The title of this document is "Homosexual Law Reform Bill - second reading continued (13 November 1985)". It is described as: Homosexual Law Reform Bill - second reading continued (13 November 1985). The proceedings occurred in Parliament on 13th November 1985. The main text body is sourced from Hansard, the official written record of the New Zealand Parliament. A brief summary of the content is: The proceedings document a 1985 debate in the New Zealand Parliament regarding the Homosexual Law Reform Bill, which sought to decriminalize homosexual acts between consenting adults and establish an age of consent for such acts at 16 years old. The debate reflects the deeply divided opinions among MPs, with both strong opposition and passionate support for the Bill. Opponents of the Bill, such as Norman Jones, raised several concerns. They primarily argued that legalizing homosexual acts would accelerate the spread of AIDS, particularly given the public health crisis surrounding the disease at the time. Some MPs claimed that homosexual practices were directly linked to the spread of AIDS, which they feared would endanger the broader population, including vulnerable groups like haemophiliacs. They voiced concerns that passing the Bill would make New Zealand a destination for homosexuals from other countries, fearing it would lead to an increase in sexual exploitation, particularly of younger individuals. There was significant focus on morality, with some MPs describing homosexual acts as unnatural and harmful to society's fabric. Norman Jones, in particular, expressed strong views that legalizing homosexual behavior would undermine societal norms, expose the youth to inappropriate influences, and lead to further moral decline. MPs also questioned the inclusion of amendments to the Human Rights Commission Act, which would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, arguing that it would create legal complexities and weaken societal standards. Supporters of the Bill, such as Bill Jeffries and others, argued that it was a matter of human rights and fairness. They emphasized that the current laws were discriminatory, unjust, and outdated, criminalizing consenting adults for private acts. Supporters believed that the Bill would protect personal freedoms and align New Zealand’s laws with more progressive international standards. They contended that the legal system should not punish individuals for their sexual orientation and that reform was necessary to ensure equal treatment under the law. Some MPs highlighted that discrimination against homosexuals was a violation of basic human rights and called for the law to be modernized in line with principles of equality and dignity. The decriminalization of homosexual acts, they argued, would remove unjust criminal penalties and allow people to live without fear of persecution based on their sexual orientation. A key aspect of the debate revolved around the proposed age of consent of 16 for homosexual acts, with opponents arguing that this was too low and could lead to the exploitation of young boys. They suggested that younger individuals would be at greater risk of manipulation and harm if the law permitted such activities at an early age. Some MPs called for more extensive investigations, including the possibility of a royal commission, to explore the implications of the Bill more thoroughly before proceeding with legislative changes. Throughout the debate, there was a clear divide between those who viewed the Bill as a necessary step towards greater equality and human rights, and those who believed it would result in moral and social decay, posing risks to public health and youth safety. While supporters focused on legal reforms that would protect individuals’ privacy and rights, opponents warned of the dangers of normalizing homosexual behavior, often citing religious, ethical, and public health concerns. The main text body begins:  13 November 1985, New Zealand Parliament. Debate resumed from 6 November 1985. NORMAN JONES (Invercargill): Last Wednesday I moved an amendment that the Bill should lie upon the table for 12 months. I did that because if the Bill is passed in its present form, before the New Zealand Department of Health can guarantee that every blood donation throughout New Zealand is tested for the AIDS virus, it will accelerate the spread of AIDS from the homosexual community to the heterosexual community, and that is not on. Innocent people such as haemophiliacs will be at risk. It is interesting that the October report of the New Zealand AIDS Foundation, which is just out, states on page 41 that there were seven confirmed AIDS deaths in New Zealand as at 1 October. That will be news to the Minister of Health. The most recent figure he gave in the House was six. There are also 12 other confirmed cases of AIDS proper-my information is that there are 15 - and 6 of those are in intensive care at present and will die shortly. It is also interesting to note that on page 41 of the report it is stated that one locally transmitted case of AIDS has been confirmed. The Minister has never confirmed that there has been a locally transmitted case of AIDS. I refer him to page 41 of the October report of the AIDS Foundation. New Zealand now has its first home-grown case of AIDS. Hon. Dr MICHAEL BASSETT: Did the member expect anything else? NORMAN JONES: The Minister has expected it for a while. It is a pity he did not take the country into his confidence and announce that it has its first home-grown case of AIDS. It is also a pity he does not give the country the information that the AIDS Foundation can seemingly get with Government aid and support. It is stated on page 42 of the report that 100,000 New Zealanders are considered to be in the at-risk groups. That figure includes the wives of bisexual men and of homosexual prostitutes, the wives of haemophiliacs, and the wives of intravenous drug users. The homosexual group in this country admits that most of its members are practising homosexuality within marriage. For that reason 100,000 New Zealanders are at risk. On the figures of the AIDS Foundation we can expect that in 5 years' time 2,500 men and women will become infected with the AIDS related condition. More than 10 percent - the figure the foundation gives is 377 - will subsequently develop AIDS. The people who develop the full AIDS syndrome will die. Homosexuals in America, on the Continent, in Europe, in Australia, and throughout the rest of the world are killing themselves by the thousands with that homosexually transmitted disease. They do not give a damn whom they infect - and those are not my words. I draw the attention of the House to what the newly re-elected mayor of New York was quoted in the Dominion of Friday, 8 November, as having said: “New York Mayor Edward Koch, fresh from winning a third term with a record majority, yesterday vowed to shut down homosexual bars and bathhouses that allow open sex because ‘They sell death there and we don't want this to go on. They don't give a damn.'” It is also interesting to note that it was reported in the New Zealand Times of 10 November that 12 European member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation had agreed on joint preventive measures to stem the spread of AIDS in their armed forces. The article stated: “The Belgian Defence Minister said yesterday that the decision by the informal association grouping of NATO members, except the United States, Canada, Iceland, and France, involved the systematic screening of blood donors.” That is eight NATO countries. Tonight's Evening Post states: “Americans are more aware of the fatal disease AIDS than South African strife or the Star Wars space missile defence system, according to a television news poll. The NBC poll just released also said six of every ten Americans surveyed believed the Government should place restrictions on the sexual activities of known AIDS carriers.” If the Bill is passed in its present form, homosexuals from overseas will come to New Zealand in their thousands. With the Bill legalising sodomy for 16-yearolds, and down to 12-year-olds by consent with a 16-year-old, those homosexuals on the Continent and elsewhere overseas who know they are at risk with their abnormal sex practices will come to this country. New Zealand will be looked upon as the Mecca for homosexuality and sodomy. What an attraction it will be to them! They will be able to come here and legally sodomise 16-year-old boys. Hon. Members: Ha, ha! NORMAN JONES: It is no laughing matter, and 835,000 people signed a petition saying they do not want a bar of it. If members of Parliament think that is amusing I draw to their attention a headline in the Auckland Star of last Friday: “Gay petition ballot poll”. The Auckland Star has not been a friend of the anti-homosexual reform petition people. It interviewed 400 people who had signed the petition-probably to discredit it-and to its everlasting credit it did a good job and said that 375 people had said they had signed the petition without any stress or coercion. Therefore 93 percent of the people who signed the petition were verified as being valid petitioners, honest, and sincere. That gives the lie; I say that the petition can be taken anywhere. I repeat that it is no laughing matter, and if the House is prepared to go against massive public opinion by passing the Bill we are opening up New Zealand. No other country in the world has passed legislation to normalise sodomy under a Human Rights Act and make it an acceptable life-style. If the Bill is passed in its present form the country will become a Mecca for thousands of homosexuals from Australia, the Continent, and America, who will jet in here. Our 16-year-olds are virgin territory. The Minister of Tourism will be able to advertise New Zealand to homosexuals throughout the world: “Come to New Zealand for sun, for scenery, and safe sodomy.” Hon. FRANK O'FLYNN: Ha, ha! NORMAN JONES: The Minister of Defence laughs, but he will have to accept it in the armed forces - that will take the smile off his face. The Minister of Police will have to accept it in the police service, and all the church organisations, the boy scouts, and the girl guides will also have to accept it. BILL JEFFRIES (Heretaunga): I move, That the question be now put. Mr SPEAKER: The question was that the Homosexual Law Reform Bill be now read a second time. The question now is that the Homosexual Law Reform Bill be read this day 12 months. In considering whether I should accept the closure I am conscious that most members have spoken and that the Bill has been before the House for 3 nights. I have listened to the arguments put forward by the mover of the amendment and am still unable to find any new arguments that have not already been put forward in opposition to the passage of the Bill. At present I am not prepared to accept the closure motion. However, I remind members that there are rules in the House about repetition, and that because the matter has been well aired, and it has been moved in the present motion that we should hear the matter again, I intend to impose the customary rules relating to repetition. Hon. GEORGE GAIR (North Shore): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask for your thoughts, to clarify the matter. As this is a conscience motion, and as some members have not yet spoken and everyone has an equal right to seek your call, could some priority be given to those who have not yet had the call? Mr SPEAKER: It certainly will be. Mr TREVOR YOUNG (Eastern Hutt): Like all members, I have been giving deep consideration to the measure ever since it was introduced. I voted for the introduction of the Bill so that the matter could be studied in the House and we could receive a report from the select committee. I was disappointed in that report. I shall not be critical of the committee that carried out the investigation, as I know it was under time constraints, and that other work is before the House. However, I believe that the committee reported back on the Bill too soon. Like the member for Napier, I, too, believe that the matter deserves much deeper investigation than the House is able to give it. Knowing the pressures that members - who are elected to a democratic body - are under from people to vote one way or the other, I believe that, to get a balanced view of the problem, it would be preferable for an independent body such as a royal commission to study the subject and to report to the House. There is no other logical way in which the matter could be handled. I am concerned about the Bill, which I think is a bad one in the way it has been drafted and in some of the provisions it contains. At times I am at a loss to find the logic behind it. In order to establish that argument I have compared the present legislation with the Bill now before us. When the matter has been debated in the past decade it has been suggested that recognition should be given to the practice of homosexual acts by adults in private, and that they should not be subject to a sentence of imprisonment. However, the present Bill does not recognise the circumstances of adults but gives consideration to an age of consent of 16 years. From my soundings in the community-not only in my electorate and in the Wellington region generally, but also in other areas - it is obvious that there is objection to the age limit of 16 that is being applied in the measure. Apart from that, I am concerned that the Bill is an amendment to the Crimes Act. I think that at some stage it would be better for the House to concentrate on the whole Crimes Act and to weigh up the penalties provided in that Act and compare one with the other. Rather than deal with the matter of homosexual law piecemeal, as it is dealt with here, it needs to be considered alongside other provisions of the Crimes Act. It also needs to be considered alongside all of the law that applies to heterosexuals, for which the age of consent is 16 years. I am not convinced that what is provided for heterosexuals should necessarily follow for homosexual practices. However, despite what my prejudice might be, I think the matter needs further examination, and a report from people who are able to carry out forthright investigation. Members will know - and I am certain they have been subjected to the same sort of approaches as I have that there are variations of opinion between experts in the community, whether they be social workers, teachers, the police, medical authorities, and so on. There is no consistent attitude among the various professional groups we have approached. We have to be very cautious as we deal with the matter. It concerns me that, while under section 140 of the Crimes Act there is provision for a term of imprisonment for up to 10 years for indecent assault on, and indecent acts with, boys under the age of 16, the 10-year term of imprisonment will, under the Bill, relate only to indecent acts involving boys under the age of 12 years, and the term of imprisonment will be reduced to 7 years for indecent acts involving boys between the ages of 12 and 16 years. I do not think the community wants Parliament to reduce the term of imprisonment in those terms, because it suggests that the crime involving boys between 12 and 16 years of age is not so grave. It is a grave offence, and to reduce that term of imprisonment for indecency with boys between the ages of 12 and 16 is not warranted. I had hoped there would be a deeper report from the committee to justify the change in penalties, but there appears to be none. I am certainly not prepared to go along with the Bill in that respect. For the matter of sodomy-called anal intercourse in the Bill - the present law in the Crimes Act provides a term of imprisonment of 14 years if an act is committed on a girl or a woman, or if committed on a male under 16 years by another male who is 21 years of age or over. In the Bill the 14 years' imprisonment provision does not apply to any person between the ages of 12 and 16. That again is something I cannot endorse or accept. I am totally opposed to the variation in the penalty provisions between the present Act and the Bill. There is another matter in the Bill that really concerns me, and I think it needed deeper consideration by the committee. Clause 6 provides that keeping places as a resort for homosexual acts will no longer be an offence if the Bill is passed. In other words, the Bill will repeal that section of the present Act that states that, “Everyone is liable to imprisonment ... who keeps, or manages, or acts or assists in the management of, any premises used as a place of resort for the commission of indecent acts between males." I am concerned that we should remove that provision when considering any amelioration of the law in so far as it relates to imprisonment for acts by people in private by mutual consent. The Bill goes too far. Therefore I am not prepared to endorse it. When I read the provision contained in the Part II as it relates to the Human Rights Commission Act I find that many of the terms relating to sex and marital status are not defined in the legislation. If the House intends to proceed with the amendment to the Human Rights Commission Act to avoid the confusion that will arise between the definitions of “sex” and “sexual orientation", it would be less clumsy to define what is meant by “sex". The matter needs much deeper consideration than it has been given. Another matter that concerns me is whether the Bill should grant exemptions for certain organisations, on which the committee received some serious submissions from organisations such as the police, the military, and, to some extent, boarding or residential schools for young males. There has been no report whatsoever in relation to those very important submissions. Whether we agree with the submissions or not is one matter, but we cannot just cast them aside into the waste-paper basket and keep them out of sight. The Bill and the whole policy behind it need much deeper consideration. I agree with the suggestion made by my colleague the member for Napier, who has indicated what he will do in the Committee stage of the Bill in relation to postponing the Bill until proper investigation has been made, and even a referendum taken on the matter. The inquiry into the Bill was cut short for some of us for very good reasons. I agreed to accept the reporting back of the Bill on the basis that the select committee was not the appropriate committee to carry out a proper investigation of the Bill. Since then a very important submission has been made to all members by the Waikato Hospital. The Waikato Hospital is concerned about the consequences of some of the ill health that has been passed on to some medical practitioners when dealing with patients with hepatitis B, which has been associated with the practice of homosexuality in the past. The hospital indicates that while it seems that AIDS has been controlled and almost prevented in New Zealand because of restrictions imposed by the law, it foresees that health workers could be exposed to undesirable situations through their professional work. It believes that deep consideration should be given to the point of view of health workers. The hospital also refers to the Wolfenden report, the result of a royal commission of inquiry some years ago in Britain. Paragraph 52 of that report states: “We do not think that it is proper for the law to concern itself with what a man does in private unless it can be shown to be so contrary to the public good that the law ought to intervene." The medical staff of that hospital - and they are not alone in this - have underlined the words, “unless it can be shown to be contrary to the public good”. Members will know that that caution to us has been signed by the general and colorectal surgeon, by the superintendent-in-chief of that hospital, by the principal nurse, and by the senior supervisor of theatres, all in the interests of the staff. That is one item of evidence that was unable to be heard by the committee, or which the committee did not hear, and it is very important that that information should be examined. I am not happy with the Bill. It is a bad Bill. I fully accept that there are people with homosexual tendencies who are not of a criminal bent who live in the community. Some have confessed to me their homosexual orientation. They are citizens in the community who show no criminal intent and they live as peaceful and honourable citizens. There is an argument to reconsider the penalties provided in the legislation as they apply to adults, including the penalty of imprisonment. I intend to vote against the Bill. We do not want it. It is not the kind of reform that should go forward in the House. I hope that members will follow me into the lobby to vote against the Bill, to strike it dead at this point. If necessary, a committee or a commission should be set up to examine the matter fully and properly. Hon. WHETU TIRIKATENE-SULLIVAN (Southern Maori): I rise to support the amendment. In so doing I remind the House that there is no law against homosexuality, whether between males or between females. The law is against anal intercourse or sodomy, and indecent acts against males. Males may live together in private. Many do, as it is sensible and economic so to do. There is no law against that. There is certainly no law against renting a house to a homosexual male. I come back to the central and pivotal point in the Bill. The significance of the Bill is that it legalises sodomy. The significance of sodomy is that, whatever else, it is the principal means of passing on sexually transmissible diseases, particularly AIDS. In New Zealand we have had no option but to become aware of AIDS. The Government has funded AIDS prevention. AIDS is fatal. The Bill legalises the principal means by which people who do not have AIDS may become infected, and infected fatally. This is not the time for Parliament to legalise sodomy. It is grossly irresponsible for it to do so. The representatives elected by the voters must become accountable on this specific matter at this specific time in history. The Bill's coming in at this time must be seen in the light of the sexually transmitted disease, and it would be a selfish indulgence to take any other view. While it is a characteristic of the more elitist echelons in society to regard sodomy as the choice of those who practise it, parliamentarians, unlike the wider community reflected by the petition, cannot afford to be cavalier at a time when the scourge of AIDS is present. While the more highly educated, the academics, the more highly paid and affluent, and the more sophisticated in the ways of the world in any community are more prepared to regard sodomy as a normal and even acceptable behaviour, and while members of Parliament come into that élite category, we are the elected representatives of the people and must consider the Bill as one directly relating to social health. In all conscience, how can Parliament legalise the means of passing on a fatal disease? Strip the Bill down to its reality, and that is what it is about-seeking to legalise sodomy. I point out that there is not and never has been a law that criminalises homosexual orientation, friendship, partnership, or group membership; it is sodomy that is illegal. It is illegal because it is grossly unnatural, but also it has been the cause of sexually transmissible diseases-long before AIDS. AIDS is simply the latest addition to the known list, but AIDS is fatal and there is no known cure for it. That is the most valid reason for not legalising sodomy and for not regarding it as a legitimate option and a legitimate lifestyle. No one can suggest it is natural. However, the Bill seeks to legitimise it, and to vote in favour of the Bill means to vote in favour of legalising sodomy, right at a time when the AIDS epidemic has reached New Zealand. As I have said, that would be grossly irresponsible for Parliament at this time. In the last fortnight it has been suggested that there has been a breakthrough and that the drug cyclosporine-A, which was being used at the Laennec Hospital in Paris, would be the breakthrough against the killer virus AIDS. Only yesterday we in New Zealand learnt that that has already proved to be a false hope and that patients being treated with that drug have died. So the world still has not found a cure, and AIDS is fatal. I refer to my concern that during the select committee the only amendment made to clause 7 would have provided the defence for a 16-year-old who had committed sodomy against a 12-year-old. If the 16-year-old claimed that he thought the 12-year-old was also 16, that would be accepted as a valid defence. That would result in the possibility of 12year-olds being molested, and that it could be suggested that the 12-year-old not only consented, but that the sodomy occurred because the older person thought that the 12-year old was 16. I find that unacceptable and of much concern, and to think that that was the only amendment made when the Bill was before the select committee is one of the most curious things about the Bill and its passage through the House. I am concerned at the thought that a boy of 12 could be sodomised, yet the person who did that could have a valid defence by suggesting that he thought the boy was older. I shall refer to other research I have conducted, which highlights the importance of the man/boy homosexuality. It is the trend-which the committee's sole amendment to the Bill, as I said, could spearhead-towards a more popular and acceptable assumption in New Zealand. The problem of ageing male homosexuals who find themselves deprived of the family they have never formed is a crucial one. It is crucial for the homosexual political movement, which I referred to when I spoke in the House on 9 October. That problem, as much as the almost exclusive emphasis on sensual gratification, might explain the virtual worship of youth by homosexuals. That particular matter was researched by the American National Institute of Mental Health, which received a grant of $50,000. The research found that what I have asserted tonight was the case. It was proved that there is a particular interest in youth, by older male homosexuals in particular. Those who have researched the subject would be familiar with the North American Man/Boy Love Association, known as NAMBLA. I refer to that because before a select committee of which I was a member at an earlier time, and in connection with an earlier Bill on the subject, one of the principal witnesses supporting change said quite frankly to members of the committee that his aim was to see the age brought down because his particular interest was in young boys. That person is still active. He has been active in support of the Bill. He comes into the affluent academic category. It is well known that paedophile organisations exist in most English-speaking countries. It is sufficient for me to know that that is the particular preference of people who are still lobbying for a change in the law. I am particularly concerned because, should the Bill be passed in its present form, the board of a high school or boys' secondary school would have to establish house rules to prohibit homosexual practices, which would mean that the board could be placed in potential conflict with the law of the land. It would be intolerable if Parliament were to act so that a board of a boys' secondary boarding school would come into conflict with the law of the land because it wished to prevent homosexual practices within the school precincts. That would be an amazing feature of the Bill if it were passed as it is. I come to another aspect to which I alluded on 9 October. I shall speak about the legal protection of heterosexual relationships between a husband and a wife, as that involves a public judgment on the nature and purpose of sex, which is also implicit in the Bill. The judgment teaches that the proper exercise of sex is within the marital bond, because both the procreative and unitive purposes of sex are best fulfilled within marriage. The family alone is capable of providing the necessary stability for the profound relationship that sexual union symbolises and cements, and for the well-being of the children who issue from it. The legitimising of homosexual relations changes that judgment and the teaching that emanates from it. A so-called neutral attitude towards homosexual partnerships demotes heterosexual marriage. It is definitely demoted by an acceptance of homosexual partnerships and the legitimacy the Bill would confer upon them. It teaches and promotes an indifference where once there was an endorsement. If heterosexual sex is only a form of recreation, what could be wrong with a little sodomy, or even incest? The law of incest demolishes a suggestion made earlier by a group of doctors from Waikato Hospital that the law should not intervene over what a person does in private. That argument has no validity, as there are laws against consenting adults in private when the relationship involves incest. I come back to the so-called neutral attitude towards homosexual partnerships. It does demote marriage. It teaches and promotes an indifference where once there was endorsement, and far from not embodying any moral view, legal neutrality gives public status to and fosters a highly subjective view of love. One cannot abandon one standard without affecting all others. The Bill would do that. When we speak of man's nature we mean the ordering of man's being towards certain ends. It is the fulfilment of those ends that makes a man and a woman fully human. Since the time of Socrates we have called the good of mankind the state of the family. For Aristotle the good was happiness. Aristotle explained that happiness was achieved only through virtuous actions, the repetition of good deeds. Deeds are considered to be good and bad, natural and unnatural. For the Christ-centred believer, the New Testament is clear. The case for homosexuality is a vulgarisation of a philosophical anarchism that denies the existence of nature and therefore the ability to discriminate between the use and abuse of nature. Anthropology has invariably produced a group or two in which homosexual behaviour is accepted as normal-besides sodomy it includes incest - but mankind is unique in that we can affirm or deny our nature. That denial, however, in no way refutes its existence, any more than the denial of the law of gravity will keep one from falling. Socrates and Plato were unambiguous in their condemnation of homosexuality as unnatural. The intercourse of men with men or women with women is contrary to nature, and the bold attempt was originally because of unbridled lust. It is ironic that the proponents of homosexuality so often point to ancient Greece as their paradigm. The greatest contribution of ancient Greece to Western civilisation was philosophy. The very idea of nature and natural law arose as a product of that philosophy. Socrates and Plato were arguably the greatest exponents of natural law. The real crux of the natural law position is that, however many purposes an organ or any other natural object has, those purposes originate in nature and not in man's desires. The removal of the objective quality of human acts leaves the true reality residing in man's desires. That results in the reduction of morality to human intentions. А good intention-love-cannot change an unnatural act into a natural act. It will harm the nature of the person acting and the person acted upon, regardless of intent. Incest, pederasty, homosexuality, equated with heterosexual marriage is surely casuistry defined in human terms. Aristotle begins his Politics with the first condition for the existence of a polis as a man and a woman in the family. Try to imagine the essence of the political nation, the polis, composed only of homosexuals. Such a community would have to rely for its continued existence on recruitment alone. We cannot collapse the distinction between the nature of an act and the person performing the act. This critique is about the act, not the person. My argument on 9 October, and tonight, was a critique of the action and the standard if one legitimises that action and raises its moral level in the community. Each distinction we erase makes it harder for us to see or make other distinctions. Organised religion is not only the social institution to which the greatest number of people voluntarily belong, in New Zealand as in any other country, but it is probably the single most influential factor in the evaluation of behaviour. Some try to escape the influence of religion and even pretend to renounce its sway, denying that it provides its adherents with precise rules that enable them to ascertain the ethical qualities of their behaviour. It is not generally accepted that the attempt to renounce Christian religious tradition has been substituted with another religion: secular humanism is a religion. I make it clear to the House that the argument against Christian religion and the case mad in scripture is rarely supported even in the most ancient and noble philosophy that this country has accepted for some years in its academic institutions, with which many of us are familiar. The responsibility of the House to uphold those standards is so great that, limited though one's time is in the debate, it was important for me to choose that particular issue to fill most of my time this evening. I call on the sense of responsibility of the House to see the permutations of the Bill. I am particularly concerned for the young. My case-load, regrettably, makes me very much aware that the people I am most protecting are young boys. I shall say no more but that my case-load shows evidence of growing abuse since the start of the gay liberation movement. I have a particular concern about this subject, and perhaps that is why the Maori opinion that did not have time to express itself before the committee should be referred to. The hui amorangi expressed its strongest opposition to the Bill. NEIL MORRISON (Pakuranga): I rise to speak on the Bill because I believe in the first instance that it is basically a deception. As the member for Southern Maori has already said, there is no law against homosexuality; there never has been and there never will be. There is no law against two people of the same gender living together, there never has been and there never will be. This Bill is about anal intercourse, which is something different. It also has to do with the recognition of homosexuality as being natural and normal, and that came across in almost every submission to the Justice and Law Reform Committee on the 2 days I sat on it. I cannot support the concept that anal intercourse - or sodomy, as the existing law calls it-is normal and natural. I believe that is a biological absurdity, because it has no purpose and produces nothing, whereas vaginal intercourse produces life and creates life for an ongoing society. I would think that if we are here for anything else, the main reason is to build a healthy society, a prosperous society, a society that will continue on with strength and with ideas, and a society with a legacy to leave to our children who must look after us in our old age. I cannot support the idea that anal intercourse or sodomy is normal or natural and I find ludicrous the concept of having a law on the subject - with which 16-year-old and 12-year old boys could be involved in the heat of puberty. Everybody in every society needs some kind of guideline. One can go to the most primitive societies in the world - Papua New Guinea and societies in the middle of Africa where modern man has hardly ever been - and they all have some kind of structure, some kind of law, some kind of regulation, and some kind of tradition that people are expected to abide by. What concerns me in this aspect and in various other aspects of New Zealand society today is that we seem to be dismantling standards and casting them out of the window with nothing to replace them. That concerns me, as it concerns thousands of other people who, like myself, are not members of the so-called moral majority but are just normal, middle-of-the-road heterosexuals who want to see some normality and some reasonable standards in a society that prides itself on freedom. As I said in my speech this afternoon on law and order, freedom also requires responsibility. We cannot have one without the other. I find the idea of legalising sodomy-with the AIDS time bomb hanging over us - almost unbelievable. I could possibly go along with the legalising of homosexuality or anal intercourse at some other stage, but not at a time when there exists a literal time bomb that we cannot control, for which we have no cure, and for which there is not likely to be a cure in the foreseeable future. Here we are, as society's representatives, about to encourage further promiscuity, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual. Nature has a gruesome way of demanding a balance in life. It always will and it always has done. There has been a rise in promiscuity, both among heterosexuals and homosexuals, and nature demands a balance. I do not say that this is some kind of divine retribution. It is not - it is the normal law of nature that when there are changes of attitude on the part of human beings that come quickly, the laws of nature demand a balance. That is what they are doing now. The incidence of sexually transmitted diseases is rising around the world and spreading at a fearsome rate. I cannot see any point in encouraging that, whether it be by heterosexuality or by homosexuality. Like most people I do not stand here as a paragon of virtue, but it is different when we are legislating for the country and for future generations. I accept that there have been homosexuals for thousands of years and that there probably will be for the next few thousand years, regardless of what happens in the House. I do not know how a person becomes a homosexual - whether it is at the time of puberty, as some people claim, or whether it is because of some genetic difference at birth - and I do not really want to know. It is not of great interest to me or anybody else. The fact is that there are people who prefer those of the same gender as themselves. I know that a prosecution against a homosexual has not been brought for many years. I am aware also that there has been a dramatic change in public attitudes towards homosexuals, and that they have become more acceptable in our society. I recognise that, and think that few people would dispute it. However, the committee was told repeatedly that homosexuals do not really want the law to be changed but want to use the law as a means of changing society's attitudes towards them. I have not joined any travelling band to try to change people's attitudes one way or the other, because I believe that if people want to change their attitudes they can do that in their own good time. If the second part of the Bill is passed it will force a change on society, half of which does not want that change to happen. I have spoken to numerous people in my electorate in the past few weeks, many of whom were very disturbed at the way the petition was swept aside by the House. Over the past 8 or 9 years the Labour Opposition spoke a great deal about the terrors of government by the Executive, and told us how a Labour Government would bring democracy back into the House. Even if we accept that some of the signatures on the petition were incorrect - and let us put that figure at half - the petition with 400,000 signatures would still be the biggest in the country's history. I know of a few people who were distinctly disturbed that the petition received little or no recognition, and saw that as a betrayal of the lofty words spoken about democracy and the rights of little people to be heard in the House. I am disturbed by the second part of the Bill, and I find that, along with all the other things, there seems to be a slipping of standards or moral codes in our society. I accept that human beings, being what they are, will not all abide by all the standards and codes set, but as long as they are there everybody recognises that they are there and that gives society a track to move down and some guideline as to what is accepted and what is not accepted. I wonder if we are improving society by removing those moral codes, many of which are unwritten and many of which are not in law. I do not think we are. I have great reservations about a society moving in this direction. Along with many other people I also have some deep concern about the human rights part of the Bill. If that part of the Bill is passed it will be very difficult to administer any kind of discipline in the police service and the armed services. Further to that, thousands of parents send their sons to private secondary schools specifically to keep them away from homosexual behaviour. In a free society it is their right to decide what they believe is right or wrong, normal or abnormal. If the human rights part of the Bill is passed, parents would be powerless to do anything about anybody who might quietly coerce their children into what the parents consider to be an unnatural and abnormal way of life. We seem to be bent on dropping standards that have worked for us for hundreds of years. Surely one of the reasons we are here in this Chamber is to build an ongoing society. I find myself wondering what will come next. Will it be child sex? I cannot support the Bill. I recognise that there will be homosexuals who commit homosexual acts irrespective of the law. I accept that, but I cannot condone those acts, and I think that to condone them for an ongoing civilisation and for future generations would be a move in the wrong direction. I cannot support either the first or the second parts of the Bill, and I shall continue to oppose it. ROBIN GRAY (Clutha): Originally I had not much intention of speaking on the Bill, because I had made it perfectly clear in my electorate right from the start just where I stood on this issue. However, I am speaking tonight because the debate has been widespread throughout the community, and I feel I have a responsibility to put on record the reasons I am against the Bill. Having said that, I congratulate those on both sides of the issue who have seen fit to go out and debate their points of view in public. That is what democracy is all about, and I do not believe that we should feel any animosity towards those who take different points of view from our own. I say to those people who have been out putting forward their points of view that I do not think they have done too much harm to the debate. When I heard on a Thursday that the Bill was to be introduced the following day I went to my bed that night convinced that I should vote for its introduction. However, by 9 o'clock the next morning I had changed my mind. About 2 years ago it was suggested that this issue would be debated in the House. I set up a committee in my electorate of people who were on both sides of the issue, and people who, I believed, would give me a fair assessment of any investigations they undertook for me. As I said, I was determined to vote for the Bill's introduction. I rose at 5 o'clock on the Friday morning and tried to read the information I had been given, and by 9 o'clock I was convinced that the Bill should not be introduced and that I could not vote for it. Therefore I think it is right that I should say why I changed my mind. I changed my mind after reading what had been presented to me by people in my electorate. I became convinced that every male has a certain sense of homosexuality in him, and my reading told me that a young person does not become homosexual unless he has been in contact with a homosexual who has built up those feelings in him. If that is the case, I find it difficult to accept that a homosexual should be able to determine the future of another young person's life. That is why I cannot vote in favour of the Bill. Many people have said that Christians do their cause no good if they cannot accept another man's point of view. I say unashamedly that I try to lead a Christian life, and I say unashamedly that it does not give me the right to bring down sharp judgment on another person. However, I do believe that I must take a responsible attitude as I see it. I cannot place the future of young people at stake by enabling them to become homosexual when they were not really meant to be so. I have considered the arguments about AIDS and the dire consequences that disease could have on society. However, my real feelings on the matter are that New Zealand society should be built on a stable family relationship. I believe that the greatest pleasure any man or woman can share is a happy family marriage. That is still the cornerstone of our society, and I can find nothing to take away first place from the family home. I realise that not everyone will agree with me. However, I cannot see how that stable family relationship can be maintained if we allow homosexuality to spread throughout society. There are many people who believe that the moral standards of society are slipping. It is easy for politicians to stand in the House and say, purely for votes, that we should allow the Bill to proceed because it is popular. However, I do not believe that that is our role as members of Parliament. I believe that for occasions such as this I have been chosen to represent my electorate on the basis of what it saw in me, and the standards it expects me to uphold in the Chamber. When I return to my electorate I believe I can look my constituents in the face and say, “Ladies and gentlemen, I stood up at the time of my election and said that I would maintain a high standard of living for the people in my electorate." I will not bow to pressure groups or to people who think differently from me, just for the sake of a few votes. The decision to vote against the Bill was not made lightly. I have read a great deal on a subject the pros and cons of which I had no intention of studying. I have received letters from personal friends who have revealed to me that they are homosexual. Male constituents, aged 34 and 35 years of age, whose parents I know well have come to me and said: “Mr Gray, I want you to vote for the Bill, because I am a homosexual, but mum and dad do not know about it." I feel for those people, and I realise the responsibility they have placed on my shoulders as a member of Parliament. However, I cannot see anything for society other than a stable family home comprising mum, dad, and the kids. The Bill would ruin that. MARY BATCHELOR (Avon): It had not been my intention to speak in the debate again, because it is not the first time in the 13 years I have been in the House that this issue has confronted members. However, I am surprised that so much time has been devoted to the issue. I can think of other issues that are far more important to every individual in our society, rather than just to one group. It seems to me that an issue that involves a small group of people is taking precedence over issues that are more important to the majority of people. The Bill concerns the actions of consenting adults in private. I have debated the issue before during the 13 years I have been a member of Parliament, and I can remember saying at other times that heterosexual acts performed in the privacy of bedrooms might perhaps upset some people and even disgust other people. However, those acts are not known about. Why is a line drawn between the heterosexual and the homosexual in the matter of what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes? There is no law against one; why, then, should there be a law against the other? Why is one different from the other? I stress that I am talking about the behaviour of consenting adults in private, and it seems to me that that is the crux of the matter. I shall vote in favour of the decriminalisation part of the Bill. It appears to be a different argument when a person becomes an adult. As I understand it, the law recognises that a girl aged 16 has the right to consent, but it does not state at what age a boy may ask. It is illegal for a male to have a sexual relationship with a girl who is under 16 years of age. I cannot really agree with the many people who have written to me stating that, in fairness, the law must be the same for each. The idea in the Bill of setting the age at 16 just does not jell with me. It seems to me that, while the law states that 16 years is the age of consent, there is no responsibility on those of either sex to ensure that their actions will not have some reaction on society itself. I think that has been proved by the number of young people who are at present receiving the domestic purposes benefit. I have said before in the House-and members may be tired of hearing it - that with every right goes a responsibility also. I do not see that 16 is a necessary age to be included in the Bill , but I make the point that a law that is made in the House must be a law that is fair, just, and equitable to every citizen. I do not think that we should make laws that favour one group or give special assistance to a particular group of people, and I do not care how loud, vocal, or militant that group is. If we are to be a true House of Representatives and make laws that affect each individual fairly there should be no need for any special bodies to be set up to concern themselves with those particular groups. It is people, and the individual within society, who matter. The law we make in the Chamber should care about that. For that reason I am not happy that the second part of the Bill concerns itself with human rights legislation. I have never been a fan of setting up a Human Rights Commission that deals with certain segments of the population. Are we to make laws that are just and equitable to everybody? Surely that is our job and our first concern. Individuals within our society have the right to expect that they will be governed fairly. They have a right to expect that they will be given fair treatment by the laws made in the House. I do not favour that part of the Bill that will give to one section of society greater rights than any other section. I do favour decriminalisation, so that consenting adults who have a sexual orientation different from that which society has been educated to accept as normal will have the right to act in private as consenting adults in the manner that turns them on. I am also concerned that we have spent so much time debating the issue. I think of all the varied issues that affect every member of society, and that receive nominal opposition and are then allowed to pass, and I wonder why the prejudices inherent in all of us - and so obvious in many of us - are allowed to take precedence in the debating chamber. I have been away from New Zealand for 2 weeks. I must admit that, having listened to some of the debate on this matter in the weeks before I left the country, I had thought that at least the vote on the second reading would have been taken by the time I returned. Instead, I find that there are members in the House-mainly on the Opposition benches - who are prepared to spend the taxpayers' money in continuing to stonewall the legislation, and who are prepared to put up amendment after amendment to keep the legislation going. When those members return to their electorates they should answer for wasting taxpayers' time. There are few times in the debating chamber when individual members of Parliament have the right to stand up and speak according to what they believe, when members are not bound by a party line or by a manifesto given to the people before an election. That is something that I and many others in the Chamber believe to be an important right. I believe that it is right that the view of consenting adults in private should be adhered to regardless of whether they are homosexual or heterosexual, provided it does not interfere with society. Therefore the part of the Bill that provides for that has my full support. I am not at all happy with the rest of the Bill, and believe that we should move slowly in this direction. The Bill goes too far, too fast. I shall vote for the Bill only on the basis that changes will be made to it in the Committee stage. JOHN BANKS (Whangarei): The member for Avon complains that the House has spent a great deal of time on the issue during the past five, six, seven, or eight Wednesdays, yet she has the temerity to accuse the House of wasting time on a matter that is not very important to her. I serve notice on that member that the issue is one of the most important that the House will ever debate, because for some of us - and unfortunately we are in the minority - it means an erosion of the family unit, the most important thing in a democracy and the building block of society. This so-called social reform is a threat to the family unit and to democracy as I know it, and as my friends on this side of the House understand it. We would much rather be talking about the plight of farmers who are walking off the land, housewives and their daily costs, house owners and the very real cost they face in servicing their mortgages, and many other important economic issues. Nothing is more important than the total fabric of a society and, in simple terms, what is right and what is wrong. The Bill is wrong because we stand here tonight and will soon pass through into the lobbies to decide whether we should, by statute, legalise the act of sodomy for boys of 16 and males over that age. That is what members will vote for: whether Parliament should say that sodomy for boys over the age of 16 years is right or wrong. I say that it is wrong; my friends on this side of the House say that it is wrong; 800,000 New Zealanders who signed the petition say that it is wrong. That is why I support the amendment moved by my colleague the member for Invercargill. Perhaps time will bring some common sense to those members who want to make so-called social reform so quickly that they will do so much damage to the nation. During the past week an argument has been raised that homosexual practice is not immoral but is an alternative sexual orientation. It is said that it is as moral and normal as heterosexual practice. That is what those people say and that is what they believe. They believe that both the existing legislation against homosexual practice and the opposition in general are an infringement of human rights. They say they are discriminatory and show a lack of tolerance, and that the nation is intolerant. They put up the spurious argument that New Zealand, Ireland, a few other countries, and perhaps some states in the United States and Australia still make homosexual practice a criminal offence, and that that is bad. They say that homosexual practice is not harmful to others. They say that homosexual practice is not immoral, and they are certain that if Parliament passes the Bill homosexuality will eventually become acknowledged as a morally acceptable sexual practice. That is the expectation of the so-called gay movement. The international gay movement has been busy in this country in recent days. What is morality? Are moral values merely relative to present social practice? Are they here today and gone tomorrow? Is it O. K. for homosexual practice to be moral but violence to be immoral? A popular thought is that any action is O. K. provided it does not hurt anyone else. Is that what the Prime Minister thinks - that any action is O. K. provided it does not hurt or offend one's brother, sister, or neighbour? Proponents of the Bill say that both the existing legislation against homosexual practice and opposition to it in general are infringements of human rights. It is said that the prohibition of homosexual practice is seen as an infringement of human rights and as being discriminatory and intolerant of others. To them, it is morally wrong to impose one's views on others. That argument cuts both ways. They say: “It is wrong for you as a legislator to impose your views on me because of my sexual orientation.” Is the Bill not the product of radical, liberal, and moral relativists who seek to impose their views on me? It is argued that New Zealand is one of the few countries in the world in which homosexual practice is criminal. Many nations that have liberal homosexual laws engage in war. Does that mean that it is good and right and has a bearing on the matter before the House? New Zealand may just be the bastion of everything that is good in a democracy, such as the family unit, and that is under threat tonight. Tonight will prove to be one of the blackest for Parliament. That is what most New Zealanders are saying, and that is what most people in my electorate are saying. The day the Bill receives its second reading will be a black day. In a recent poll in my electorate 188 persons' views were sought: 156 persons - 99 women and 57 men - said they supported their local member of Parliament and did not want changes; only 32 persons, of whom 22 were women and 10 were men, said “Yes”. Most people in my electorate said “No” to the Bill, and I share their view. It is only because I share their view that I will walk through the Noes lobby with my friends. It is said that homosexual practice is a preference and not an orientation. It is said that it is not morally wrong and is not detrimental to society. I believe that it is harmful to others. It is socially false and incompatible with the natural family structure we should be promoting. If the Bill is passed it will have an evil, insidious consequence for future generations of New Zealanders. That is why the House should support the amendment to delay the second reading of the Bill in the hope that common sense will prevail amongst those members who fancy themselves as social reformers in the interest of the nation. My opposition to this reform is based on a wide range of arguments that are compelling when brought together. They all relate to the need for decent societies to maintain and set standards by which people should live. The great moral laws of the Christian world have their foundations in teachings that have come down over thousands of years. Those standards are not severe, bigoted, or censorious; they are basically and fundamentally decent. When we deliberately allow those laws or standards of behaviour to be compromised or diminished the fundamental fabric of society is weakened and undermined. Right now the fundamental moral fabric of the nation is weak, and tonight's action by some members will undermine it. There is no doubt that some of the laws we set ourselves, based on Christian ethics, are broken by some of us from time to time, and some are broken by all of us. That does not mean that the laws themselves are wrong or unsoundly based. The fact that laws are broken is no argument for society as whole to lower its moral standards, or for society to repeal those laws. Society must set standards of behaviour for itself. Just as it cannot allow general lawlessness and crimes of dishonesty against its citizens, it cannot condone the activities of people who would seek to damage or destroy themselves. The Bill will give licence to a large section of the community that would not otherwise have the opportunity to damage or destroy itself. For that reason we have laws against drug abuse, speeding, offensive language, prostitution, self-mutilation, suicide, and other acts of self-denigration. In my view the laws relating to homosexual behaviour come into that category. Society legislates against so-called victimless crimes-not only for the protection of the individual, but also for its own well-being. The resultant laws are not designed to punish; they simply seek to ensure that our community is safe. Laws are designed to seek security for our community and to ensure that it is a decent and healthy place in which to live and bring up a family. I believe in my heart-but the Prime Minister, who is trying to interject, does not - that the Bill will bring down some of the building-blocks that are the strength of the nation: a healthy and decent family environment. If we shy away from taking such a stand it will become impossible for society to accept any standard at all. I know that the Prime Minister could not care less about that. His greed and lust for power are obvious. If Parliament gives in and allows homosexual acts between consenting males aged 16 years of age and over it will eventually face the same demands in relation to the crime of incest between consenting adults. The Prime Minister probably supports that. Does he support the legalisation of prostitution, euthanasia, and other unacceptable practices? Will a private member's Bill be introduced this time next year to lower the age of consent for homosexual activities, including anal intercourse, to 15 years of age, 13 years of age, or 12 years of age? Society must take a stand somewhere. As the member of Parliament for Whangarei, this is the time for me to take such a stand, and I make no apology to the Chair, to Parliament, or to anyone else for adopting delaying tactics in an effort to stop this evil and insidious Bill from lurching into our society and usurping what is good. In taking that stand I am not suggesting that the present laws are perfect, but I do claim that they have benefited society far more than their critics would acknowledge. They have served to discourage people from promoting homosexual behaviour as a right and proper way of life. They have suppressed homosexual soliciting and the flouting of homosexual behaviour in most public places. They have been a source of support for parents of young families who are concerned about the level of depravity confronting children in society today. Above all, the present laws have been a clear statement by society at large that it wishes to maintain normal and acceptable standards of behaviour and decency. The Bill does not do that. My opposition to it relates to the need for all of us to maintain and set standards. In taking that position I do not disregard the very real difficulties facing homosexual people, nor am I lacking in compassion for their predicament, but the answer does not lie in society's weakening or lowering its standards of acceptable behaviour and morality by passing laws such as the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. PETER NEILSON (Miramar): I move, That the question be now put. Mr SPEAKER: When the motion was last put before the House I did say that I would be guided by the degree of repetition. I then heard two speeches in which new material was raised almost consistently, but the repetition has come back into the debate and I am not disposed to allow it to continue much longer merely to repeat arguments, contrary to the requirements of the House. I am also aware that there are some members who want to speak who have not yet spoken at all in the debate, but there are also others who are speaking for a second time. I am not prepared to accept the motion now, but I will weigh the matter up as the debate goes on. GARY KNAPP (East Coast Bays): First, I do not wish to be associated with the delaying tactics used on the Bill, and I will demonstrate that by opposing the amendment. I think Parliament should now vote on this matter. It has had ample time in which to debate it, and I think we know where we stand. Nevertheless, I will not support the Bill in the second reading, either. I say at the outset that I have not spoken on this matter until now. First, I congratulate the member for Wellington Central on having the courage of her convictions. It was a brave thing for her to do, and I suspect that she has come in for an inordinate amount of abuse and behaviour of the kind that members of the House will be familiar with from time to time. She would have had more than her share of it. Nevertheless, having listened carefully to elements of the debate in the Chamber, and taking into account the volume of communication I have had from people outside this place - both within my electorate of East Coast Bays and in other parts of the country-I have not been persuaded. I have encouraged members of the gay community to communicate with me. I have listened carefully to their points of view, and have put my own view to them in order to hear their answers to my concerns. The result is that at this stage at least I cannot support the Bill. I hope I can explain some of my reasons in the time available to me. As this has been my first opportunity to speak on the matter, I must say that I have been appalled at the arguments and the behaviour of extreme elements on both sides of the issue in the way they have conducted their case. I think both sides have done damage to themselves and have done very little to add real substance to the argument, or to help those of us who have a genuine concern to make the right decision for the community at large. I know that those opposed to the legislation have often relied on unsubstantiated prejudices of the most obtuse and ridiculous kind, and have damaged what I believe is a powerful argument. Those in favour of the Bill have resorted to threats and to other tactics that do them and their case no credit whatsoever. My difficulty with the issue has been to separate my personal affection for, and friendship with, individual members of the gay community, whom I have known and have had regular contact with for many years, from the case of the community and my own deep-seated abhorrence, as a male, of the homosexual act. That has probably been my greatest struggle, and I suspect it is a struggle that many members have had to cope with. The nature of the opposition to the homosexual act is deep-seated, and has been described by supporters of the Bill as prejudice. If it is prejudice it is a natural prejudice, and as natural as the prejudice against incest. It is not necessarily a prejudice born of ignorance, although I freely acknowledge that the argument is frequently surrounded by ignorance. Nevertheless, the prejudice is deep-seated and natural. To my mind, incest is another sexual preference. I am not sure how many members have had contact with adults who are locked into incestuous relationships that they consider to be deep and meaningful, but as a member of Parliament I have had some contact with such people. Their arguments for recognition of their position almost parallel those that could be made for the Bill. I have attempted to be fair to myself and to my constituents, who, I freely acknowledge, are split down the middle on the matter, as is my own family. I have tried to approach the matter as a father of a 13-year-old son and a 15-year-old daughter, with whom I have discussed the subject at length. I was interested to learn how well informed they were about the debate. When I was asked what my fatherly advice would be to my son I had some difficulty, but approached the matter in this way: I suggested to him that if he came to me as a young man of 17 or 18 and confided in me that he felt he was homosexual, and genuinely had that feeling, my reaction would be one of personal anguish and hurt. Some of it would be selfish because I would realise immediately that if my son was genuinely locked into that kind of sexual preference he would probably not produce grandchildren for me, and the things I would look forward to from having grandchildren. So that is a selfish motivation. But as a father I would know and feel deeply that he would not enjoy fatherhood and those things that, to me, are probably the greatest motivation for all of us, whatever status in life we occupy, or seek to occupy. I could not help myself; I would feel deep disappointment. I might try to hide it from him. It is not something that members of the gay community want to hear very often, and I can understand that, but for me it would be a thing of anguish, desperately disappointing in much the same way that, if his sister were to tell me that she could not have children for some medical reason, I would be desperately disappointed for her, and for myself. So if my son, who goes to a boys' boarding school, were to say to me, “What do you think, Dad? Is it on?”, my answer would be, “No, I do not think it is. I think you had better give it a miss." I do not know how I could handle it any better than that. We might discuss it in detail, but that is what it would come down to. That would be my summing-up: “I think you had better give it a miss. I don't think it is natural. I don't think it is something I would like you to get involved in if you are considering doing it just as a casual activity." The difficulty we have to grapple with is that the homosexual act has been sold to us on the basis that human rights elements are involved. The argument is that it should be reasonable to allow those persons locked into homosexual relationships to enjoy and live out a normal life. Why should they be labelled as criminals? Why should they be condemned by the Christian community or the community at large, because of a different sexual preference? People may want to call it by different names; I would tend to call it a biological difference. They argue a powerful case for being able to live out their lives normally, and not being treated as criminals in the community. The argument does seem to have some weight, except that if the Bill dealing with that element of homosexuality is passed it will create the new victims. Over the months in which the debate has proceeded it has confirmed for me that while some people are undoubtedly born to that sexual preference many are not. A great many people are influenced into homosexuality by the conditions of their environment. There is ample evidence that that is so. Therefore anything that we do in the way of allowing for the promotion of that activity is likely to draw in new people, young people unnecessarily destined to be locked into what I consider to be a terrible sexual condition, something I would not want to be involved in and about which I feel deeply. Even though homosexual people do not want my pity or my compassion, and would not thank me for it, they want me to recognise that they are no different from me. Yet they are different. The other victim is the one we have not heard too much about. It is incidental to the Bill; nevertheless, it should be mentioned. The Bill deals with an element within the Crimes Act and seeks to repeal the section that prohibits anal intercourse. That section of the Crimes Act prohibits anal intercourse for everybody, and not just for members of the gay community. I freely recognise that we cannot effectively police the law, but, nevertheless, it is a statement the community has made about that act. If we pass the Bill I believe that many women in heterosexual relationships will become new victims. There are many women who live in less than perfect home conditions, who live in less than desirable sexual environments, and who have to put up with all kinds of activities bordering on abuse. They are locked in. They have no way out for many reasons. As the law stands those women do not have to prove that they did consent-they at least have that protection against being sodomised or being submitted to anal intercourse by a belligerent or difficult mate. They merely have to show evidence that that has occurred, and their husbands, or whoever they are cohabiting with, will have some explaining to do. I shall be interested in the arguments if I am wrong, but it appears to me that the Bill will lock those women into having to prove that they did not consent to their husbands' sodomising them. The reality is that they will not be able to do that and they will become victims, silent victims like many who suffer from incest. My concerns have led me to oppose the Bill. It is only fair to say that if the present code of penalties were to be enforced by the police service, and if the community demanded that it be enforced I would be extremely concerned, because the criminal penalty is totally out of line with what I believe is the basic position of the community on this issue. It is a great pity the Bill had not been crafted in such a way as to take us to the very edge of decriminalisation but not quite across the line. My feeling is that society was proceeding in the right direction on this issue, with many people starting to break down their prejudices and attitudes to the homosexuals within the community as individuals, and it was probably in the best interests of the community that it should have continued that way. The Bill has brought the arguments into the open and has polarised the community. It has probably done no good. My personal view would be for a very severe reduction in the penalty codes that surround the act, but not to the point of condoning it or sanctioning it, which is what Parliament would do if it passes the Bill in any of the shapes or forms suggested so far. There is an element of homosexuality that members have not talked about very much. My contact with the gay community has given me two particular concerns. The first is that homosexuality is very commercial, and the second is that it is very trendy. The nature of the community is such that if the Bill is passed there will undoubtedly be an expansion of commercial activity surrounding homosexuality and the gay community, although I do not wish to be among those who are suggesting that the whole community is likely to go gay or that the whole of society will fall apart. More young people will undoubtedly be locked into a homosexual existence, for whatever reason. I know many gay people, some still within the community, who now consider themselves to be bisexual and some who have been gays and are now back into heterosexuality. They testify openly to an extent that I certainly cannot deny that young people, especially young males, are locked into the kind of society we expose them to as young boys - becoming young men, and trying to find their sexuality. Because of the nature of male sexuality, many get distracted and end up with the gay community. For many it is an absolute tragedy. I think the Bill will probably be passed. I suspect that the numbers are there. I should like the House to vote on it tonight. We have spent enough time on it and I think I have heard every argument that can be raised on it. I cannot support the Bill, but I have given the matter enormous consideration, and it would be fair to say that I have learnt a lot and have probably softened my position a little, but not enough. PETER DUNNE (Ohariu): I move, That the question be now put. Mr SPEAKER: I am faced with the problem of knowing that there are members who have not yet spoken, but I am aware that they have not been rising to seek the call. The position relating to whether it would be appropriate to put the question is very different from that which normally applies, as this is a private member's Bill. I therefore sought an opinion in Speakers' Rulings and I go back to the first ruling on the matter after it was introduced by Speaker Statham. He ruled: “It now devolves upon me to say whether I think that putting the question to the House as proposed would be an infringement of the rights of the minority of the House or do violence to the rules of the House. I think, under the circumstances, seeing that the matter has been before the House for practically two whole sittings, it would not be an abuse of the privileges if I allowed the House in its wisdom to decide whether or not the question should now be put. I therefore put the question (That the question be now put).” WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker! GRAEME LEE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker! Mr SPEAKER: I am in the midst of ruling. It is that ruling that has guided me. Two whole sittings were seen to be an appropriate time right from the beginning for the imposition of this ruling. I have been hearing more repetitive argument as the debate has gone on, and unless someone can convince me that there is another member wanting to speak who has not taken part in the debate I propose that the motion be put. ROGER McCLAY (Waikaremoana): I seek the call. Having assumed that my colleague who moved the motion you are now discussing had not spoken, and was seeking to speak, I was willing to listen. Therefore I seek the call, not having spoken. Mr SPEAKER: Yes; Mr McClay. ROGER McCLAY: Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Obviously most members of Parliament have now made their point of view known. Like all members, I have listened carefully to the arguments, and tonight, as on other nights, I have been impressed with the arguments and convictions of those who have spoken in the debate. I was particularly proud this evening to count myself as a friend of the member for Clutha, who spoke so well, so genuinely, so wisely, and with such sincerity, as did the member for Southern Maori. I have heard her speak before on this measure and I respect her point of view, as I respect the points of view of all members. I also compliment those who, with genuine intent, have sought to ask the House not to proceed with the Bill at this time, and that is why I shall vote in favour of the amendment moved by the member for Invercargill. There may well be people in New Zealand who do not have the genuine interest that my friends in Parliament who have been leading the fight on the Bill have. I have received a lot of correspondence, as have all members. I believe that most of it has been genuine. Some of it has been abusive, and some of it has even been threatening. None of the abusive or threatening correspondence has to my knowledge come from anyone in my electorate. Some of the correspondence I have received has been rather sad and has been decidedly from the heart. I received a letter from a man in Auckland whose parents live in my electorate. He said he was homosexual and was required to live away from home because of some victimisation he had experienced when he was younger. I also received, quite independently, a letter from his parents. They are friends of mine and they have put their case to me, and I have spoken with them. I respect their point of view. I have received letters and telegrams from individuals in the teaching profession, of which I was a part. In one case senior teachers of a school sought actively to make known to me as their member of Parliament their disagreement with the teachers' union proposals and its stance on the Bill. I hope those individuals will not be subject to any victimisation for their stand against the tenor of the Bill. I shall speak about the issues others have spoken of. As a member of Parliament I am disappointed at the way in which the petition was treated by the select committee and then by Parliament. It was undoubtedly the biggest petition in New Zealand's history. Some signatures would have been invalid, of course, but if half or three-quarters of them were invalid the number of valid signatures from people who do not want the legislation to be passed is still impressive. I am amazed and disappointed that Parliament would not accept the petition. I was sorry that people in Wellington found it necessary to write to the chairman of the select committee to express their concern about his conduct. They said they were disappointed to note his actions in issuing a press release condemning the anti-homosexual law reform petition before it was heard by the select committee. I believe that the chairman made an unwise move. I have not been subjected to too much abuse. To the mover of the Bill and to those who have been most vociferous in opposing it around the country I tender the apologies and concerns of New Zealanders, no matter what side of the argument they are on. I say that because I believe I know who the genuine members on this issue are, and it is regrettable that both sides have resorted to tactics that have come down to personalities and not to the issues. Perhaps it is difficult not to get down to personalities when discussing personal issues such as the one we are being asked to make a judgment on this evening. I have not sought to have a high profile on the issue, but people in my electorate understand my point of view and I believe that most of them respect that view, as I do theirs. Punishment by law, is not acceptable, of course, and in the reading I have done and the questions I have asked I have not been able to find any evidence of people being punished by the law, except when they had victimised those who did not want to take part in the activities that occurred. I support the member for Napier in his call for a royal commission. I also support the amendment by the member for Invercargill, because that would give us time for further reflection, and more time to have a commission or a referendum or whatever is suitable to allow the wishes of New Zealanders to be measured beyond any doubt. I feel strongly that most New Zealanders do not want the measure to be passed. I know that people of the opposite view feel just as strongly that the measure should be passed. By moving the amendment the member for Invercargill wants New Zealanders to have the opportunity to make quite plain what their wishes are. The Christian point of view has been put. In my electorate it is a mixed point of view. I shall quote the view of Dean Rhymer: “To accept homosexuality and heterosexuality as of equal worth does not stand up to rational inquiry. There is a contradiction between the two, which will never be bridged. The tension within the proposed solution is seen when homosexuality is a legitimate alternative to heterosexuality. This means that in schools the alternative lifestyles will be taught as part of the education for living. Further, homosexuals could ask to be married either by the State or by the church. Permission to adopt children could not be withheld. It is not enough to say that their right of freedom demands a change in the law. If freedom means the licence to do anything, then all actions must be permitted. However, if freedom demands a self-discipline in response to a rule we may rightly ask what is the rule which gives the freedom required in the Bill. That rule I have yet to read.” The argument concerning health matters, particularly AIDS, does engender some fear and trepidation in the minds of people. There are indisputable facts from other countries. We know that in America AIDS is a predominantly homosexual disease. Homosexuals make up 73 percent of all AIDS victims in the United States. We know that AIDS victims die. More than 75 percent of pre-1983 victims are now dead. Every homosexual known to have had AIDS in 1979 is dead, and 92 percent of the 1980 victims are dead, too. In the past 6 months there has been a 101 percent increase in the number of victims in the United States alone. We must decide upon these matters, and none of us would say it was an easy decision. Pressure tactics can be treated with some suspicion, but the issue is obviously a major public issue about morality. Tonight, fewer than 100 human beings who happen to have the privilege of being members of Parliament at this moment in 1985 will make a decision for more than 3,000,000 people, of whom 50 percent voted at the last election without giving a thought to an issue of this nature, but who probably have now indicated positively, by way of the petition and correspondence to their member, that they are opposed to the Bill. That is a significant matter that all members must reflect upon. The Bill will do nothing to achieve what I suspect the homosexual community wants most. All human beings, whether or not their activities are illegal at present, want to be accepted. Every person needs to be accepted as a person, and as a person who matters. The passing of the Bill may well lessen the acceptance that there could be in society already. I ask my colleagues to consider whether the second reading of the Bill this evening will enhance homosexuality, and, more important, the acceptance of homosexuals. I think not. I think there will be much less acceptance of homosexual behaviour. I think there is acceptance of the people who are categorised as homosexuals, by themselves and other people, rather than of their behaviour. I am not happy about the present law on homosexual behaviour for several reasons. It appears to be different for men than for women. The punishments are probably inappropriate. The law encourages a sustained effort by some people to prove that homosexual behaviour is normal and should be permissible and treated as normal acceptable behaviour. I am, however, even more unhappy about what is proposed by the member for Wellington Central. The Bill removes from the law any notion that sodomy is wrong. The Bill does not call it sodomy, but refers to “anal intercourse”. Sodomy is defined in the dictionary as “an unnatural act between males or between a human and an animal”. The Bill does not provide adequate protection against the corruption of the young. Other countries do not permit what this Bill proposes. Rt. Hon. DAVID LANGE: You should change your dictionary. ROGER McCLAY: It is regrettable that the Prime Minister speaks in this debate by way of interjection. I believe that he should take the call and make his personal view known, rather than continuing to interject as he has this evening. In Britain the minimum age of consent is 21, in Australia it is 18, but it is proposed that it should be 16 years in New Zealand. What is more, it will be sufficient defence that a person who is charged believed with reasonable cause that the boy was aged 16, even though he might be only 12 years old. It has not been shown anywhere in the world that bringing the activities of homosexuals “out of the closet” has decreased the incidence of AIDS. My strongest objections are to Part II, which amends the Human Rights Commission Act 1977. This is the part that can make criminals out of employers who decline to employ, and out of landlords, businessmen and businesswomen, and educationists. The headmaster of a school will not be free to refuse employment to a practising gay teacher, male or female. If he did he could be adjudged criminal before the High Court. I draw to the attention of the House the implication of the Bill in relation to youth hostels such as those of the Young Men's Christian Asociation. The Bill does not correct the harsh law-it turns it around completely. Therefore I shall oppose it. It appears to me that with the advent of the Bill people could build an argument that from then on good will be evil and evil will be good in the eyes of the law. It is not only right-wing fundamentalists who oppose the Bill; no communist country in the world would pass it, and no Muslim or Hindu country would consider it, or pass it. Only countries in which large numbers of people have the right and freedom to speak, and that have large numbers of people in the category of the much maligned Christians of our nations, would consider or allow these laws. I shall vote against every stage of the Bill. MARGARET AUSTIN (Yaldhurst): I move, That the motion be now put. Mr SPEAKER: I realise that the debate has reached the stage at which repetition has become the rule rather than the exception. I intend to let the House decide whether the motion should be put. If the House decides that it should not be put, the debate will continue. Hon. TONY FRIEDLANDER (New Plymouth): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I take it from your ruling that I may not speak in the debate on behalf of my electorate? Mr SPEAKER: I am saying that the House will decide by its vote whether the debate will continue. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON (Papakura): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before you finally put that question, may I refer you to Standing Orders 213 and 214. Standing Order 213 relates to amendments to question for second reading. It states that amendments may be moved in certain circumstances. As the House knows, the member for Invercargill so moved an amendment a week ago, and we have since heard several speakers, many of whom have spoken for the first time. Standing Order 214 relates to the relevance of amendments: “No other amendment may be moved to the question for the second reading of a Bill unless it is strictly relevant to the Bill ...". The amendment moved by the member for Invercargill conforms with Standing Orders 213 and 214. My point is that not every member has had the opportunity to speak in the debate so far, and the member for New Plymouth is a case in point. If we are to consider the amendment seriously, may I suggest that members who have not yet participated in the debate be given your leave to do so, not only for reasons that apply to any private member's Bill, but also for reasons that apply to the responsibility that a private member has to constituents. Mr SPEAKER: The position is that, as well as the members who had been called, by arrangement-as the House knew- a list was kept of those members who wanted to be called. I have the list, and it has been exhausted. Hon. TONY FRIEDLANDER: Where is that in the Standing Orders? JOHN BANKS: What list? Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind members that I am on my feet. It is not my decision to stop the debate, because it is a free debate. When Government members and Opposition members are in contention members know that the Government majority will succeed. However, this is a free debate, and there are no Whips. I will give the House the opportunity to decide whether the debate should be concluded. The question before the House is that the motion be now put. NORMAN JONES (Invercargill): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw it to your attention that the Standing Orders have been contravened. The member for Yaldhurst moved “That the motion be now put", when, it fact, the motion should have been “That the question be now put." Rt. Hon. DAVID LANGE: That's very important! NORMAN JONES: It is important, and it is out of order. You cannot accept the motion, sir. There is a tradition that the motion should be “That the question be now put”. No other form may be used. I have been ruled out of order for moving an incorrect motion. Mr SPEAKER: I should be obliged if members would recall the way in which motions are alternatively put in the House. The question “That the motion be agreed to" is the most common motion in the House. The question I pose to the House is that the motion be agreed to. JOHN BANKS (Whangarei): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice. You said a moment ago in your ruling, which I accept, that it is a free vote and there are no Whips on either side of the House. I should have thought that on a conscience issue of importance every member would have an opportunity to speak. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before the member goes any further, and because I do not want to remove his opportunity of voting, could he tell me what remedy he seeks that does not require a reversal of my ruling? JOHN BANKS: Are you saying that some members of the House who have not spoken at all will not be given an opportunity to speak? Mr SPEAKER: I am not saying that. The member is requesting a reversal of my ruling. My ruling is that the motion be now put. DON McKINNON (Rodney): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I refer you to Standing Order 190, which states tha any member moving the closure must use the w "That the question be now put”. I was not in the House at the time but I am informed by my colleagues that the words used by the member for Yaldhurst were “That the motion be now put”. That has been ruled out of order many times before and I suggest that in those circumstances the question that was put by the member for Yaldhurst cannot be accepted. Mr SPEAKER: I take the point that the member has made, but the fact that the words "question” and “motion" are used alternatively in the House would dispose me not to rule the motion out on those grounds. If members can draw my attention to a precedent in Speakers' Rulings or a precedent in the rulings of the House of which I am not aware, I shall be quite happy to be guided by it, but I know of no precedent. NORMAN JONES (Invercargill): In an all-night debate I was asked to move the closure and I moved it in the same words as those used by the member for Yaldhurst. It was not accepted because I did not use the correct words and ask that the question by now put. The closure motion was not taken until another time. I remember being ruled out on it myself by Speaker Harrison, and that is why I raise my point of order. JACK LUXTON (Matamata): I have sat in the chair many times, and I have always required that Standing Order 190 be adhered to - that is, that the form of the closure motion is “That the question be now put”. Speaker's ruling 45/5, which was given by Mr Speaker Macfarlane in 1958 states: “A member when rising to move ‘That the question be now put' cannot then give reasons for doing so.” It has always been the practice that a member must move the motion in its correct form - that is, “That the question be now put". Mr SPEAKER: I am persuaded by the arguments advanced, because to rule otherwise would be to rule against the strict interpretation of the Standing Orders. I am disposed to agree with the members who have raised the point of order. Hon. TONY FRIEDLANDER (New Plymouth): I appreciate the efforts that several of my colleagues have gone to give me the opportunity to speak in the debate. I am also looking forward to the Prime Minister's contribution, because he, too, rose to take the call. It is important that, as the House sets the rules it follows, society must also set and maintain the standards by which it operates. Parliament's task is to help society to set those standards and to ensure that society operates by them. In doing so members must provide the leadership that is required and must carry the responsibility for making those decisions. That is the right and proper thing to do. As we approach that task there has been ample evidence over the years to show that the laws we have set in Parliament are based upon the great moral laws that have come down to our civilisation over thousands of years. Those laws were originally set to ensure the survival of tribes and civilisations. There is ample evidence to show that those laws are as valid today as they have ever been. When members agree to allow those laws to be undermined, compromised, or diminished that action not only holds the law up to ridicule but damages the fabric of society, and so weakens society. In saying that I do not suggest in any way that laws are not broken. Laws are broken, and that is an unfortunate fact of life. However, that does not mean that the laws themselves are wrong. In fact, it is no argument for society to lower its standards and to do away with its laws because people break them. Logic tells us that we must still strive to set those standards that we believe are right and proper. Society cannot allow general lawlessness to take place because there are people in the community who would try to break laws as often as they like. We cannot condone activities such as drug abuse, offensive language, prostitution, self-mutilation, suicide, and other acts of self-denigration that damage or destroy our society or individuals. Society and the House move against so-called victimless crimes and against acts that denigrate people, not only for the protection of the individuals themselves, but for society's own well-being. If we as parliamentarians shy from taking the stand that is necessary to establish a standard of law or acceptable behaviour, when does it become impossible for us to set standards at all? When do we abdicate our responsibilities and say that because people break the law we can no longer set standards of acceptable behaviour? Finally, members of Parliament have to provide the leadership and direction that society is crying out for. If we do not, when will we face the demands from sections of the community to legalise, for example, incest between consenting adults, prostitution, euthanasia, and drug abuse? Unless at some stage we draw a line and say we are not prepared to lower our standards beyond that they will gradually be chipped away and before long there will be no standards, or Parliament will no longer set them. When the matter was debated last week I listened carefully to the Minister of Education. I was interested in the arguments he presented to the House. If I can encapsulate his arguments fairly, I believe he presented the case for all members of the House to show Christian love to homosexuals, and therefore to pass the law. On first appearances I found his argument to be compelling. I believe that the teachings of most of us call upon Christian love to be shown to all members of society. At times we are sorely strained and our patience is tried when we seek to do so, but that is what we are called upon to do, and no one would argue against that sentiment. However, after considering his arguments I believe that the same argument in our Christian teachings asks us to show a similar love to the thugs and criminals in our society; but that does not mean that we should legalise physical assault or dishonesty. It simply means that we should seek to rehabilitate and assist the offender. It does not mean that we should seek to approve and condone those actions. Yet members are being asked not only to show Christian love to homosexuals but to condone, accept, and approve their behaviour. We should not and cannot do that if we are to maintain a reasonable standard in our society. By taking that stance it must be apparent that I intend to vote against the Bill. At no stage have I suggested that our present laws are perfect-they are not; but I have listened carefully to members in the House and to people on radio to hear if anyone could bring any evidence to suggest that homosexuals have been harassed because of the present law. Although some speakers have implied that there has been harassment, no evidence has been provided to show that that is so. I have listened for the evidence to suggest that the information I have gathered is wrong. Although the existing laws are not perfect, they have achieved a considerable amount for society by discouraging the promotion of homosexual behaviour. They have protected society from those who would seek to promote homosexual behaviour as a right, proper, and acceptable way of life. I do not believe that it is. The present laws have also tended to suppress any form of homosexual soliciting, although one must acknowledge that some soliciting does occur. They have also helped to suppress and prevent public displays of homosexual activity in the community in a manner that most of us would find unacceptable. That has provided a major advantage to society and should not be lightly done away with. I repeat that in adopting my approach I do not lack concern or compassion for homosexual people. However, I believe the answer does not and should not lie in the whole of society being called on to weaken or lower the standards it sets for itself. I briefly draw the attention of the House to the amendments to the Human Rights Commission Act proposed by the legislation as they seek to legislate against any form of discrimination on the unds of homosexuality. That means that anyone seeking to appoint a scoutmaster, a Bible class teacher, a boarding school headmaster, and so on, could not discriminate and say “We do not find you acceptable because you are a homosexual.” FRAN WILDE: The member's wrong. Hon. TONY FRIEDLANDER: I am not wrong. (Interruption). It means that there would be no ability not to employ a person solely on the grounds of homosexuality. I believe that is an unacceptable position for us to place society in. The other point is that the House is strongly divided on the issue, yet if that aspect of the law is passed we are asking the public to ensure that despite the strong words that have been spoken here people will not be able to express their point of view as we have sought to express ours in the House. We are being illogical if we believe that by simply passing the legislation, as we are asked to do, people will put their prejudices and concerns behind them and will not break that law. Because many people are strongly opposed to what is being proposed, it would be ridiculous for us to pass a law that in no way, shape, or form would enable them to express their abhorrence of concern about homosexual activities in our community as they affect individuals. Members have applied themselves to the problem and are obviously divided on the matter. With other members, I intend to oppose the Bill. If we do not do so, at some stage we will regret the day that we allowed our standards to lower further and further. ANNETTE KING (Horowhenua): I move, That the question be now put. The House divided. Ayes 56 Anderton; Austin, M. E.; Austin, W. R.; Bassett; Batchelor, Boorman; Burke; Butcher, Caygill; Clark; Colman; Cooper; Cullen; de Cleene; Dillon; Dunne; Elder, Fraser, Gair, Gerard; Gerbic; Goff; Graham; Gray; Gregory; Hercus; Hunt; Jeffries; Keall; Kidd; King; Lange; Luxton; McKinnon; McLay; Marshall, C. R.; Maxwell, R. K.; Moore; Neilson; Northey; O'Flynn; Palmer; Prebble; Rodger, Scott; Shields; Sutton, J. R.; Tapsell; Terris; Tizard; Townshend; Wetere; Woollaston; Young, V. S. Tellers: Matthewson; Wilde. Noes 20 Angus; Austin, H. N.; Banks; Birch; Braybrooke; East; Friedlander, Knapp; McClay; McTigue; Mallard; Morrison; Peters; Smith; Talbot; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Wellington; Young, T. J. Tellers: Jones; Lee. Majority for: 36 Motion agreed to. The House divided on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 26 Angus; Austin, H. N.; Austin, W. R.; Banks; Birch; Cooper; Friedlander, Gray; Jones; Kidd; Luxton; McClay; McLay; McTigue; Marahall , D. W. A.; Morrison; Peters; Smith; Storey; Talbot; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Townshend; Wellington; Young, T. J. Tellers: Braybrooke; Lee. Noes 53 Anderton; Austin, M. E.; Bassett; Batchelor; Boorman; Burdon; Burke; Butcher, Caygill; Clark; Coleman; Cullen; de Cleene; Dillon; Dunne; East; Elder, Fraser, Gair; Gerard; Gerbic; Goff; Graham; Gregory; Hercus; Hunt; Jeffries; Keall; King; Knapp; Lange; McKinnon; Marshall, C. R.; Matthewson; Maxwell, R. K.; Moore; Neilson; Northey; O'Flynn; Palmer; Prebble; Rodger, Scott; Shields; Sutton, J. R.; Tapsell; Terris; Tizard; Wetere; Woollaston; Young, V. S. Tellers: Mallard; Wilde. Majority against: 27 Amendment negatived. The House divided on the question, That this Bill be now read a second time. Ayes 47 Anderton; Austin, M. E.; Bassett; Batchelor; Boorman; Burdon; Burke; Butcher; Caygill; Clark; Cullen; de Cleene; Dillon; Dunne; Elder, Fraser; Gair; Gerbic; Goff; Graham; Gregory; Hercus; Hunt; Jeffries; Keall; King; Lange; McKinnon; Marshall, C. R.; Matthewson; Maxwell, R. K.; Moore; Neilson; Northey; O'Flynn; Palmer; Prebble; Rodger, Scott; Shields; Sutton, J. R.; Tizard; Wetere; Woollaston; Young, V. S. Tellers: Mallard; Wilde. Noes 32 Angus; Austin, H. N.; Austin, W. R.; Banks; Birch; Colman; Cooper, East; Friedlander; Gerard; Gray; Jones; Kidd; Knapp; Luxton; McClay; McLay; McTigue; Marshall, D. W. A.; Morrison; Peters; Smith; Storey; Talbot; Tapsell; Terris; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Townshend; Wellington; Young, T. J. Tellers: Braybrooke; Lee. Majority for: 15 Bill read a second time. The main text body ends. The original document can be accessed at this website address https://www.pridenz.com/hansard_homosexual_law_reform_bill_second_reading_continued_13_november_1985.html. Please note that this document may contain errors or omissions - you should always refer back to the primary source material to confirm content.