill in its present form had asked for too much, he said that he is prepared to give them that "too much". I tell the Deputy Leader of the Opposition-as I told him privately-that I am terribly disappointed in him. He is a colleague, and I hope that, after the Bill has gone, he will continue to be a friend. However, I am prepared to stand up and be counted. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had voted with the rest of his colleagues just 1 week ago, we would not be debating the Bill tonight—instead, we would be discussing matters of great importance to New Zealand. On behalf of the opponents of this evil Bill, I thank those New Zealanders who have shown encouragement for so long. I thank those people who had an overwhelming objection to the Bill and who were motivated by its evil and their concern for the country-a concern that there was no conciliation in the way the Bill came from the select committee and the Committee of the whole House. I thank those 835,000 people for the considerable amount of work done throughout the country. This day will be remembered as a sad and sickening day for New Zealand. A very black cloud hangs over Parliament tonight, and those members who wheel themselves through the doors of the Ayes lobby to vote for legalised sodomy at the age of 16 should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, particularly as the family unit in New Zealand is under siege. The family, the building block, the bastion of this country, is under siege even without the kind of legislation that has been foisted on the nation by Parliament tonight. Tonight is the night that I and other opponents will say no and will parade through the Noes lobby at the appropriate time. As those of our colleagues whose consciences have told them to amend the Crimes Act to legalise sodomy at the age of 16 for young New Zealanders come out of the Ayes lobby, we will be prepared to bury the hatchet forthwith. But I stand here and thank the majority of the people of Whangarei, the 835,000 New Zealanders who oppose the Bill, and those decent people who have prayed on the steps of Parliament. I am prepared to stand up and be counted on their behalf tonight. I am also prepared to let the Bill lie once it passes on to the statute book, because that is the democratic process and in this forum members with the right amount of intestinal fortitude can say exactly how they feel about such issues. I stood and said exactly how I felt after my friend and colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had stood up and told the country how he felt. He had a right to do that, and I respect that right, and I have a right to tell the House exactly what I think about the Bill and what I think about members who are prepared to wheel themselves through the Ayes lobby when you, Mr Speaker, decide that you have heard enough. Members heard at the Committee stage that homosexuals cannot change-once a homosexual always a homosexual. There is no evidence to support that view. It is similar to the Victorian view that once one was an alcoholic one was always an alcoholic. Members heard at the Committee stage that homosexuals are born that way, that they have no choice but to be the way they are. Most leading psychologists now agree that homosexuality is not innate and does not have any generic connection. Members were told that a person should be able to do what he or she wants to in the privacy of his or her bedroom. That is untrue. Taken to an extreme, if that was so, how would society protect itself from incest in the privacy of the bedroom, from child abuse in the privacy of the bedroom, from bigamy in the privacy of the bedroom, and, at the ultimate extreme, from euthanasia in the privacy of the bedroom? Someone must stand up and say that the country is in trouble. Enough is enough. I am prepared to take a stand on behalf of the 835,000 New Zealanders who said no with a signature on a petition, and the many hundreds of thousands of people who are very concerned about the shenanigans in Parliament today. Most New Zealanders support gay rights, which is the right to be gay. That is what we heard, but 835,000 New Zealanders said that Parliament should not legitimise the act of sodomy at any age. Tonight those people find themselves facing the worst option, that of age 16. During the Committee stage members heard that compassion should be shown to those people. To pretend that such behaviour is normal or healthy is no more sensible than to celebrate with an alcoholic his alcohol drinking problem. I finish as I started: at last I am prepared to say in the House on behalf of most of my constituency that homosexuality is wrong on every occasion. They have told me that it is wrong and I will stand up in Parliament and say that it is wrong. I do not care what ridicule I get from Government members-because most of the Bill's supporters come from that side of the House-but members must say no to the Bill tonight.

MAURICE McTIGUE (Timaru): Even before I came to Parliament this Bill was being debated. More than 12 months later it is still before the House. The issue is described as one of conscience, and I hope that for all members of the House the matter is one to make them search their consciences, call upon the value judgments that a lifetime has taught them, and consider the things that they hold to be precious and important to them when making that judgment. I am the only member of the House who has faced a true poll on the issue of whether or not to legalise homosexuality, in that it was a matter of substantial public concern at the time of the by-election in Timaru. Although more than 15,000 people signed the petition in Timaru, which was conducted at about the same time as the by-election there, I was not persuaded by their opinion; I was persuaded by my own conscience to oppose the Bill. I was persuaded by my conscience because the lawmakers of the land must accept the responsibility not only for making the law but also for ensuring that when they make that law they send signals to the population at large about what is right and desirable for society as a whole and what is wrong. At the beginning of the sitting each day we pray to Almighty God for guidance to use the right judgments in the decisions we make, and that those judgments of God should also be a judgment upon us while we make those decisions. During the Committee stage of the Bill we heard many quotations and misquotations from people of all degrees of commitment and of all religious persuasions. I was particularly attracted to some of the comments made by Cardinal Williams in some of his communications to the people of his archdiocese. I shall read to the House one or two of those quotations, because they put many of the issues that are most important in the debate into a proper perspective. He said that he opposed the Bill because he believes it is not in the real interests of homosexuals or society as a whole. In saying that to his people, Cardinal Williams meant that he believed it was very important that the Government, in making its laws, makes laws that are morally right. In so doing, it would then be serving the needs of society.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is definitely moving into material that would be appropriate for a second reading, but it is rather inappropriate for a third reading. I realise that the debate has already widened, but it is not as yet, in my opinion, about the general nature and principles of the Bill. However, the discussions of outside comment on the Bill is undoubtedly within that range.

MAURICE McTIGUE: Those issues were debated quite widely during the Committee stage, and many of those statements were questioned. I reiterate them because I believe that they are the basis of my commitment in opposing the Bill. Part II of the Bill, dealing with human rights, was defeated during the Committee stage. While that improved the Bill, it did not take away that which is still most abhorrent to me-the moral and social acceptance of homosexuality as an equal alternative sexuality. I believe that that will give the very worst of messages to young people. I will be deeply disappointed if the Bill is passed this evening. I accept that there are many members who, having gone through a similar process to me, have made a different decision. I respect their right to make that decision, and I respect their right and ability to vote in that way. I would still be disappointed to see them make that decision because I believe that they are wrong. I believe that they are morally wrong, and wrong in the way they are representing the people of their electorates. During the Committee stage it became apparent that many lobby groups had a very strong attitude towards the passage of the Bill. Those strong lobby groups may well have influenced members of the House, but I would ask those members to give further consideration to the attitude they have taken and, even at this late stage, ask them to make the decision to change their minds. For many of those people who have come to Parliament on Wednesday evenings to watch the passage of the Bill, the vote will be a traumatic event whichever way the decision goes. Those people have had their opportunities through the select committee, and in the poll that was taken. In that poll 830,000 people exercised the option to express their opinion on the matter. Even though the poll was severely questioned during the Committee stage, it was never brought into disrepute. I believe it stands as the real poll on the issue, and that it will stand for all time as the real poll on the issue. When members of the House go to the voting lobbies tonight they will either accept or reject the opinion expressed by that large number of New Zealanders who were so committed that they were prepared to place their signatures upon that document. In passing the Bill we are opening the door to members of the humanistic element of society who have set aside many of the value judgments they grew up with. They are now bringing into society a different set of value judgments. I reject in total those value judgments they are trying to set up. Society must revert to the judgments and values of the past, and members must be prepared to say in the House that they believe strongly in the family unit. Many speakers in the Committee stage raised the issue of the family unit, and I believe that it is at the heart of the matter. Heterosexual activity is at the heart of a good marriage. Heterosexual activity brings together loving partners for the procreation and the continuation of mankind, and any rejection of heterosexual activity is a rejection of the family. There were people who from time to time went so far as to propound the idea that in time there would be homosexual marriages as the equal of heterosexual marriages. I totally reject that philosophy. It has been a trying time, during which all members have been torn in different ways and many close friendships have been harmed. We are being asked to make a decision. I hope that, after having made that decision in the House, I will be able to view many of those who have voted in favour of the Bill with the same respect as before. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, it is something to which we should direct our minds, but it will be very difficult for many of us to do. If it is difficult for us to do, it will be even more so outside in the community. We have an obligation to the rest of the community to pay very special attention to people's needs, concerns, and reflections regarding the Bill before we finally decide. The House is well filled this evening, but probably many members in the House tonight have already decided how they will vote on the Bill. I make a plea to them to consider, before they make that final decision, that they will be party to sanctioning the practising of sodomy at the age of 16 years if they support the Bill. They should reconsider their position; they should reconsider the implications for society as a whole of passing the Bill; they should consider the future of good marriages within society, and the future of society as a whole if we allow the degeneration of values that the Bill represents. For many members the debate will be the most important of the session, and I can only trust that members will vote responsibly.

Hon. VENN YOUNG (Waitotara): I shall contain my remarks to the Bill as it came out of the Committee, and I hope that that will make your task somewhat easier, Mr Speaker, but first I shall speak of some experience akin to that of the member for Wellington Central. Whatever we may think of the Bill she has been promoting, we must recognise that she shoulders a very heavy personal burden. There is no doubt that her correspondence would not be contained in her office. Ten years ago I piloted through certain stages of the House a reform Bill that was a modest step forward by comparison with the Bill that has just come from the Committee. When the member for Wellington Central said she was prepared to introduce the Homosexual Law Reform Bill, the advice I gave her was that there is nothing more difficult than to persuade the people of New Zealand and one's own colleagues to decide on a definition of what is moral and what is legal. Members of Parliament are not the keepers of the morals of the nation. Our responsibility is to the laws of the nation. Therefore, we must keep that in mind in making a decision about whether the Bill should proceed to its third reading. I do not know if any members are still uncommitted in their views about which lobby door they will move through when the division is taken. My colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that the House is sharply and finely divided. The Bill will be won or lost by two or three votes. In those circumstances we should ask whether we should change the law, which has remained the same for a long time. The legislation as originally introduced by the member for Wellington Central went too far. The 16-year age of consent is the provision that I know troubled many members of the House and troubled the population at large. I have heard speaker after speaker say that no criminal law should apply when homosexual adults are engaged in those practices in private-whatever they may be or however they might offend us. We must ask ourselves who is an adult. Is an adult a person aged 16? Is an adult even a person aged 18, which is a compromise that was sought? The answer is again no. It may seem a modest step forward, but I believe that those who support homosexual law reform, across the broad stretch of people, believe that the law should be changed for consenting adults in private-that is, for those people aged 20 and over. That is why I believe-although it was rejected by a large majority—that the most adequate amendment the House considered in Committee was the first amendment put forward by my colleague the member for Fendalton. That would have resolved the issue. The battle may be won tonight but the war will not be won. As members we know only too well, regardless of where the majority lies tonight, that the battle will be won but not the war. There will be a Pyrrhic victory, and its cost in a divided community will be too great. Time after time I have heard people try to discredit the total of 800,000 signatures on a petition. Even if there were 500,000, that would be half a million people who are concerned at the trend of the law is taking. If the Legislature accepts an age of 16 it is getting too far ahead of the people. I suggest that in the finely divided position in which we find ourselves we should not vote for change, but that at a later stage some member should bring to the House an amending Bill that is more along the lines that the majority the people will accept. The member for Glenfield shakes her head. The House has demonstrated by its rejection of Part II of the Bill that it does not consider equally matters of heterosexuality and homosexuality. It has said that. That is the only reason the age of 16 remains. There are those who will argue for different laws for heterosexual acts and homosexual acts. The population at large does not place them on the same level or give them the same consideration. Whether that is right or wrong, they do not do that. Although I subscribe strongly to the early comment of my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I will not go with him to vote on the Bill. I believe that the decision will be divisive and will not achieve the necessary real reform, which is a reform in understanding, compassion, and tolerance. I shall, therefore, vote against the third reading.

TREVOR YOUNG (Eastern Hutt): Tonight members of the House face the final decision they will be called upon to make on the third reading of the Bill. Members have spoken genuinely about their approach to the matter. I listened intently to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and I share some of the anguish he feels-although I might disagree with his conclusion. I know that he, like other members, has wrestled closely with the problem, and we have taken it upon ourselves to reach a decision that we believe is in the best interests of the country. During the debate members have been taunted by various pressure groups urging us to take one approach or another and appealing to our better instincts either to support or not to support the Bill. Strong cases have been made out by genuine people for support for the age of 16, and strong evidence has been shown against it. I urge the House to take to heart the speech we have just heard from the member for Waitotara. The House will be closely divided on the Bill, and I believe that it is not proper that the third reading should be allowed, in view of the close position. I further believe that considerable research is being done internationally and that New Zealand should require deeper study into the subject so that we know the best route to take. While I was in Australia I had some discussions with social workers and psychiatrists who have been working in the field, in particular Dr John Court and Dr Moyes. From my own reading, as the Bill has proceeded, I consider that the House has not had time to study the consequences of some of the research and to know how far the research has moved ahead of the findings of the Wolfenden commission, which originally urged the changes in the law. During the passage of the Bill I supported an amendment moved by the member for Napier calling for an independent commission to study the subject, and for the House to act on a properly researched paper. I regret that that was not agreed to. During the debate I have listened intently to some members who have responded to correspondence and to pressures they have received by way of correspondence from genuine Christians in the community. One thing that has struck me about the third reading debate is that people who have Christian convictions have come to a different conclusion about which way we should go. I listened particularly to the sincere speech the Minister of Education made when the matter was last before the House, and to the member for Sydenham and the member for Hamilton East. While I appreciate members' feelings of Christian love and compassion in trying to understand people's different characteristics-sexual or other-my own conviction comes from what Paul had to say to the Romans. Paul was the great exponent of Christian standards, and he said: "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid." I quote from the Good News Bible, from the same chapter: “Give yourself to God as those who have been brought forth from death to life. Surrender your whole being to him to be used for righteous purposes. Sin must not be your master, for you do not live under the law but under God's grace." That standard was expounded by Paul. I say to my Christian friends who are members of the House, and who take a different route and come to a different conclusion, that I believe that we need to show real understanding of all people, irrespective of their differences-we are called to do that as politicians. However, I do not agree with the conclusions that some members have come to and the way in which they have advocated their Christian stand. We all know about the huge petition that came to the House. It is right that the public should tell politicians how they feel on important moral issues such as this. Some of us have been influenced one way or another by the size of the petition. Often, the minority can be right and the majority can be wrong. In the end the decision comes back to members, who must determine what they believe the interests of a nation to be when they consider any legislation, particularly the legislation before the House. I am concerned that there are real physiological and psychological problems because of the practice of homosexuality in this country and other countries. We need deeper research and more thorough knowledge of the matter. Despite all the time that the Bill has been before the House, members have not really come to grips with that issue. I oppose the third reading of the Bill.

JIM GERARD (Rangiora): I was not going to speak in the debate tonight, so I shall be very brief. However, my conscience has told me that I should take part. I listened to the debate throughout the Committee stage, and I sat on the select committee and heard much of the evidence. I have not changed my mind. I polled my electorate, just as many members polled theirs. In my electorate, 80 percent of the 600 people polled were opposed to the Bill. I personally am totally opposed to setting the age of consent at 16 years. The reason I have risen to speak is that I listened intently to the speech made by my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I do not agree with much of what he said, but I want to protect his right, or the right of any other member, to say it. The matter involves a conscience vote, and I regret the bitter attack launched upon that member. I believe that Parliament is entitled to hear what members have to say, whether others agree or disagree. I respect the sincerity of all members who have spoken. I am opposing the Bill, but I felt drawn into the debate.

WINSTON PETERS (Tauranga): The debate tonight is truly "high noon" for all members of the House on both sides of the issue. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that the passage of the Bill would put New Zealand on a par with the remainder of the Western World. On the face of it, that seems to be a very compelling reason to support the legislation, but I wonder how many members in the House would follow that dictum in relation to defence policies and the grounds on which they are predicated in New Zealand at present. I am not making a political issue of the matter; I am just saying that if that dictum had any merit it would apply to many matters other than the legislation before the House tonight. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that the issue was capable of compromise and, like my bench mate the member for Fendalton, he believed that members could agree to a compromise on the age of 18 and satisfy all parties. I do not believe that to be so. Given the slim age differential, the case would have remained the same for both sides. I listened with great interest to the Minister of Education, who I understand has been trained in the clerical world and was a minister. He threw out a challenge to all members, and presumably the public at large, to produce any New Testament argument that would be evidence against the practice of homosexuality.

TREVOR MALLARD: That's not correct.

WINSTON PETERS: It is correct. The Minister of Education said that he could find no evidence in the New Testament against the practice of homosexuality. He said that the evidence in the Old Testament should not be used, because it had been overridden by the later document, the New Testament. That is the way I understood the argument, as did many correspondents who have written to me, and many who listened to the radio. If the Hansard record were to be checked I am sure my interpretation would be found to be fair and accurate. I do not claim to be a biblical scholar.

Hon. RICHARD PREBBLE: The member doesn't claim to be a scholar.

WINSTON PETERS: It does not matter how serious, how personal, or how close to one's conscience an issue might get, the Minister of Transport will always play politics, because he is a special creature-he does not have a conscience. I say that with some reserve, but I am supported in that view by Don Goodfellow, the people at East Town, the airline pilots, all the transport industry, and half the country.

TREVOR DE CLEENE: The member's going a bit off the rails.

WINSTON PETERS: I could be derailed over that comment if I applied it to any other member of the House, but I am right on course when it comes to the Minister. As a matter of interest, I studied the Hebrew language at university, and the text used was the Bible. I was fascinated by the comments made by the Minister of Education, not because I want to demonstrate any biblical knowledge, but because the evidence was so easy to find. The first evidence can be found in I Corinthians 6:9. In addition to the sin about which the verse speaks, there are some other sins that would have some members of the House rather concerned and worried, and which would also worry some people in the press gallery, some in the gallery, and some listening to the radio. The references can be found all through the New Testament. I do not know why a cleric who claims some knowledge of the Bible should say that the references did not exist, and should throw out a challenge in the House. Romans, chapter 1, verse 24, states: "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves." Verse 26 states: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature." verse 27 states: "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly. . .". The member for Palmerston North seems to be excited. Perhaps those words took him back to the halcyon days of his youth. I shall now detail the reasons for my opposition to the Bill. I was brought up in a small Maori settlement on the East Coast. I know that the people who will be damaged the most by the passage of the Bill will be the Maori youth. I believe I have just cause in defending their future and the future of children yet unborn. It is the way of society. One has only to look around the world to see who is at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, and see what perversity is being performed upon them. I will not have that on my conscience tonight. I am astounded by the number of women who support the Bill. In my view the Bill is anti-women, because it makes them irrelevant. New Zealand has the capacity to escape the scourge of AIDS, but will not do so if the Bill is passed. It has been a custom with both parties that if the caucus is split 50:50 the status quo is retained until there is a clear majority either way. That is the one rule common to both parties. If a vote is taken on the issue tonight it will be almost 50:50 and members will have abandoned that principle. I do not want to make it a personal matter. I count the Deputy Leader of the Opposition as a friend of mine, along with other members on both sides of the House, and I do not care whether they like me or not. I remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of the famous statement made by Sir Winston Churchill: "The trouble with being on the side of right is that you keep so much dubious company." The petition against the Bill was signed by 15,700 people in the Tauranga electorate. I have been a victim of fraudulent signatures, and even if 10 percent or 20 percent of the signatures were false-and I do not believe they were-the number of people who signed the petition was still large. I shall not let those people down.

Hon. RUSSELL MARSHALL (Minister of Education): I seek to correct a misrepresentation made in the previous speech: The member for Tauranga said that I had said in my speech last week that there was not one word in the New Testament against homosexuality. I quote from my Hansard the words I actually used: "I challenge the member and anybody who is opposed to the Bill to produce one word from our Lord that condemns homosexuality." I did go on to say: "I am not here to defend some of St. Paul's rather strange ideas about the sexuality of men and women.

WINSTON PETERS (Tauranga): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: The particular Standing Order that the Minister of Education invoked specifically denies the right of debate.

WINSTON PETERS: If the words quoted are what the Minister said—and I believe him I want to withdraw my comments and offer him an apology. Is that O.K.?

Mr SPEAKER: Yes.

PETER DUNNE (Ohariu): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon. WHETU TIRIKATENE-SULLIVAN (Southern Maori): It would be difficult in 10 minutes to summarise what I said during the Committee stage in the more than a dozen speeches I made, and to say everything I want to say on the Bill. However, I shall try to do so, and I begin by referring to the Sunday News of 12 March 1979. An article in that newspaper headed "Do you, Peter, take this man" referred to a marriage that had taken place in Auckland between the Rev. Peter Alexander Smith and his homosexual partner Damian. The Rev. Smith was asked what his ministry was, and he replied that his most important activity was to move around the gay bars and clubs of Auckland. He also referred to the setting up of groups throughout the country into what I would call gay or homosexual caucuses. He said that they were established throughout the country, that church groups were also established, and that there were many pastors in other mainline churches. There have ben gay bars, ministries, clubs, and gay marriages in New Zealand since 1977. He pointed out that he had been married but it had not worked out-and members were told by the Gay Marriage Association, whose correspondence I have before me, that there are about 50,000 gay men in New Zealand who are married. He decided to opt out of the marriage expected of him by society, and married his partner at the time. I bring such facts to the attention of the House because members are somewhat somnambulant about the progress of the homosexual network in New Zealand, and about the fact that there are gay caucuses in the mainline churches, and in every profession-and I have not been associated with any profession in which there has not been one to my sure knowledge. The House is discussing a Bill that refers to a development that has occurred in New Zealand, following the progress in America. Members supporting the Bill have said that most of the mainline churches favour it. However, that is a claim for the politically naive, because the gay liberation movement has moved to have its members establish gay caucuses in every church. That is a simple reality, and I repeat that there are gay caucuses in every profession. When the House last debated the Bill, many members who supported it labelled themselves as Christians. They appeared to imply that there is sanction in the scriptures for homosexuality. That is incorrect, but time does not allow me to elaborate. I have the Bible before me, and if I had the time I would refer to it. I will leave it at that, but the Bible contains many specific references to homosexuality. Many members have said in the debate that it is virtually impossible to change human behaviour and patterns of sexual orientation. The New Testament explicitly refers to some members of the church at Corinth having been homosexual in orientation but changing after they learnt of Christ. That has continued to happen over the subsequent 1,000 years. I have witnessed this happening to my acquaintances and also to individuals whom I did not know at the time. Representations were made to the select committee by New Zealanders who are no longer homosexual. There is no denying that it is possible to change one's sexual orientation. I believe my observations give me the right to speak with some authority, but there is also the evidence of the many people who came before the select committee. Dr Delany, who has treated many ill homosexuals, pointed out that the very practice of sodomy creates the predisposition to disease. It is a practice in which there is an oppressor and an oppressed, and I am told—and I remind the House that as a social worker I once counselled homosexuals for some years before I came to the House, and I still do-that the pain to the passive or the receiving partner can be considerable. I am open to correction on that point by any member who can speak with some authority. However, I can pass on only what former homosexuals have told me. Much is said about the dichotomy. I have been assured by some who have been the passive partner that it is painful. I can only take their word. What about heterosexual women or heterosexual wives of homosexual husbands? I cannot think of anything more oppressive than to be sodomised by one's husband. The Bill has two revolutionary purposes: first, to establish for the first time in New Zealand that the homosexual practice of sodomy is a legitimate behaviour in the New Zealand life-style; and, second, to enshrine that legitimacy into New Zealand law. The Bill seeks to make a socio-political statement that was begun by the gay liberation movement in the early 1970s. That movement sought to have American law recognise sodomy as legitimate, normal, natural, and legal behaviour. It succeeded, but that success has been short-lived. After 10 years of gay liberation revolution in America, the law has been reversed by the Supreme Court of America, which ruled last week that homosexuals have no constitutional right to engage in sodomy. Why does Parliament want to legitimise sodomy in that way? I oppose the Bill and I oppose the legitimation that some members want to confer on that practice. The member for Tauranga expressed concern about those who are in the oppressed group, and I agree. My own concern is from a vested interest as a mother and a Maori member of Parliament. Maori boys are choice targets for cruising gay predators, whether Maori or non-Maori. I am concerned to represent them, and I regret that I see some members smiling at that concern. I speak with the knowledge of my case-load on the matter. A mother's instinct to protect her son caused her to stab fatally a member of the gay community who had tried to sodomise her 11-year-old boy. The mother was convicted and discharged. Members may or may not be familiar with those facts. My abiding concern continues to be for those young boys. In San Francisco I observed that the favourite subject of the highly promiscuous and predatory homosexual men were the indigenous boys-the Mexicans, the Puerto Ricans, and the blacks. Those boys made up the highest proportion of prostitutes. They were also significant among the ranks of the local unemployed. They needed money and the older men needed their kicks. If the House approves the Bill I shall hold its supporters culpable for the creation of a new business for unemployed Maori boys enticed into homosexual prostitution. New Zealand will become a Mecca for the affluent gay travel organisations from America and other continents. I have proof tonight in the House that already people are soliciting. They are writing overseas, preparing this side of the Pacific to receive on the suggestion of American travel agents.

PETER NEILSON (Miramar): I move, That the question be now put.

NORMAN JONES (Invercargill): It is 16 months since the Bill was first introduced by the member for Wellington Central. They have been 16 months of tactics. Within 4 months of the Bill's introduction a petition signed by 835,000 New Zealanders tried to show Parliament that New Zealanders did not want sodomy to be legalised at 16 years of age, or any age. Throughout that tactical fight those of us who are opposed to legalising sodomy at any age have stayed constant. On two or three occasions, had a vote been taken, the Bill could have been defeated. If it were not for connivance and agreements being made the Bill could have been defeated last Wednesday by 46 votes to 44 votes. Two Wednesdays previously it could have been defeated by four votes. I know, as well as the Minister of Transport knows, that tonight the Bill will be passed by 48 votes to 45, or 47 votes to 46, depending on who has not made up his or her mind. Irrespective of whether the Bill is passed, it will be a narrow majority. The House is evenly divided against itself. That is not the position that exists in New Zealand. There is no division amongst New Zealanders about the matter. Even though the vote will be won tonight that will not be the end of the matter. The House has heard a lot about compromise from the master of compromise—the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I do not mind tactics-I am as good at them as anybody-but it is nonsense when a member says he voted the way he did against the closure because he was looking for compromise, when 14 hours earlier the House had defeated a compromise by 63 votes to 22 votes. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said he waited until the last minute tonight for a compromise. He received his answer. The vote was 68:18, or something like that. There is never a compromise; there is no compromise on sodomy. It is either right or wrong, and everybody knows that it is wrong. Give the Deputy Leader of the Opposition eight alternatives and he will look for a ninth. That is typical. The House knows where he stands at present. He will vote for the Bill. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that he was looking for an honourable middle ground. At any stage during the passage of the Bill he could have gone to the member for Wellington Central and said: "There are 22 members of the House who are not satisfied with the way they voted for 16 years of age and are happy to vote for 18, 19, or 20 years of age. You join us and we'll have a better Bill." It does no good for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to come to me and my people saying he wants an honourable compromise on sodomy, because to us age is irrelevant; it always has been and it always will be. The honourable compromise could have come from the member for Wellington Central, but, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, she was greedy; she wanted all or nothing. She has it all, but it is not the end of the matter. The House is legalising sodomy at any age, and that is obnoxious. The 835,000 people who signed the petition will indicate to Parliament what they think about that. This is just the beginning of the matter, and members know it. Throughout the second reading and the Committee stage of the Bill the two main arguments of members who supported an age of consent of 16 years have been that legalising sodomy at 16 years of age will prevent the spread of AIDS amongst young consenting adults indulging in homosexual sex. Those supporting the Bill have also argued that the Bill must be passed to enable homosexuals to come into the open and seek medical treatment. Both of those arguments are fallacious on two counts. Whether or not the Bill is passed-whether or not anal intercourse between consenting adults is legalised-section 201 of the Crimes Act 1961 still applies. That section states: “Infecting with disease-Everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who, wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, causes or produces in any other person any disease or sickness." The note reads: "As to a conviction of an offence under this section being a ground of divorce in Tokelau, see regulation 4(2)(e) of S.R. 1975/262." If the Bill is passed, as appears likely, that section of the Crimes Act will still have to be applied to persons knowing they have, or are carrying, the AIDS antibodies or any infection at all if, at 16 years of age, they indulge in anal intercourse legally with another consenting male-or with a 12-year-old, with consent, provided it was thought he was 16 years of age. That is a defence, but under the existing law they are still liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 14 years. That gives the lie to the homosexual lobby's plaint that sodomy must be legalised at 16 years of age to save people from AIDS. That is nonsense, and they know it. So much for the people infecting each other with AIDS; they will be doing it more quickly and legally if the Bill is passed, but they will still be liable under the Crimes Act. During the Committee stage the second main argument from those who supported the Bill was that if anal intercourse were legal-and in the Crimes Act it has been changed from being described as sodomy to being euphemistically called anal intercourse, but there is no difference-a homosexual could come out into the open and obtain the relevant treatment without breaking the law. About 400 or 500 people in New Zealand have AIDS antibodies, and 24 people have full AIDS. There have been 9 deaths, and those 24 people who have contracted AIDS will also die. In Australia 109 people have died from AIDS, yet 12 months ago the number was only half that. AIDS is not a notifiable disease until it is in the full syndrome stage, or until somebody dies from it. What about the Hippocratic oath? Hundreds of homosexuals are receiving treatment from medical practitioners who keep the complaint confidential in the clinics and in the surgeries. That gives the lie to the second argument that homosexuals must come out of the closet to obtain medical treatment freely and confidentially. They are receiving that treatment now, so it is nonsense to claim that sodomy between consenting adults has to be legalised so that they can be free to seek medical treatment. I want to return to the petition, and to say that if it has been ignored the next petition will not be; it will be computerised in the electorates of every member of Parliament voting for the Bill. Adult voters will be asked if they want the Bill to be repealed, and that will be made an election issue-make no mistake about it. According to their voting records, 15 members of Parliament voting for the Bill have majorities ranging between 2,229 in the case of the member or West Auckland down to 394 for the member for Wairarapa.

NEILL MORRISON (Pakuranga): The Bill has been debated now for about 1½ years.

An Hon. Member: Too long!

NEILL MORRISON: Yes, it has been too long. It has been a fascinating insight into people's personalities and into human nature. Many people on both sides of the issue have received threats. I have received threats, and I find that most unfortunate. I commend the member for Wellington Central for being brave enough to introduce the Bill into the House; it took some courage. I consider some of the abuse she has received from people who claim to be Christians to be totally despicable. Many people on both sides of the argument could do much soul searching. As have all members, I have given the issue deep thought over a long time. I know that every member has approached the Bill with a serious attitude. During the past few months I have penned a few lines of my impressions of the Bill and its progress. For some days I sat in on the committee hearings and heard submissions from the public. I heard arguments from both sides, and I was deeply moved by many of the submissions. It is one of the dilemmas that has faced mankind throughout history. It is the dilemma of change, the dilemma of conviction over reason, the dilemma of modern perceptions over a heritage of Christian teachings stretching back for more than 2,000 years. The Bill seeks to put right what many people see as a wrong; it seeks to put right what many people see as an injustice; it seeks to put right what many see as a denial of human rights; it seeks to put right a law that many people would claim was made in medieval times and with medieval attitudes; and it seeks to put right a law put through the House of Commons in the dead of night more than 100 years ago. It seeks to set free from guilt and loneliness those people in our society who have a different sexual preference; and it seeks to change the attitude of the majority to see the minority as equal and normal. The Bill seeks to make logical what many people would claim to be the illogical. The paradox is that humankind is more emotional than logical, and history is littered with proof of that. Since its birth humankind has struggled to keep an equal balance. To deny an emotion is futile, yet to deny logic is futile; it gives humankind the rationale to plan its destiny. However, there is a dimension to humankind that is as irrefutable as logic-it is the dimension of faith. Faith is the foundation upon which millions of people have relied through troubled times. Faith comes under several names and religions; ours is called Christianity. Christianity is the rock upon which our people base their faith. There are many forces in life, and they have all been traversed in the Bill. All those forces need a balanced approach. Henry Kissinger once said: "Society is balanced on a knife edge", and we have had many examples in the past century of exactly that. Thousands of New Zealanders see the balance as being threatened. Thousands of average people who have no real argument one way or the other on the issue feel concerned that there will be an upset in the balance of something that has been built up during many thousands of years. The broad spectrum of people in our society perceive a gradual shift away from a society of reasonable standards. Many thousands of those people are quietly worried. After 18 months of debate, at an estimated cost in time of more than $6 million, the Bill now depends upon a few votes-possibly one, two, three, or four. I believe that an issue such as this, which can fill the galleries and have people waiting outside to get in, is too finely balanced to be passed tonight. A Bill such as this needs to be passed with a good majority. I oppose the Bill, because, fundamentally, I believe that humankind needs a purpose in life. Some would say that the purpose of homosexuality is human pleasure and love. I accept that, and I respect it. However, if I am a member of Parliament for any reason it is to lay a legacy for my children, and their children in the century to come. I do not believe that the Bill will do that. Members are elected to lay a heritage for a fruitful, purposeful, balanced society, which will be carried through to the next century and the century following that. If the Bill is passed it will erode the very foundation upon which a balanced society is possible. If there is no purpose to life, there is steady decay. I oppose the Bill. I know that many of my constituents do not agree with my stand, and I respect their views. They can make a decision regarding my fate at the next election, and I welcome that opportunity. I want the people of my electorate to know exactly where I stand. I do not believe that the Bill will achieve anything. It will not lead to a productive future society.

CLIVE MATTHEWSON (Dunedin West): I move, That the question be now put.

Mr SPEAKER: Undoubtedly the debate has moved away from a third reading debate, and is becoming a repetition of the second reading debate. However, the member for Papakura has called repeatedly, and I will allow him the call. After that I must follow the practice I have adopted in all debates: when members move away from the subject of the debate it is an obvious signal to the Chair that the debate should be closed.

Hon. MERV WELLINGTON (Papakura): I want to make a few passing comments that relate to the proceedings during the Committee stage. In regard to an earlier comment made tonight, I observe the statement made by a leading British politician who said that consensus politics is "the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be resolved". That is all I want to say about consensus, except to add that I absolutely accept that point of view so succinctly and accurately put. The Bill gives the wrong message, particularly to young people. I am sure that thousands of teenagers and young adolescents have been confused by the proceedings of Parliament during the past 18 months. That would be especially so had they listened to the proceedings of Parliament during the Committee stage. If the Bill is passed it will create unwarranted pressures and unthought-of fears in our schools, technical institutes, community colleges, universities and teachers' colleges. I say that against a background of more than 10 years in secondary teaching, as a member of Parliament, and for nearly 6 years as Minister of Education. I believe that it will drive a wedge between teachers and pupils and among parents, teachers, and pupils. None of the chuckling from the member for Wellington Central, in particular, will dissuade from that point of view those of us who have opposed the measure for 18 months. As any master in a boys' boarding school will know, it is the kind of thing to which the honourable member for Southern Maori quite properly referred earlier. I endorse that by saying that having been a boarding school master at St. Stephen's College, which was set up by the Anglican Church in the 1840s primarily for Maori and Polynesian young men, I consider that the member for Southern Maori is absolutely right, and the House would profit from listening to her cry of warning for she is—in a sense, sadly-right on this matter. I could report that in the Committee stage we canvassed the idea that the Bill, having been introduced by a Government Whip-the member for Wellington Central-was essentially an exercise in diversion; but, having alluded to that, I shall not dwell on the matter, for I believe it to have been well canvassed in the Committee. My final comment is made against the background of the announcement made by the Minister of Police today that there will have to be an increase in the number of uniformed men and women in the New Zealand Police. There is no argument with the step she has taken as such, but there is much debate about whether the step is big enough. I find it ironic that a few hours later Parliament is contemplating the passage of a Bill that would strike at the very heart of the principles of law and order in the community. It is as simple as that if one wants to view it from that perspective. In outlining that perspective I add that the first duty of Parliament is to preserve law and order, and it is irrational to move within a few hours to the point at which Parliament contemplates passing a measure that would undermine law and order in the community. This is a time when many people are worried about the safety of their person and their property. My point of view is similar to that of the member for Papakura, in that it is inconceivable, given the anxieties, fears, and concerns that the Commissioner of Police warns about, that we should be contemplating giving licence to a practice that has repelled our predecessors for many decades. There is a simple rule in Government-and having been in Government for some years I can tell the member for West Auckland, to name one, that it is a good rule, which he and a few of his colleagues should have insisted upon: “If in doubt, don't". As we come to the point of the division, that is a simple but profound rule that the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues, who for a few months yet have the final responsibility by the weight of their majority in Parliament, should heed: "If in doubt, don't."

ANNETTE KING (Horowhenua): I move, That the question be now put.

Mr SPEAKER: I have decided to accept the motion, and the House can decide for itself whether it wishes the debate to continue or to terminate. Motion agreed to.

The House divided on the question, That this Bill be now read a third time. Ayes 49 Anderton; Austin, M. E.; Bassett; Batchelor; Boorman; Burke; Butcher; Caygill; Clark; Cullen; de Cleene; Dillon; Douglas; Dunne; Elder; Fraser; Gair; Gerbic; Goff; Gregory; Hercus; Hunt; Isbey; Jeffries; Keall; King; Lange; McLean; Marshall, C. R.; Matthewson; Maxwell, R. K.; Moore; Moyle; Neilson; Northey; O'Flynn; O'Regan; Palmer; Prebble; Scott; Shields; Shirley; Sutton, J. R.; Sutton, W. D.; Tizard; Wetere; Wilde. Tellers: Mallard; Woollaston. Noes 44 Angus; Austin, H. N.; Austin, W. R.; Banks; Birch; Bolger; Burdon; Colman; Cooper; Cox; East; Falloon; Friedlander; Gerard; Graham; Gray; Jones; Kidd; Knapp; Luxton; McClay; McKinnon; McTigue; Marshall, D. W. A.; Maxwell, R. F. H.; Morrison; Muldoon; Peters; Richardson; Rodger; Smith; Storey; Talbot; Tapsell; Terris; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Townshend; Upton; Wallbank; Wellington; Young, T. J.; Young, V. S. Tellers: Braybrooke; Lee. Majority for: 5 Bill read a third time.

[A disturbance having taken place in the gallery, a member of the public was removed on the instruction of the Speaker.]