The title of this recording is "Parliament: second reading debate - Homosexual Law Reform Bill (23 October 1985) - part 1". It is described as: Audio from parts of the debate during the second reading of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill, 23 October 1985 (part 1). It was recorded in Parliament buildings, 1 Molesworth Street, Wellington on the 23rd October 1985. This is a parliamentary recording and features the voices of Ann Hercus, Bill Dillon, Frank O'Flynn, Maurice McTigue and Peter Tapsell. Their names are spelt correctly, but may appear incorrectly spelt later in the document. The duration of the recording is 1 hour and 18 minutes, but this may not reflect the actual length of the proceedings. A list of correctly spelt content keywords and tags can be found at the end of this document. A brief description of the recording is: Audio from parts of the debate during the second reading of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill, 23 October 1985 (part 1 of 2). The content in the recording covers the 1980s decade. A brief summary of the recording is: This is a summary of the second reading debate on the Homosexual Law Reform Bill held on October 23, 1985, part one, recorded in the Parliament buildings in Wellington. The speakers featured in this recording include Ann Hercus, Bill Dillon, Frank O'Flynn, Maurice McTigue, and Peter Tapsell. During this debate, various parliamentarians expressed their perspectives and arguments both in favor of and against the bill. The key issue debated was the decriminalization of homosexual acts between consenting adults. Supporters of the bill argued that existing laws were out-of-date, discriminatory, and caused unacceptable harm and distress to homosexual individuals. The primary goal of the bill was to eliminate these negative effects and cease treating homosexuality as a criminal offense. Proponents of the bill also expressed that the vote should be driven not by personal prejudice but by a conscientious judgment of what is best for society. They stated that the bill was not about promoting homosexuality but about removing the stigma and penalties associated with it. In contrast, those opposed to the bill argued that homosexuality was immoral, abnormal, and not in line with family values, which are seen as the cornerstone of society. Some speakers expressed concerns that the decriminalization of homosexuality could lead to the deterioration of moral standards and negatively affect the social fabric. Opponents pointed to large numbers of petition signatories as an indicator of public opposition to the reform. Beyond the central question of decriminalization, two additional elements sparked significant debate. The first concerns the age of consent. Some parliamentarians supported standardizing the age of consent for both heterosexual and homosexual acts, while others believed a higher age of consent should be maintained to protect young boys. The second element involved extending human rights protections to prevent discrimination against individuals based on their sexual orientation, with opinions divided on whether such measures should be included. Throughout the discussion, parliamentarians cited various polls, petitions, and personal communication with constituents as indicators of public opinion, though the accuracy of some of these sources was called into question. The speakers also referenced both the need for compassion and the respect of human dignity in addressing the rights of homosexual individuals. The full transcription of the recording begins:  I when the house adjourned? I'm sorry. I just have to check and see what? Right? Uh, and it was so that it's a member in favour of the bill. Uh, and my list, This is my new list. These are the ones? Yes. Uh, it's if those if those rising whose name was earlier it's at mrs her. The point of clarification you were going to say who was on their feet at the the point of house rising. Who? Who did you say, sir? Well, I, I have called it. The, uh, honourable Mrs Hercus has been called. And the reason for this is that I, uh, with the information that's available to me, I'm trying to arrange the debate so that there are members speaking alternatively for and against the bill. And, uh, yes, Mr Speaker, Before I was first elected to this parliament in 1978 I made a commitment to my electorate of Littleton that if elected, I would hold a poll or referendum within my electorate on each of the four conscience issues if they arose and provided that no such conscience vote moved through this house so quickly that a referendum was itself physically impossible to arrange. Mr Speaker, that was for me, a very hard commitment to make to my electorate. I have strongly held views myself on each of the four conscience issue areas, but I had them in back in 1978 and I still have now an equally strong sense of being a representative of my electorate. And I wanted to ensure that the voters of Littleton had an opportunity to express their views and so guide me my decision to hold a referendum in my electorate in that matter of guiding me as to electorate opinion on conscience issues. Am I not entitled to conclude my address? In other words, sir, could you clarify your ruling if I may draw 30 minutes ago? If I draw the attention to the members of the house that The Journal of the House replies that even the house was granted that in any vote associated with the order of the day number one private members Bill, the member for Papa, will be entitled to register his vote Now that was on the background, that the member for Papa would be suspended from the service of the house and the situation and that is the situation. Must be good. Can't be here. I am sorry that the member is suspended from the card you are on here. I am, I presume. The member understands what? That the me The motion was that the member for Papa be suspended from the service of the house. And that is the motion that was passed again. It's really for clarification, Mr Speaker, The member for Wanga Ray did ask you which member was on his feet when the house rose last on debating this bill, You said you were still trying to determine the issue. Can it be clarified at this point, whether or not the member for papakura was or was not on his feet when the house rose on this issue last Wednesday? It's no longer available in this house that he for the because of the motion that has passed this house may no longer take notice of the member for uh but it Mr. McKinnon, Speaker. I request that you take the leave of the house to allow the member for papakura to conclude the speech that he was found last Wednesday. This would be an extraordinary concession because the member for Papakura, in actual fact, had finished his speech at the time of the conclusion of the of the point of order. Mr. Peter, my my point of order relates to the ruling and to the concession that the House has given to the member for Papakura to register his vote. Now I understand so that you can register your vote in two ways. One by being in the lobby, but usually by voice in the house. Now, Mr Speaker, does that mean he's entitled to be in the house in accordance with the motion of the house? Or have you given the interpretation that he must remain in the lobby? Yeah, good point. That's a rough one. There is no difficulty about this that the member may return to the house at the time that the question is put, but that does not entitle him to be present in the house at any other occasion. But he is because the leave of the house was taken and was granted that he should vote then That is absolute and total as far as voting is concerned but does not affect any other procedure. So I hope that I've made it quite clear that a vote on the voices he is entitled to be heard and a vote, uh, in the lobby, he is entitled to exercise it a fresh point of order. Does that mean, sir, that, uh, a vote that the question be put would occasion my colleague being denied the right to come back to the house? No, No, that that was not granted by leader of the house. It was solely the question that he may vote on standing order number one for private members. Mr. Speaker, I was saying that a decision to hold a referendum in my electorate on conscience issues is a contract that I have with the people of the Littleton electorate. I don't give up my own views. I choose to share my conscience vote in this parliament with those who sent me here to be their representative in this parliament. And I speak tonight Therefore, in this part of the debate as the member of parliament for lyttleton later in the debate, I will speak as the Minister of Police. Mr. Speaker, To hold a poll as a secret ballot in a general election is held is quite frankly, beyond my resources. But I, I have done my best to ensure that every voter in the Littleton electorate has had a fair opportunity to to participate in this referendum and by those means whereby their opinions were confidential to them. And there is a particular reason for that. Mr. Speaker, I am the minister of police, and I have in the last few months had quite sufficient anonymous letters to me by people who have identified themselves as coming from my electorate, but who did not wish to sign their name because they were afraid of the consequences of admitting to a minister of police that they were homosexual. Sure, there was, and is in my electorate, anyway, a compelling reason for a secret ballot. So I had delivered to each house two ballot papers with no requirement for them to be annotated with the name and address and provided a mechanism for more ballot papers to be acquired. If more than two voters lived in a particular household, even each other out as it was quite enough, ballot papers were returned with only one of the two connected ballots filled in enough to convince me that the voters of the Littleton electorate are pretty honest, Mr. Speaker. Out of the 25,000 ballot papers distributed or requested, 3731 were were returned. 13 were invalid, mainly because no voting was recorded in any way on those ballot papers and only obscenities. There were thus 303,718 ballot. Valid ballot papers returned. The primary purpose of this bill is decriminalisation of the law to remove criminal sanctions against homosexual acts between consenting adults. So the first question asked was therefore the central one. Do you support a change in the law to remove criminal sanctions against consenting homosexual acts? Yes or no? Mr Speaker, 1982 votes said yes, 1736 said no. Nearly 3000 returns a majority. 53. 3% of the Littleton electorate support decriminalisation 46. 7% do not. That may fairly be said to be fairly evenly divided in my electorate. I intend, in taking account of the views of the electorate and the majority view expressed to vote for removal of criminal sanctions against consenting homosexual acts and there is an additional interesting element which should be noted. The hay petition against the bill claimed that 5139 people in the Littleton electorate signed that petition. I, with a team of helpers, went to a great deal of trouble to search every single one of the boxes containing all the petition sheets presented to Parliament and then to Xerox every sheet I could find with a Littleton electorate address on it. I could only find 1500 names, Mr Speaker, not 5139. I then had all those names and addresses checked, and of them, only 1300 were on the Littleton roll or or who had been added to the role since it was last published. The return from my own referendum for those who opposed the bill was 1736. I would speculate therefore, and I think, quite reasonably, that the hay petition seems to have somehow totally overrepresented and misrepresented the figures of those who are opposed to the bill who live in the Littleton electorate. Mr. Speaker, I asked two supplementary questions on that ballot paper which flow from the central question of decriminalisation one related to the age of consent and the other to the change in the Human Rights Commission Act to include sexual orientation amongst the grounds on which it would be unlawful to discriminate. As those who did not support decriminalisation often made it very clear in notes to me that they did not support any age whatsoever, I turned to the views of those who supported decriminalisation. The referendum shows that 75% of those who support decriminalisation support the age of 16 as the age of consent. 25% support other alternatives. The third question, as I said, concerned an amendment to the Human Rights Commission Act again. Of those who supported decriminalisation, 85% supported this change. Also, Mr Speaker, on the basis of this Littleton referendum, a majority support decriminalisation and of them a majority support the age of consent at 16 and a change to the act to prevent discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. My own personal views exactly coincide. I am a Christian and a family woman. My God is not punitive or oppressive. My church submits that the present law and attitudes in society are harmful to the individual who has homosexual orientation, since they force him to deny his sexuality as a person and an integral part of his identity. As a person, I see the values of a loving New Testament God reflected in an acceptance of homosexuals in a non judgmental manner. As fellow citizens equal under the law, I am a family woman. Homosexuals are part of families. I support strong and loving and tolerant family life where every child is loved and accepted for what they are and adults are Children of parents. I remember Mr Speaker as a law student in jurisprudence lectures, studying the question of distinguishing morals from law, John Stewart Mills asserted the view much later, reasserted by the British wolfenden report on homosexuality that legal coercion, the weight of the criminal law can only be justified for the purpose of pre preventing harm to others. This bill makes it very clear that where a sexual act occurs between males where one party does not consent, that is a crime. The bill also provides that any homosexual act with anyone under the age of 16, as it is now with heterosexual acts remains a crime criminal, criminal penalties. Legal coercion in those circumstances is justified for the purpose of preventing harm to others. Law and morality are overlapping circles, sir. Morality condemns murder, as does the law. Morality may condemn adultery. The law does not. We as lawmakers have the responsibility of deciding not where morality lies, but where the law should lie. The criminal law, in my opinion, has no place in the sexual behaviour either of men and women where there is consent between two caring partners. Yes, Uh, Mr Mr Speaker, I want to begin by commending Pardon me, my colleague, the member for Wellington Central, for her courage and her tenacity in promoting this particular bill. I know how sincerely and how deeply she has felt about it, and I think we all know the tension that she has faced in these last few months. At the same time, I want to mention those people who, feeling equally strongly that the bill should not proceed, have gone to tremendous lengths. Some would say inordinate length to prevent its passage. Mr. Speaker, Despite the tremendous publicity that this bill has aroused throughout the country, the General public are in fact very poorly informed on the effects of the bill. I thought that the member for North Shore summed the matter up very clearly. He said that there are two parts. The first part modifies the Crimes Act, the second the human rights legislation. In the first part, there are two essential changes. The first is to remove or modify section 142 of the Crimes Act, which which it makes sodomy and certain indecent acts illegal. The second part relates to the age of consent and the first part, and the second part of the bill sounds peculiar, but it also relates to the human rights legislation and would make the provision that those persons who have whatever their sexual orientation would enjoy the protection of the human rights legislation. Now, Mr Chairman, Mr Speaker, before going to the first part of the first part of the bill, which is that section modifying Section 1 42 of the Crimes Act, making sodomy between consenting adults legal and that is the crucial element of the bill. Indeed, the other two sections are in in the main consequent upon the first part, and I'll come back to that in a minute. But I want to draw attention to one or two matters that have arisen during the debate, and I want to make clear that what I have to say is to be seen as no way condemnatory either of the two major groups or any other member who has spoken. Let me mention first the polls. And if the polls have shown nothing else, they have shown how unsuccessful and how inaccurate that method is in determining the wishes of the majority of an electorate. For example, a member might very well state publicly and at length his or her own view first and then seek from the electorate their view. One would have been surprised to find an unbiased opinion obtained in that way. But more importantly, the base, the the essential feature is what was the question? Asked if, for example, the question was, Do you believe that homosexuals are presently persecuted and that ought to change? And many would say that is the effect of the bill. I think the answer would have been in support of the bill equally if you had said, Do you believe that sodomy between consenting adults ought to be Condoned by the law. I think the change might very well have been to the alternative, the second point raised by many people. Many people put forward the view that they would support part one of the bill making Sodom illegal on the grounds that it was not abnormal, no danger to the participant and not to anyone else. But they could not bring themselves to support the other two changes. Now, if, in fact, sodomy is normal, sodomy is no danger to the person, and there is no danger to anyone else. What justification is there for making a different age of consent for homosexuals as compared with heterosexual or alternatively, if indeed, a homosexual is not to break the law? What good grounds are there for denying that person the protection of the human rights legislation? Someone said. And indeed, it was the major part of the argument that sending homosexuals to jail is clearly a fault. So it is. If that is the case, why are we sending those homosexual as an aside that apart from those who are a threat to public safety or who persistently refuse to take part in community rehabilitation. No one should go to jail. Several people raised the point that there are countries overseas who have already done this in some way. New Zealand has lagged. And yet I heard not one shred of evidence that would say that as a result of the change, any one of those countries is the better. Many people raised the point that it was unreasonable that lesbians, homosexuals and women should be treated differently from homosexuals. And yet, Mr Speaker, it would seem to me that anyone with the meanest intelligence and no more than passing knowledge of human physiognomy would see that there is a very real difference which cannot be denied. The last point I want to mention of the points that came up that were interesting was, I want to draw attention to the almost pitiful reliance on so-called expert witness, particularly that relying on lawyers or doctors, there is an almost craven a basis on medical evidence. How often have we in select committees had person sit down and say I am a doctor of two years standing? This is my view and then proceed to give the most ridiculous rubbish. Mr. Speaker, I was for 20 nearly 30 years as a consultant surgeon, and in the early part of my career I carried out a good deal of surgery, some of which I now know, was at best, worthless. Some of it was frankly harmful. Yet at the time it was backed by irrefutable evidence, and we did it with the best intention. Medical expert. Witness is a very useful tool in the hands of those who know something about it. It is a fearful weapon in the hands of those who either do not know a lot about it or are determined to use it to support their own cause. The medical evidence presented by the health department was an example. I read the evidence clearly. Many people put forward views saying it was in the health department, but it was not. Now, Mr Speaker, I want to come back to the essence that relating to section one of the bill, whether or not sodomy and certain indecent acts ought to be Condoned by the law and our law, Mr Speaker is in general concerned with a set of rules determining the use of force by the state, those occasions in which the state ought to interfere in the activities of private persons in the interests of the majority. It should be noted that we are not concerned with whether or not sodomy is good or bad still left with whether it is right or wrong, we are concerned with whether or not it should be Condoned by the law. Now that is the difference. The human race, Mr. Speaker, All of our actions have been condo been promoted by passions, impulses, desires. And it may well be said that a person acting on the spur of the moment can be forgiven for some action, which the majority would not condone. But there is no similar case to be made for the person carrying out an action which he or she has had time to to consider. Indeed, the one thing that distinguishes us from all the other animals is that we have the ability of conscious, discretion conscious determination. Now it may well be said, and some have that sodomy is a normal variant among the human desires, many are physiological and strong, but second only to that for self preservation is procreation the sexual drive. But it is well known to us that complex physiological reactions like the sexual drive, are bound to run awry at times and within within, Uh, I think before the sorry sorry to interrupt the member, but before the, uh, before the member proceeds, I think it should be made clear to people in the public gallery that there are no participants in this debate. And, uh, they are not entitled to make any form of verbal or other, uh, interception into the debate. Um, I hope I've made myself clear and that we not and and that, uh, members of the public will will not, um, take the matter to the point where we will have to take some more appropriate action. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you. They were in no way concerning me. The human activity is governed by by by passions and second only to the drive for self preservation. Is that for procreation? The sexual drive runs Ari at times, and we do know that the sexual reaction can run awry to the extent that it can run to events of shuddering aversion. Quite clearly abnormal in any sense, quite clearly abnormal. The law Mr Speaker may not have any part in private morality, but it clearly has a part in civic morality. It seems to be unreasonable to say that the law is concerned simply with the protection of the property and the person, but has no no action in civic morality seems to be quite clear that it does. It seems to me that the law has a say or ought to have some say in whether sodomy is is Condoned and, moreover, that persons ought in some way to abide by the law. Now I want to go to my own particular concerns about the bill, and they are these. There are three in the first instance. I think that whatever happens to the bill, whether it passes or fails, and it will probably pass, I wonder what people's expectation is of the change. What will the change be? My own view is that it will make no difference for anyone very little. I think it'll be a nine day wonder because the sanction against homosexual acts acts of severity. Sodomy is not the law. The sanction against them is public oblique, and that will not change. The mother who finds her son as suddenly as a homosexual will still feel that chill from now to the end of time. This the public obviously will not change the second point I want to mention, and it would be wrong to leave the debate without mentioning it. Is the disease aids artificial immune disease artificially in acquired immune disease? My own view, Mr Speaker, is that we will see quite a severe epidemic of AIDS that has been the the problem abroad, and I see no reason why it ought not to be here. And whatever the grounds for saying that AIDS is a heterosexual disease in other countries, one could certainly be forgiven for believing that in New Zealand it is still very much a homosexual disease. Very much regretfully, we are in the States. We were with cigarette smoking about 10 or 15 years ago when we believed that we could conquer an epidemic with contraception by using philtre tips, we, in some way ameliorated the carcinogenic effect of cigarette smoke. We now know that the one way to prevent the carcinogenic effect of cigarette smoke is not to smoke, and I think that point needs to be made very clear to everyone throughout New Zealand. There is some wild belief that we will conquer the epidemic of AIDS with the provision of contraception that Mr Speaker will, I think, prove to be false, and we will regret it. The last point I want to make is this that throughout history, human societies have set for themselves the standards. Some acts have been enjoined. Some acts have been forbidden, some have been applauded. Some have been abhorred. That has been the history of mankind, right throughout history and human reaction to any particular act has changed to a remarkable degree over a course of over the course of time, towards the acceptance of an act and away from the acceptance of an act not, as we would think, a gentle oscillation like a pendulum, but gradually and consistently away from the accepted norm of the day, always probing at the borders, always going beyond what is generally accepted more and more beyond, always beyond, until eventually the swing back comes not as a smooth swing back but often suddenly and sometimes savagely. That has been the case of history. Throughout, as humans, we can see past history a lot more evenly than we can recent history. We can all look back to the Greek, the classical Greeks or the industrial Italians and see the light. We can all see the hills in the distance, but none of us can see the ground just in front of us. We have forgotten that in this century, in the most sophisticated and civilised country in the world, we saw justice a gradual move away from the standards until a sudden reversal and whatever we think of the change. True in the main it was due to economic change. But so far as it affected the middle classes and the upper classes who weren't depended on the economic changes, Hitler and his group depended on the on the on the the view of the middle class and the middle class's objection was not economic. It was to the sudden loss of the standards of the people. Hitler was voted into power and indeed he retained the majority support of the German people right up to within months of his final collapse and among the middle class and the upper class. The support was due not to the economic change but to their fear that the public standard was reducing Mr Speaker it is my belief that the public of this country have now got close to the stage are getting closer to the stage where the change will come. I regret it. I hope it doesn't occur. I hope it doesn't occur, but I feel the cold winds of history drawing closer to us. I think there is a feeling and many times the morality of homosexually will be unreasonably blamed for it. Of the lack of respect for the law, of murdering rapes, beatings, bashing of the more far out pressures of the feminist movement of the more violent activists of the Maori movement. And along with them all the moralities and the shift away from the from the standards of the day. I think there will be a change, Mr Speaker, and I think that when the change comes and it will, it will. Those who are responsible will not be solely those who lead the march back, but in part, those who in the decade earlier had laid the ground that made it inevitable. Mr. Speaker, I had not the facilities to carry out a poll in my electorate. And if I had I believed that my electors would have had sufficient good senses to put it in the fire. But I have been around the electorate and I have spoken to people on at meetings right throughout my elector, and I believe I could fairly accurately sum up their feelings quite as accurately as some of the polls I've heard. And I think I could sum them up in this way. They would not wish homosexuals to be persecuted abnormally. They would not wish that they would not wish sodomy to be made to be Condoned by the law. They would wish to return to the individual the right as to whether he or she employed or provided accommodation for a person who they felt was was was homosexual. That sets out very clearly the view of my electorate. It is also my own view, and I will vote accordingly. Maurice McTigue. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of conscience and as a matter of conscience, we, the members of this house, have to decide whether it is right or whether it is wrong to decriminalise the act of sodomy. And it is not a persecution of homosexuals, but it is dealing with a physical fact. And in dealing with that physical fact, the law of this nation to date has seen fit to prescribe that activity as being contrary to the best interests of society as a whole. For all of those members in this house, it is a time to be counted a time to be counted when we must exercise the standards of values that are part of our nature. But aren't all the matters that we refer to in this house matters of conscience? Should we not always exercise those standards and values which we have been brought up with? There have been comments made that we should be keeping separate God's law and man's law, but isn't most of the law that we pass here part of God's law as well? And don't we make an appeal to God at the beginning of each day in this chamber before we sit down to consider the affairs of the nation? Mr. Speaker, it's not a time for aggressive rhetoric, in my opinion, because I believe that aggression enthuses those who support you in an issue like this, antagonises those who oppose you and tends to alienate those you need to convince to win your cause. The value judgments that I have used to form my opinion on this basis on the basis of this particular issue are my life experiences to date my personal family background, the kind of family that I lived in, the kind of things that my parents and those that I lived with, my brothers and sisters and the rest of the family around me and the community around me taught me to be the basis for exercising my judgement, the education that I received and Emerson once described in education as the sum total of our experiences to date. And I think that that is pretty important. In fact, it's quite crucial to the argument with regard to this particular debate. Homosexuality, in my opinion, and according to the evidence of the expertise that I have been able to glean information from, is not a condition we are born with. Like a club foot. It's not a hereditary or a genetic condition. It is a result of conditioning. Maybe that conditioning is the result of bad family experiences. Maybe it's the result of peer pressure. Maybe it's the result of the growing environment in which we were nurtured. But it is quite conclusively, in my opinion, a learned experience and it is a learned condition as a learned condition. I believe that it can be dealt with by the standards and the values that we have learned by the standards and the values that teach us self-discipline in other areas by the standards and values that teach us to exercise the judgement of right and wrong and our dealing with other people. It is a learned a deviant activity. It is an aberration of normal sexual behaviour. Many people are trying to convince us at this time that it is just a different sexual behaviour. It is not a different sexual behaviour. As the speaker before me indicated to this house. One of the strongest emotions that mankind experience is is the motion to procreation and normal sexual behaviour, as the fulfilment of that emotion to recreation and procreation in that emotion to procreation is instilled in mankind the perpetuation of the species. It goes back many thousands of years and it has been that the species has been able to sustain all all sorts and kinds of shocks upon it during that period, of time. The cult of humanism says to us today that if it is, if it is pleasurable, why not? It is only an an alternative expression of sexuality. I totally reject that because if we were to use that code for the determination of our lives and of our values and of our laws, we would have a situation where society could apply that principle to all sorts of other deviant behaviour. And that, to me, would be totally unacceptable. The codes of society have always regulated and disciplined the exercise of sexuality. We have laws that prescribe having sex with a heterosexual partner before the age of 16, and we accept that we have laws that prescribe having incestuous relationships. And we accept that they are no doubt and many instances for the participants where they are both agree that the activity will take place. They are no doubt pleasurable, yet we prescribe them by law. Why should we now decide that? Because this is a demand of the flesh and described by many as, in my opinion, an aberration. But by in the eyes of some people described as an alternative expression of sexuality, and I cannot and will not accept that homosexuality is, in my opinion, the total rejection of the normal love patterns that there is between man and wife that live to procreation. That and that bring the family into being. And the family is the cornerstone of our society. Anything that brings about the degeneration of that family unit will ultimately bring about the degeneration of society as well. For those reasons, we now in this parliament should be prepared to act as have the lawmakers before us to see that the fabric of that society is not torn apart. If we allow that to happen, then not only will we see degeneration of the family unit, we will see degeneration in the forms of violence among members of society. We will say, see degeneration in the form of the home and family life that is provided for the Children of those families. We will see a general degeneration and all of the values that have gone to make this a very pleasant nation in which to live. Mr. Chairman, if you accept the cult of humanism, what else could you and would you have to accept? I believe that if you accept the concept that this is an alternative expression of sexuality. Then you would have to be prepared to accept that the same principle applied to sadism, to bestiality, to prostitution, to euthanasia, to incest. There is a time and a place for society to say through its lawmakers that there is a time and a place for it to say Stop. And I believe that on this issue, society has given us just that direction. 830,000 people have said that many people will try to bring that expression into discredit. But even if you discredit 1/5 of them, there are still over half a million people in New Zealand who have said no, who have quite clearly and distinctly said no. There has been no other issue to the annals of the history of this nation who has brought that has brought people voluntarily forward to express their determination on a matter like this to such a massive extent. Personally, I haven't polled the people in my electorate. I said to the people in my electorate at the time of the by-election that you accept me with my standards and my values and that you can expect me to use those standards and values and exercising my judgement on your behalf as your representative here in this parliament, and that's what I intend to do. My values are not negotiable. They are not something that's going to be swayed. However, there are 15,059 people who have signed the petition in my electorate 15,059 people. The Timaru Herald during the election campaign conducted a number of polls, and it's interesting to note the comments that were made in response to some of the questions that were asked in those polls. On Wednesday, the 12th of June 1985 the Timaru Herald conducted a poll and it says that moral issues and the state of the economy remain the issues most concerning Timaru voters in the lead up to the by-election. They were the key concerns in the Timaru Herald poll conducted two weeks ago, and they remain the leading issues in the latest poll. Of the 600 people polled, 21. 8% said moral issues were particularly important issues in voting among the intending national voters, moral issues were identified as the most important followed by the state of the economy, taxation and then inflation and the cost of living labour. Voters identified moral issues as the most important, followed by the state of the economy. Unemployment and the cost of living moral issues and taxation were of most concern to intending voters for the Social credit Party. So it went right across the spectrum of all parties. They were quite evenly polled across all of the electorate and they came up with the same determination, regardless of their political affiliation, that they were very concerned about this particular piece of legislation that they were looking for a representative who would take to this parliament their concerns on this particular cause. Mr. Chairman, there are additional provisions to this bill which I find to me totally repugnant. And that is the condition which is attached to the end of the bill that brings this particular legislation under the protection of the Human Rights Act. I believe that it is incredibly important to the people of our nation that they have the right to have their Children educated in a climate in which they can determine the kind of morality that may be taught. There the passage recently through this parliament of the Education Amendment Act fills me with grave concern that the provisions under the human rights legislation attaching to this particular act would mean in teaching sexuality in schools. The teachers would be obliged by law to teach on an equal basis as an alternative sexuality, homosexuality and lesbianism. And that, to me, is totally repulsive. And that, to me, is one of the major reasons why I would never be prepared to accept this. I also would want to preserve for all time the ability to be able to sanction whether or not the person that I employed as a investor in a church, as a dormitory master in a school, as a nurse, as a policeman or in any other areas where people came into constant contact with the public. I would want to be able to determine that that person was not going to exploit those people for aberrant sexual behaviour, and there is no way that I would be prepared to move from that particular consideration. It is abhorrent to me, and I believe that it is most important to the protection of the ultimate lifestyles of our young people that we do not have that forced upon us. Mr. Speaker, there are many issues which will be canvassed during this debate. There will be many prejudice, prejudices which will be aired. There will be many people who will find quite unacceptable the decision that is made by this parliament. Whatever that may be. Those people, I believe in many instances have brought their considerations to this parliament with the very best of intent. But I do believe that many of them have been gravely misguided. I do believe that the experience of ancient history has taught us that as soon as we allow the moral standards of our society to relax, then our society as a whole begins to degenerate. And I believe that having sanctioned this particular piece of legislation and made legally act of sodomy, we are right on the course to see that degeneration start immediately. There are so many problems within our society now that I do not believe that we can invest another problem upon the shoulders of that society. I personally believe that the homosexual within our community as a predatory being the investigations that I have conducted personally indicate to me that homosexuals during their lifetime will have a multitude of partners. If we take away from it may well be an interesting experiment for that member. It will never be an interesting expe experiment for this member. And I'm very pleased to be able to tell this house that, Mr Speaker, I believe that the protection of our of our total nation is dependent upon the passage of this particular legislation. I urge my colleagues in the House to accept the importance of this legislation, to give it the consideration that it deserves not to be swayed by the feelings that may have been engendered among their colleagues who have been forcing them to try and give a favourable consideration not to be swayed by the fact that there are people who have been most vocal in recent weeks and trying to persuade good people that they should change their attitudes. I believe that we have to take a stand now for the protection of the moral fibre of our society, and this is the opportunity that this Parliament has the honourable Frank O'Flynn, Mr Speaker, For the second time in just a few weeks, this house is again confronted with a private members bill to which no party will be applying its whips. But all members will be free to vote as they wish. Some of them, I believe, on polls, some according to their conscientious view of the matter, one way or the other. Mr. Speaker, In those circumstances, I feel it necessary to give a brief explanation of my views and the way in which I intend to vote. But Mr Speaker, before I do that there are one or two preliminary things that ought to be said. The first is, and I think I said the same thing to the now member for Waiter, formerly the member for Egmont 10 years ago. The first is that I have to congratulate the member for Wellington Central for the carriage she has displayed in producing and promoting this bill. Because I was here when the member for wait did the same. And I've also seen some other private members bills, and I know what happens to the person who is in. If I may put it so in the eye of a storm like that. Now, the second thing that I feel it necessary to say was really illustrated by the first two speeches this evening we heard, sir, two eloquent telling speeches in absolute opposite contradiction, contradictory points of view and to some extent, that indicates the difficulty of dealing with the matter. I think, sir, that the debate, as usual in this kind of circumstance, has actually done the house in the main considerable credit. There has been a great deal of wisdom in some of the speeches. Even when I didn't agree with the end result, there have been a lot of prophecies, some of them gloomy and hopefully wrong. There have been a lot of shrewd observations about human nature, and all in all, anybody who listened to the debate would be sure to have learned something. They might not be entirely sure what he ought to do with the bill. Now, Mr Speaker, usually I try to keep my moral views to myself. Unlike, I regret to say, some of the opponents of this bill or indeed, some of its supporters who have endeavoured to shove their moral views down other people's throats, sometimes not very scrupulous about the way in which they dealt with them. So I have actually got I think a fairly reasonably unemotional and somewhat pragmatic view of the matter. But I will start by saying what my view about the problem really is. I am actually among those who regard homosexual conduct as wrong, immoral or, if you like, sinful to use a word that is now unpopular and out of fashion. Because, of course it it expresses a moral judgement. And that's not popular, in my opinion. Also, Mr Speaker, it is actually impossible to argue that such acts are either normal or natural for men. I personally think that that conclusion is really self evident because, as has been pointed out by one of the earliest speakers this evening, mankind's instinctive sexual urge perhaps the strongest or at any rate the second strongest after self preservation of the instinctive drives and urges that he has is linked to the act by which procreation takes place. And that is, of course, necessary for the perpetuation of the race as it is for all other living creatures. But Mr Speaker, I do not propose to pursue those moral problems any further because they are not the questions that the bill raises. The question raised by the bill is not whether that kind of conduct is normal or abnormal, moral or immoral, but whether it could continue to be criminal. Now, as another speaker pointed out earlier this evening, it is not the purpose of the criminal law to condemn everything that is immoral. Still, this must it condemn everything that is abnormal. Some conduct that is immoral or abnormal is also criminal, and examples were given of that Some. Indeed, much such conduct is not is not disapproved by the criminal law. Now, Mr Speaker, the next thing is that it is equally clear to me. And I'm glad to say to most members of the house that in exercising a conscience vote, a member ought not just to give reign to his personal opinions or what some other members might think are his personal prejudices. He ought there, I submit to exercise his vote in the way that, in his conscientious judgement, he thinks is best for society. And that was the view that I think was expressed quite well. Uh uh uh. A few nights ago by the member for North Shore, Mr. Speaker at the time. The bill was introduced 10 years ago by the then member for Egmont. I said in this House that after giving serious thought to the question whether this sort of conduct ought to continue to be criminal, I had reached the conclusion on balance that it ought not to be. And I am still of that opinion. I didn't reach that conclusion either lightly or easily. And Mr Speaker, I am certainly not persuaded that large numbers of people are being deprived by the present law of some right to sexual expression that they ought to have. But that is a matter, sir, that I'll discuss very briefly. When I come to Part two, let me concentrate for the moment on part one, Mr Speaker. There are three quite narrow and somewhat pragmatic grounds on which I reached the conclusion that homosexual acts between consenting males of a proper age and I choose that expression carefully should no longer be criminal. And I can put each of them, sir, in not more than one or two sentences. First of all, Mr Speaker, I know and experience in legal practise serves to confirm that for many years criminal proceedings have hardly ever been taken in the circumstances to which this bill is mainly directed, namely acts of consenting adults of full age in private honour. Mr. Flynn, I know again my own experience in legal practise confirms that tremendous and dangerous pressures are exerted on male homosexuals under the present law, and that is a subject that I'm going to come back to. But those pressures, sir, lead to all kinds of objectionable activity and frequently lead to serious crimes. Blackmail, Mr. Speaker, I turned up to the speeches that I delivered on the bill 10 years ago, and I see that during the second reading, I actually referred to the fact that several charges of murder had arisen not long before those debates, if not out of homosexual conduct itself, at least in a setting of homosexual relations. Voting on the bill because of concern. I felt at that time about the behaviour, actions and statements of some of its over enthusiastic supporters. They were trying, as indeed they are now to say that this is a permissible alternative lifestyle, or even that it is a good lifestyle. They were threatening to try to encourage and spread it as far as they could now, sir, that it was that kind of conduct that actually persuaded me, in the end that the only course available to me was just to decline to vote. Mr. Speaker, The conduct of the supporters of this of the bill this time has been, I think, really pretty much the same. And in a worse still, in a way, this time they've been joined by many of the opponents of the bill, and their conduct has been, if anything, rather worse. So we have seen gross intolerance on both sides shouting down of the other's opinion. Personal insult and objectionable forms of pressure have been used by both the lobby groups. Mr. Speaker, the rest of the story, as far as that conduct is concerned, goes like this in 1975 because one might say of electoral misfortunes, I had to return to the practise of the law. And soon afterwards, sir, one case in which I was professionally involved illustrated for me once and for all the gravity of the precious to which homosexuals are subject under the present law. And it persuaded me in one hit that the reform this reform of the law is necessary in the public interest. I'm sorry to have to say, Mr Speaker, that the the case concerned also showed how very badly some members of the police force treated homosexuals. At least at that time, it was clear from the evidence that they were harassed beyond belief in the street and elsewhere simply because they were homosexuals. The case itself actually concerned disciplinary action against the policemen and that at least showed that the police management was opposed to that kind of conduct. But the evidence was an absolute object lesson to me. I was simply shocked without going into the details of what was revealed at the hearing. Now, Mr Speaker, it is for that reason that on this occasion I am going to support part one of this bill. In principle, though, I do that rather as one choosing the letter of two evils or supporting without too much enthusiasm, a legal reform that seems to me to be justified in the imperfect world that we live in now, sir, How to vote? Well, the way I vote may in the end depend on the age that is decided upon 16 in the bill. I would prefer 20. I am prepared to go along with 18. If that is defeated, then, sir, I've got an anxious question in front, and I'm not going to reveal at the present moment what the answer may be. In fact, I haven't actually determined what the answer may be. I may be loath to see the reform defeated. I will just simply leave that there. Now, Mr Speaker, I come to part two. Part two is, in my view, a very different matter. It seeks to forbid discrimination against any person on the grounds of their sexual orientation. If it is passed, it will become impossible to treat homosexuals differently in almost any way because of their homosexuality. Mr. Speaker, the proponents of this reform say it is unjust that they should be treated differently. They say that homosexuals have a basic or a fundamental human right to act as they do. Some even say, as they did 10 years ago, that homosexual liaisons are a valid alternative lifestyle. Mr. Speaker, I am totally unable to agree with claims like that. I noticed that one speaker earlier this evening said if that kind of conduct is normal, then it might be appropriate to include it or pass the amendment to the Human Rights Act. Mr. Speaker, I have already said that in my view, homosexual acts between males, which is what we are really dealing with, are unnatural and abnormal, and I cannot see that there can possibly be anything that can be described as a basic or fundamental human right to act in a manner unnatural to men. So, Mr Speaker, holding the view that I do of homosexual acts is is quite impossible for me to vote for Part two of this bill. I think, sir, as well that people who find homosexual acts totally repugnant as I do are entitled, if they wish to do so to shun homosexuals. I do not think that a person letting part of a building, at least if he lived it in it himself, should be obliged to accept a homosexual as a tenant. I do not think that an employer can be bound or ought to be bound to accept homosexual employees, at least where he is going to come into personal contact with them. And there might be other examples given I think, sir, that it is possible that some forms of discrimination practised by people against homosexuals are unnecessary and indefensible and might even in some instances be cruel. If this part of the bill was carefully directed solely at them, I might consider supporting it. That would be quite different from we've got what we've got in front of us, which is an amendment asserting that the right to treat them differently in any way at all ought to be totally withdrawn. That is what part two of the bill seeks to do, and I am unable to agree with that proposition, and I will be voting against it now, Mr Speaker. Finally, I take the opportunity to tell the House that if this bill receives its second reading, I will introduce provisions to preserve the law presently administered on this topic in the armed forces. In the case of part two, an amendment to the bill will be necessary, but it is. It may be that the present military and disciplinary law, as the homosexual acts, can be preserved without an amendment to part one. Those matters, sir, are still under some consideration and can be dealt with in the committee stages. In short, Mr Speaker, I am in favour in principle of part one. But I am having difficulties in the way I indicated with the age, and I am totally opposed to Part two. I have not spoken previously on this bill. It is a bill that has been variously described as decriminalising or legalising homosexuality, I believe so that there in lies the nub of the difficulty in dealing with the bill. I believe that it is important to distinguish between legality and morality. And of course, as has been suggested by one of the earlier speakers this evening. Depending on how you phrase the question, you then can anticipate the sort of answer that you would get so that if a petition is set around opposing the legalising of homosexuality, then you are likely to get a majority accepting that viewpoint. However, if the same petition were to be set abroad wanting to know how many opposed the decriminalising of homosexuality, you would probably get the same sort of majority supporting that petition. Sodomy used to be dealt with in the ecclesiastical courts. So was adultery. I believe that that is where it should be returned, particularly as covered in this bill in respect of adult consenting males in private Mr Speaker, I appear to be the third Catholic practising Catholic in a row to speak tonight on this bill and I would be the third different viewpoint right at the outset. Might I say that I hold no brief for homosexuality? I consider it contrary to Christian moral standards. But what I do have is a sympathy to the plight of the homosexual. I have had the advantage, Mr Speaker, of variously chairing and being on the committee that dealt with the submissions on this bill. Consequently, I have had the advantage of the more than 1200 submissions and materials made available to that committee. The submissions, the letters both for and against and I have had some letters which horrified me and some letters which gave me great heart and great support from the outset. Mr. Speaker, I believe that medical and scientific research does not appear to have advanced from the findings of the Kinsey Report in 1948 and that Mr Speaker determined that there was a continuum of sexuality of a grade of 1 to 6 later. Research in 1981 has supported and updated that, but still there is regarded that continuum of a 1 to 6 on one extreme. There is a person who is outright outrightly homosexual. At the other extreme, there is a person who is outrightly heterosexual. And it has been concluded, Mr Speaker, that between five and 10% are at that homosexual end their orientation that way being established very early in life, probably before the age of five. Consequently, we are dealing here with a group in our community of up to 10% who like being left-handed, cannot and are not able to avoid their sexual orientation. Given that Mr Speaker, we then have a minority that we are asked to consider in dealing with this bill. I believe that it is important that that be considered as a starting point, No doubt in that middle area between the grades of 1 to 6, there are many who can be persuaded to go to one or other of the areas heterosexuality or homosexuality. I am not with them, no those people. It must be for them themselves to determine and to rely upon their education family upbringing as to which choice they make. Now, Mr Speaker, I speak as one of the members of this house, particularly at risk over this total bill. I say that because according to the petition taken up by those opposing the law reform, my electorate had 20,299 signatures on that petition that came out to an amazing 97. 25% of the electorate. Almost unbelievable. The Hale poll of the 22nd of June recorded that 61% were for reform, 35% were opposed and 5% undecided. As a result of the publishing of the figures for Hamilton East Professor, Pool of the University of Waikato undertook over the three days 19/20 and 21st September to check with 667 on a random survey in Hamilton East. Those who had signed the petition and his results, given some publicity at the time, showed that only 37% signed the petition. Now, Mr Speaker, there has been an editorial in the Dominion which commented on the large divergency between the numbers claimed for the petition and those against. But it's words at the end of that editorial, I believe, are most important. What is the use of determining the question on a number crunching principle. I accept that even at 40% of those signatures being genuine, there are 8000 in my electorate who, in fact are opposed to this reform. And that, of course, ought to give weight to the position that I take, Uh, and the attitude that I adopt towards this bill, However, Mr Speaker, I do not accept the Waikato Times article of yesterday headed up MP S unmoved by call. Sorry, not the honourable member, but, um, it is, uh, appropriate for me to point out with, um, with some regret, because I don't want to interrupt his flow that, um it's referred to several times in the speaker's rulings that members may not quote newspaper comment on a measure before the house so the member can, uh can paraphrase, um but he must not, um he must not quote directly from the material which he has in front of him. And I don't need any help at all from the member for Rotorua. Mr Dylan. Yeah, I have, in fact, been moved by the call. I have, in fact, been moved by the number of letters I have in fact, been moved by the number of those, even if it is reduced to 8000 that have in fact signed the petition. But what I do wish to say, Mr Speaker, is that I put to one side the extremists from either side of this debate and extreme positions are not consistent, Mr Speaker, with the gospel or Christian tradition. What is called for here and which was mentioned in the speech by the member for when this bill was first introduced, is a great need for tolerance and understanding. And I believe that the people of Hamilton East need to have that tolerance and understanding in accepting the way that I propose to consider this bill having, as I have mentioned, had an opportunity of going through all the submissions that were put forward. Now I'm supported in this Mr Speaker by an announcement from the New Zealand Inter Churchch Council on Public Affairs that represents 11 Christian denominations, including the Catholic Church, and I believe that the middle ground is the area where people ought to see my vote being cast on the first issue, and the member for North Shore has very accurately described the three issues as the decriminalisation the age of consent and thirdly, the human rights issues on the very first of those issues, Mr Speaker, there are those who seek to promote homosexual behaviour and lifestyles as desirable alternatives to marriage and family life. At the other extreme, there are those whose disapproval of homosexual behaviour has become distorted into a cruel rejection and disparagement of homosexual persons. Both of those. Mr Speaker, I reject. What I do suggest, Mr Speaker, is that the enlightened understanding is that whilst I approve and uphold moral norms designed for the sanctity or wholeness of individuals, it is still necessary to be compassionate to any form of human weakness and that it is necessary for Christians to be ever mindful of the dignity of all persons. Mr. Speaker, on the age of consent, because I believe that, uh, the arguments that have been put forward require the law to decriminalise homosexuality. The second question then, Mr Speaker, is that of the age of consent, whereby logic and principle, it would seem necessary to have a uniform age for both heterosexual and homosexual relations. There is no clear evidence that boys need a further period of protection in respect of homosexual acts over and above those for girls. However, being a father, having had two girls and two boys in my own family, I am conscious and aware, as most parents would be of the difference in their maturing rates. And consequently, I am conscious of those people who have expressed concern that the age of 16 for male homosexual acts was too low. And accordingly, I am not yet convinced Mr Speaker that I should not support an age of 18 and age, which, I suggest would give some solace to those people who are so firmly, perhaps blindly. But they are certainly firmly opposed to this reform bill. And it is a question yet, Mr Speaker, uh, for me to determine in my own mind as to whether the age of consent, uh, would be 18 or a lesser age. Finally, sir, may I refer to the third section of the bill and that is dealing with the human rights question. And here, Mr Speaker, I believe that there has been some misunderstanding of this human rights proposal. It is as a shield, not a sword. It is not available for people to use to claim something what it is available to them for is to protect them from being discriminated against. And I look at our history in this country, the position of Maori, the position of women, the position of Catholics in the thirties. There was a ghetto mentality adopted by Catholics. There were evidence there was evidence of their being discriminated against in respect of jobs. If there were two people going for the one job, one was a Catholic, it's quite possible that that Catholic would be discriminated against. That is not so now, and I don't believe it has been so for the last 40 years. But it hurts me, Mr Speaker, to find as seems to be the case throughout the world that those who have in fact been persecuted in turn, become the first and the most vocal to persecute. And I refer as the speaker to those who now form that brave little nation of Israel. 40 years ago, they were the persecuted. Now they appear on the world seen as a very feisty nation. Mr Speaker, it seems odd, but where you do have that ghetto mentality, you do have a vociferous method of challenging, of getting out of that minority group. There are those in the United States who would remember the Jews who had all the spelled chutzpa but pronounced chutzpa Dylan Hamilton east. There would be those that would remember the Negroes who were referred to as being uppity niggers. It was the way that those minority groups have fought back. Traditionally, consequently, I ask on behalf of those who have fought for this law reform, if they have appeared to have been going beyond the bounds that they be forgiven because it is in the nature of people, uh, to have that method of fighting back when they have been a minority. Mr. Speaker, this is a conscience vote. I intend to exercise my conscience vote, as I have described, and I ask that those in the Hamilton East Electorate who may have heard me tonight to recall what I have said, the explanation of why I am voting the way I propose. The full transcription of the recording ends. A list of keywords/tags describing the recording follow. These tags contain the correct spellings of names and places which may have been incorrectly spelt earlier in the document. The tags are seperated by a semi-colon: 1980s ; Ann Hercus ; Aotearoa New Zealand ; Bill Dillon ; CBS ; Chinese ; Events ; Frank O'Flynn ; General election ; German ; God ; Hamilton ; Homosexual Law Reform ; Homosexual Law Reform Act (1986) ; Human Rights Commission ; Israel ; Job ; Lesbian and Gay Archives of New Zealand (LAGANZ) ; Maurice McTigue ; Member of Parliament ; North Shore ; Parliament buildings ; People ; Peter Tapsell ; Social Credit Party ; Waikato ; Waikato Times ; Wellington ; acceptance ; acting ; actions ; activities ; adultery ; advice ; age of consent ; aggression ; animals ; apathy ; archives ; attitude ; balance ; beating ; belief ; blackmail ; boxes ; building ; career ; change ; children ; chill ; choice ; church ; circus ; class ; code ; community ; conscience vote ; consent ; council ; courage ; courts ; crime ; decriminalisation ; degenerate ; deviant ; difference ; dignity ; discrimination ; economy ; education ; employment ; environment ; epidemic ; equality ; euthanasia ; exercise ; experiment ; expression ; family ; fashion ; feelings ; fire ; gallery ; gay ; health ; heterosexual ; history ; hit ; homosexual ; homosexual law reform ; homosexual law reform petition ; hope ; human rights ; humanism ; identity ; individual ; intolerance ; introversion ; justice ; knowledge ; law ; legislation ; lesbian ; lifestyle ; loss ; love ; marriage ; medicine ; meetings ; middle class ; military ; minority ; mirror ; mistakes ; morality ; murder ; nature ; normal ; nurse ; opportunity ; oppression ; other ; parents ; parties ; passing ; passion ; passive ; persecution ; petition ; police ; politics ; power ; prejudice ; preservation ; procreation ; proposal ; proposition ; publishing ; race ; reading ; referendum ; rehabilitation ; rejection ; relationships ; research ; respect ; rhetoric ; sadism ; safety ; school ; self preservation ; sex ; sexual orientation ; sexuality ; smoking ; social ; sodomy ; soul ; spectrum ; speech ; support ; surgeon ; surgery ; survey ; teaching ; tension ; time ; tolerance ; tradition ; treat ; understanding ; uniform ; university ; unnatural ; upper class ; values ; violence ; voice ; vote ; water ; wisdom ; witness ; women. The original recording can be heard at this website https://www.pridenz.com/homosexual_law_reform_parliament_23_october_1985_part_1.html. Please note that this document may contain errors or omissions - you should always refer back to the original recording to confirm content.