The title of this document is "Homosexual Law Reform Bill - second reading continued (16 October 1985)". It is described as: Homosexual Law Reform Bill - second reading continued (16 October 1985). The proceedings occurred in Parliament on 16th October 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 text is a detailed transcription of the New Zealand Parliament’s second reading debate on the Homosexual Law Reform Bill, held on October 16, 1985. The debate is a reflection of the social and political tension surrounding the issue of decriminalizing homosexual acts between consenting adults and includes arguments both for and against the proposed reforms. The bill had two main objectives: to decriminalize homosexual behavior between consenting adults in private and to introduce anti-discrimination provisions based on sexual orientation. Supporters of the bill emphasized the importance of personal freedom and privacy, asserting that the state had no role in regulating consensual sexual behavior between adults. They argued that the current law, which criminalized homosexual acts, was outdated and unjust, particularly in a modern, democratic society. They also highlighted that other Western nations, such as the United Kingdom, had already decriminalized homosexuality, and New Zealand should follow suit to ensure that human rights were respected. MPs like Trevor de Cleene and Helen Clark stressed that homosexuality was not a choice or a result of moral failure, but rather a natural aspect of human diversity that should not be criminalized. The opponents of the bill, however, framed their arguments around moral, religious, and public health concerns. Some MPs, such as Bruce Townshend and Rex Austin, voiced strong opposition based on religious beliefs, suggesting that homosexuality was unnatural and contrary to Christian values. They argued that legalizing homosexual acts would undermine the moral fabric of society and might encourage more people to engage in such behavior. Additionally, there was significant concern about the AIDS epidemic, which was perceived by many opponents as being linked to the homosexual community. Some MPs suggested that decriminalizing homosexuality might exacerbate the spread of AIDS, posing a public health risk. One of the main concerns raised by opponents was the potential impact on young people. Several MPs, including Philip Burdon and Rex Austin, proposed amendments to raise the age of consent for homosexual acts from the proposed 16 to 18 or 20 years, arguing that young men needed additional protection from the potential risks of homosexual behavior. They contended that male adolescents were not as mature as their female counterparts and should be shielded from possible exploitation or undue influence. In contrast, supporters of the bill argued that equality under the law should apply to all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. They pointed out that heterosexual acts were legal at 16 and that the same age of consent should apply to homosexual acts. They further emphasized that discrimination against homosexuals in employment, housing, and access to services was unjust and should be addressed through the introduction of anti-discrimination provisions. MPs like Judy Keall and Helen Clark expressed that decriminalizing homosexual acts and introducing anti-discrimination laws would promote a healthier and more tolerant society. The debate also touched on the historical origins of laws criminalizing homosexual acts, with several MPs noting that these laws were rooted in religious doctrines rather than secular legal principles. They highlighted that laws against homosexuality had been introduced in the 16th century when England’s ecclesiastical courts were abolished and religious offenses were brought under criminal law. This historical perspective was used to argue that such laws were no longer appropriate in a modern, pluralistic society. The main text body begins:  16 October 1985, New Zealand Parliament. Debate resumed from 9 October 1985. BRUCE TOWNSHEND (Kaimai): Before the interruption of the debate 1 week ago I had been expressing my concern that the House had been deprived of information about the effect of AIDS on the wider community. At that time 85 public submissions were still to be heard, and it was unfortunate that the Government used its majority to deprive those people-many of whom were experts - of their right to present information before the committee. While the committee cannot make recommendations to the House other than on technical matters, it had an absolute obligation to present to Parliament the best information available. It is easy to identify the moral argument that homosexual activity is unnatural and against God's law. On the other hand, the liberal attitude states that it is the right of an individual to do what he wishes in private, and that the question of morals is a subjective issue. I doubt that we will ever persuade those two sides to change. There is a third element that is probably best defined as charity, expressed by those holding conservative or liberal views on whether homosexuality should be decriminalised. The subject of AIDS has added a further dimension to the debate, and an important issue is that of the morality of the House in relation to the wider community. It has been clearly demonstrated that AIDS is not a disease of homosexuals alone. It can be fairly well demonstrated that the spread of AIDS is probably accelerated by the homosexual community, but beyond that–because it is widely accepted and established that about 60 percent or more of males who practise homosexual acts are bisexual - there is a threat to many other innocent victims throughout the total community for whom we have a responsibility to do our best. There is no known cure for the disease; it can take years to develop fully, and it is a virus with constantly changing characteristics, which makes immunisation by vaccine a distant hope. No symptoms of pain occur in its early stages - unlike venereal disease, with which there is a burning desire to tell somebody within a few days. Medical evidence submits that education is the only weapon to deal with AIDS in the long term. In the short term, openness, blood screening, and identification of carriers or potential victims are essential requirements. A critical aspect of the law reform is whether we should criminalise consenting acts in private and try to closet homosexuality, with the risk that we hasten the spread of AIDS. Few have difficulty in arguing that homosexuality and homosexual acts are unnatural. I notice that the member for Hamilton West is screwing up his face, but in the eyes of most of the population I would suggest that that is the accepted view. To enforce a position whereby it is a criminal offence, while knowing that to do so could unleash a social and health time bomb of the magnitude of the plague or the great influenza epidemics, is an issue that the committee should have considered and been able to make firm recommendations to the House on. It is the responsibility of members of Parliament to do what is best to avoid the development of that position, and I suggest that that is our moral responsibility to society. At present we have a latent law, one of inaction, in the provision of the Crimes Act and homosexual acts. It is really token legislation and, unfortunately, rather than having argued the issue with logic we have seen attitudes harden in both camps. If we were, in passing the Bill, to restate within the statutes that homosexual acts should be criminalised, even within the limitations that the final Bill will prescribe, I suggest that the whole debate would awaken an avalanche of public opinion. That same opinion created a petition with 800,000 signatures, and I fear that we will see a reaction demanding adherence to the new law. Is it right that we put this imposition on the public at large? Parliament must der the issue very carefully. I personally disapprove of homosexuality, and I also believe that Parliament cannot legislate for the morals of the nation. My personal belief is in the charity of Christianity, and I would support that view rather than the imposition of a fundamental religious direction on a minority of 10 percent of the community by 90 percent of the community. I do not support the human rights provisions in the legislation, because I do not think New Zealand is ready to accept them. In particular, there is concern for families when parents feel they still have a right to select those persons who, knowing them to be homosexuals, they prefer should not influence and direct their children. If we look specifically at some of the unanswered questions from the select committee we will see that at about the time the hearings concluded there was an announcement about the similarity between Alzheimer's disease and AIDS degeneration and the AIDS problem. Since then there have also been two articles about the similarities between scrapie and AIDS. Scrapie is the disease that affects the brains of sheep, and a major importation of livestock affected by the disease, which could have had a significant economic impact on the agriculture sector, was slaughtered in New Zealand. As a nation we were prepared to destroy in order to protect our livestock, yet on this issue we tend to have argued on a very narrow band between morality on the one hand and liberalism on the other. I suggest that members must think a little more clearly in future. The observation about scrapie highlights the problem that no vaccine could ever be prepared that would be effective in the control of AIDS if it contained a protein. That in itself is a problem, but the principle is more important. We were prepared to take more violent steps in our livestock industry than we are to face up to one or two of the real issues. The conclusions of the select committee and the report of the Department of Justice show that it seems there is doubt about what the real effect would be, but two interesting observations were made about the effect of criminalising homosexual acts and the effect that would have on the disease. On balance, the conclusion was reached that it may well be better out in the open. The Australian experience tends to fortify that argument. The conclusion was reached that it was a matter for the Department of Health and not one that should be dealt with within the criminal law. I was impressed by the visiting New South Wales general practitioner, Dr David Sutherland, who explained the position in New South Wales as against that in Queensland. When we study the parallel case of California, where homosexual acts are not criminal, and Florida, where they are, no clear evidence is found to indicate that by criminalising those people whom we recognise as having a sexual orientation that is different from the average, because of metabolic or hormonal differences, we shall achieve the right answer. When a kite was flown recently in New South Wales about making AIDS a notifiable disease, and it was decided that AIDS carriers should also be notifiable, the public backed away because there is no known cure. On balance, I invite the House to meditate on this very important issue. It is one on which Parliament must make the best decision for the people of the country. Sitting suspended from 5. 30 p. m. to 7. 30 p. m. BRUCE TOWNSHEND: Before the adjournment I canvassed the impact of AIDS on the wider population and also the responsibility of Parliament to have a moral conscience about doing the right thing in the Bill to ensure that AIDS does not become a plague. Having canvassed that and other issues in relation to the removal of the human rights provisions in the Bill - I consider them to be premature, because New Zealand is trying to lead the world in that field - I also see a need to raise the age of consent for males to beyond 16 years. The member for Papatoetoe is reported as having said in the second reading debate that he felt it was male chauvinism to have a different age for males and females. There are three reasons that the House should consider raising the age in the Bill. The physical and sexual development of girls is acknowledged to be at least 11/2 years more advanced than that of their male counterparts. At 16 years of age girls are much more at risk if they want to move into the world of sexual activity, and with the risk of pregnancy they have an inbuilt deterrent. Conversely, the adolescent male at 16 years of age has nothing at risk. He may be prepared to experiment, and if there is a propensity towards homosexual activity-which I do not condone or encourage - I do not think it is desirable to have a law that will encourage him to take that risk. Hence I support the amendment to raise the age to be moved by the member for Fendalton. At this stage I will be voting against the second reading, with the desire to see the human rights provision removed. Other members - in particular, the member for Tarawera-hold parallel views to mine on such issues. Unfortunately, the member for Tarawera is away from the House on urgent public business, concerning himself with the plight of farmers around the country. As legislators it is easy for us to have a general criticism of a selected group of society. While from our own particular perspective of morality we may disapprove of a principle or activity, I invite the House to take back the responsibility each member has to a personal basis. As legislators it is easy to be critical of an individual, or a group, or a minority, or an activity. However, if we had a personal or family contact with someone who had inherited strong homosexual tendencies through the hormonal or metabolic imposition that nature had given him-and it is not correctable, as many would claim-it would put a different perspective on our attitude to whether a homosexual should be made a criminal. Although I shall vote against the second reading, I assure the House that I intend to take what I feel is the best course. I hope that more evidence on the matter will be raised in the debate, because it is an important matter. It is an important matter for the 33,000 people in my electorate and the 3,300,000 in the country. Parliament must adopt a broad perspective in producing a workable and sensible Bill. Finally, I want to give a short résumé of one of the most touching letters I received on the matter, which was sent to me when the matter was receiving much public debate. It was from a woman in a quiet corner of my electorate, who said that the finest man in the world that she had ever met was a homosexual. “I married him, and I endeavoured to work through the marriage. He has stood by me and has done right through his whole life. But, due to his orientation, we could never overcome that difficulty.” She said that she was now 74 years of age. She asked that we do not make a criminal of him. TREVOR DE CLEENE (Palmerston North): I congratulate members who have so far participated in the debate. For myself, I find it one of the most pleasing aspects of the Chamber that on a debate on a social conscience matter the quality of debate usually rises - and indeed it has - and members can fulfil the democratic and constitutional process that Parliament was originally designed for - that is, the individual expression of a democratic opinion on matters pertaining to the people whom we seek to govern. I urge the member for Kaimai to change his mind on voting against the second reading of the Bill, because, in my view, the Bill should have a second reading so that the very matters he put before the House tonight can be the subject of Committee debate and at the vital stage of the Bill the individual conscience of the people in the House can be exercised in the voting lobbies. By those means we will have a better Bill, in whatever shape or form it eventually passes - because I am sure some of it will be passed. I urge the member for Kaimai, for whom I have respect-indeed, as a Government member I have respect for all members, particularly when they are voting on a conscience matter - to depart from voting against the second reading. I am speaking as a member and also as a lawyer with considerable experience of acting for people who, whether due to God, nature, or something else, are designed in a different way, or had a different proclivity in life on sexual orientation than perhaps mine or somebody else's. I am reminded of the famous passage in the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam: “After a momentary silence spoke Some vessel of a more ungainly Make; ‘They sneer at me for leaning all awry: What! did the Hand then of the Potter shake?” I am the last person who wants to be judgmental. I did not want to speak in the debate, but, because I would otherwise have avoided what is a duty that I owe to my constituents and the people, I am forced to exercise my conscience on a matter that I would rather not have had brought before the House at this time. However, I commend the member for Wellington Central for her courage in introducing the Bill and making members exercise their consciences. I want read into Hansard a history of the matter. Before 1533 the felony and the common law of England recognised no derogation of what a person, male or female, wanted to do in a sexual orientation. It was left to the ecclesiastical courts. Later in my speech I shall say that that is basically where we still are. I remind the lawyers of the House, and anybody listening tonight who is a lawyer, that the law of the country sprang not from the historical common law of which Anglo-Saxons were so proud, but from the abolition by Henry VIII of the religious aspects of the ecclesiastical courts. A Bill was passed during the sixteenth century stating that the abominable vice had been dealt with exclusively by the ecclesiastical courts and that the offence of buggery was made a criminal offence under the law of England. Thus for most of the evolution of mankind the people who suffer from the present criminal law did not suffer. It was only in the sixteenth century that it was brought from the law of God into the law of man. I repeat: buggery became an offence only then. One could do what one wished in relationships after even that, so long as it was not buggery, which was defined as an act with an animal, a woman, or a man. However, if one did commit the offence one could be burnt at the stake - and some people were. I hope they will not be after this debate, but they may be if some members who have spoken get their way or if some people who are visitors from overseas and who represent a moral point of view get their way. I am not one of those. The death penalty was finally abolished in 1861 but consensual homosexual acts other than buggery remained legal. Total prohibition came only in 1885. One of the people who suffered from that Act was probably one of the greatest literary geniuses ever to grace the English stage - Oscar Wilde. There was the famous action against the Marquis of Queensbury - who was well known for other, pugilistic activities - who acted for the love of his son. Oscar Wilde wrote such things as The Picture of Dorian Gray and the Essays on Socialism. He was one of the literary greats of our heritage, but he was tried and died in poverty. The only thing I can say about it is that if accident of nature and criminal law can do anything, he wrote the Ballad of Reading Gaol before he died. I view that as one of the great literary masterpieces of the English language. Those Acts came into New Zealand law after it took Dominion status. The law against homosexuals was passed at a late hour of Parliament when La Bouchère moved an amendment that was basically designed to stop the prostitution of women and young girls. It came into law as an accidental matter aside from buggery and other things. What I am saying to the members who oppose the Bill is that fundamentally the act of criminal homosexuality was not derived from the common law of England from which we inherit our marvellous system. It was derived from an act and a sin against God, as it was seen by the ecclesiastical courts. I have no argument with the fact that some members of the Chamber and a lot of people in this country regard homosexuality as an act against God. God can sit in judgment when they have shuffled from this mortal coil. I urge upon members and the public generally that they render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, unto God what is God's, and that they do not exercise a moral judgment in a criminal sense against their fellow human beings. I am no stranger to the King James Version of the Bible. I had tremendous respect, Mr Speaker, for your predecessor, Sir Richard Harrison, as a Speaker of the House. If I ever quoted the wrong version of the Bible he would pull me up later and say: “Trevor, that is not the King James Version." However people view this criminal law today, it came into the courts as an act against God-not against man and the criminal law. Among the hullabaloo with which this issue has been attacked in New Zealand one finds people who believe they have the word of God on their side. To me that is a very onerous burden indeed, and I am not being jocular. I believe the members who honestly think that are to be treated with the greatest respect. The people who take that view may be right and I may be wrong, but it is not an onus that as a member of the House I am prepared to speak on lest I, too, should end up at the judgmental seat and someone may say to me that the greatest sin upon earth was to assume the burden of God and judge fellow human beings when that is best left to the Maker. What I am saying is that as long as they do not hurt anyone, as long as they leave children alone - and that is the evidence-I could not give a damn what they do as long as they do not scare the horses. I am not being jocular in saying that; I am simply not being morally judgmental of my fellow human beings. If we decriminalise--and I shall vote for decriminalisation; I shall follow the member for Wellington Central through the lobbies - we are removing as a criminal act something that historically, and in all other senses, has not been an offence other than in an ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and I do not offer an opinion on that. If members think they are right then God bless them, because there is only one person who can tell them that, and I have had no great advocate come back from the other side to convince me of who is right and who is wrong. From the people I have known and acted for in the past I am not prepared to say that what is right for a woman, and what was never considered as an offence, is wrong. In 1921 a private member's Bill was brought before the House in England to make so-called unnatural acts illegal. I am not saying what is unnatural and what is normal. Frankly, I do not know what is normal or unnatural. I know what I accept within myself as a natural thing. I know what I regard as normal, but I do not have the temerity, as other members do, to say that the view I take on morality is so correct and accurate that it must have the force of the laws handed down by God to Moses on the Mount. I suppose I shall be punished in another place just as other people here will be, but not before the courts of this country for an act that is proper and legal between women. In my opinion if it is good enough for the gals it is good enough for the boys. I believe in equality of the sexes. I know that some of my women compatriots in the Chamber do not think I display that belief with the vehemence and enthusiasm that some of them do, but I was brought up by a mother-a Scottish woman whose name was MacDonald before she married Willie de Cleene - who drilled into me that not only were women equal but basically they were superior. If one fought it with old Mary de Cleene and survived, one would be a survivor in this world. The one thing she taught me at her knee was that all people who walk on two legs and speak in a guttural tongue are human beings. My old dad used to say that one did not have to drink with them or be with them if one did not like them, but for God's sake - and he used that expression - do not judge them. If the Lord is omnipotent and created all people then the Lord must, by definition, have created the very people attacked by some members in the Chamber. Who is the sinner and who are the sinful if that be the case? I am not urging it, but my logical mind says to me that if the Lord is omnipotent he could have fixed all of this up in a flash of a pan. Leaving that aside, it is not a matter for the criminal law. The Bill that was brought before the United Kingdom Parliament in 1921 stated that lesbianism should also be subject to the criminal law. It was thrown out on the basis of the submission from the House of Lords that if one let women know about it they would be encouraged by it. There have been advertisements up and down the country. I am not, in the words of Karen Hay with whom I debated against Shadbolt, Scott, and McCormick, trying to make it compulsory. The member for Napier made a brilliant speech but, one again in the words of Karen Hay, “I was not going to ram this homosexual law reform down his throat”. I am merely asking for tolerance. That brings me to the next point. If ever I preached any doctrine to the democracy of this country it is the doctrine of tolerance and respect for one's fellow human beings. The scenes of moral judgment that occurred outside the House shocked me, and turned by mind back to the Nazi members of Nuremberg in 1933. (Interruption). “Crap” someone says - it certainly was - and there were brownshirts out there to prove it on both sides - with people lining up in uniform, singing hymns, flying a flag, and saying "God's on my side!” During the war God was on the side of the Nazis. There were Christians there. God was on the side of the Russians. God is on everyone's side. One can get out of the Bible any argument that can be taken out of the New Zealand Law Reports if one is the advocate for it, but tolerance and mercy I have always taken from the Bible. I do not want to bring you, Mr Speaker, into the debate, but I know you are a Christian person. I am not saying what I am, but I am saying this to you: that I read incessantly that the virtue of tolerance is preached to us from the word go, and I wish that some of the people who Bible-bash would read some of the other quotations. A fellow called Pastor Sheldon came to New Zealand, got his photograph on the front of the New Zealand Times lounging back in leather-tooled, high-kneed boots with high heels, and told New Zealand women what they should and should not do about abortion, and what homosexuals should and should not do. I am afraid it reminded me of an extremism that is anti-democratic and an intolerance that I will not have in this country. If there is anything to be aware of in this debate it is that it has brought out in New Zealanders a hidden feeling that must have been there all the time. I do not exempt the other side of that same debate. People on the other side of the fence have shown an extremism that, in my view, should not exist. It has brought us into a virtual war of moral positions. All I am preaching tonight is that the greatest thing in this democracy is that right advocated by Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Equally I do not believe that the common law of this country or the statute law of crime should enter the bedroom. What adult consenting males do there is their business. The fact that someone else should exercise a moral judgment, send a policeman creeping up a private drive to peer through a blind to see what was happening and give evidence - and there have been cases of that happening - is to me simply a waste of the time of the police. Anyone who is prepared to do that has got a damned dirty mind, because what I, like Shakespeare, have always worried about is that the people who protest too much, “Methinks have a lot to protest about". What particular conscience are they serving in trying to flagellate people who have a different point of view? As a lawyer, when I retire from the House or get booted out - whichever is earlier-I will go back and defend the people of the ungodly-as I jocularly call them-the people who have sinned against the law. I do not want to go back as a criminal lawyer and have to defend people who were minding their own God-damn business in their own God-damn houses in their own God-damn time - to use the Reverend Sheldon's expletive, which was brought by him from America at some expense to the people of this country. I am saying that the New Zealand nation is better than that, and that most countries have decriminalised the offence. I intend to vote for decriminalisation. I intend to stick with the age of 16 years, not because I do not bear with some weight what the member for Kaimai said but because, in logic, I cannot say that what is good enough for the women is necessarily bad for the men; and if 16 years has to be the age of consent - and that may be another matter-I intend to vote for it. I want to reserve my right to hear more speeches on the human rights issue, but even then the more I note the extremism and intolerance in this country the more I am driven to the belief that the only way to squash this matter entirely is to decriminalise it, to make the age of consent 16, and to give people who walk as human beings upon this earth the same rights as anybody else. The more we get into extremism the more I am being driven by the logic of the legal mind to the belief that if it is not to be criminal then people have a right to the human dignity of equality with everyone else in the country. PHILIP BURDON (Fendalton): In rising to speak to the Bill I want to commence by emphasising my respect for the sincerity of the arguments presented by both sides of the House. In particular I draw attention to the deep and profound sincerity and the concern, on the one hand, of the member for Hauraki in his opposition to the Bill, and, on the other hand, the arguments in favour of the Bill presented by the Minister of Customs. There have been many other equally sincere speeches. I regret the way in which certain members have attempted to personalise and belittle the beliefs that are quite clearly sincerely and honestly held by other members. I dissociate myself from the ridicule and contempt that has been reflected by some for the 800,000-strong petition of those opposed to the Bill. Regardless of whether or not one agrees with the objectives of the petition the reality is that, irrespective of a substantial number of errors, it is a reflection of deep concern in society. To that extent it deserves responsible and concerned attention, which it clearly has not had from some of the more radical supporters of the proposed legislation. I do not propose to attempt to review in any detail the confused and troubled history of the legislation. Rather, I want to foreshadow my intention to introduce an amendment to the Bill to raise the age legalising homosexual acts between consenting adults from the proposed 16 years to 20 years. The amendment will be supported by a significant number of my colleagues who believe that there is justification for a much more limited reform than the radical and overdramatic reform proposed by the member for Wellington Central and supported by many of her colleagues. I invite the member for Palmerston North to listen carefully, as I believe he has prejudged some of our reasons. For purely clinical reasons we believe that it is wrong to legalise sodomy from the age of 16, which would be a direct consequence of the passing of the Bill. Regardless of the moral considerations, sodomy should be strongly discouraged. Sodomy, or anal intercourse, is a very dangerous act for health reasons, and society has an obligation to attempt to protect the young from a practice that carries very severe health risks. It is clearly shown that the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases is very high for those who engage in sodomy. It appears that the absorption of semen through the rectum could critically suppress the body's immune system and so account for the particular phenomenon of AIDS in the homosexual. It appears that the gay bow syndrome, which, together with the increased incidence of sexually transmitted diseases, may be central to the AIDS phenomenon is occurring because of the unbelievably crude acts performed between homosexuals, which the general public appears to be oblivious of. I do not believe it is in the public interest to allow 16-year-old boys or girls to be legally sodomised even though they may purportedly consent to the act. To pass laws requiring people to wear seat-belts while at the same time allowing 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds to be sodomised is a sad reflection of society's priorities in respect of health care. If people wish to sodomise one another they should be permitted to do so only after they have reached maturity and have had ample opportunity to understand the dramatic health risks that such an activity involves them in. For that reason I believe that 20 is an appropriate age for society to accept that it is no longer appropriate to protect the individual from himself. By the age of 20, society ceases to be entitled to claim an educative role and must let the individual take his place in society subject to all the usual constraints of consent and public decency. I now want to refer briefly to the philosophic argument. I believe in the rights and freedoms of the individual, and I respect the right of the adult to conduct his or her life with minimum interference from the State. I accept that the State has the right to educate and protect the individual. However, I cannot support the continued imposition of criminal sanctions against the adult homosexual, as I do not believe it is the role of the State to impose public morality on the community by enshrining it in law. What people do in the privacy of their own homes, however morally and physically obnoxious it may be to the ordinary citizens, is their own affair as long as the participating parties do it in full knowledge and with mutual consent. Society has an educative role until the age of 20 for strictly health reasons because of the uniquely dangerous nature of certain homosexual acts, and that is the reason for distinguishing homosexual acts from heterosexual acts. After the age of 20, society must accept the right of the individual to conduct his life according to his own personal values. We do not allow children under the age of 15 to smoke or people under the age of 18 to go into public bars. Likewise, for public health reasons, we believe, accordingly, that 16 is too young to allow sodomy to be indulged in. In addition to those reasons, I emphasise also that I totally reject the argument that the present law should remain as it is because it represents a constraint on homosexual activities. I accept that the present law is totally hypocritical in so far as it contains criminal sanctions that clearly are not enforced. It is wrong to allow a law to be perceived as a token discipline. If we acquiesce in abusing the integrity of the law, ultimately we bring the whole rule of law into disrepute. That may seem to be rather too puritan an argument but it is another reason that there is a compelling argument for legalising homosexual acts between consenting adult males over the age of 20. Accordingly, I foreshadow my intention, with the expected support of many of my colleagues, to introduce an amendment that will raise the age legalising homosexual acts between consenting adults from the proposed age of 16 years to 20 years, and tell the House that we will not be supporting Part II of the Bill. A group of us who support the second reading do so only to pursue the narrower reform I have outlined. None of us supports the Bill as it stands. JUDY KEALL (Glenfield): This is a very difficult speech for me. It is a speech that relates directly to my fellow human beings and to whether they criminals. I know that tonight I am speaking for people who are personal friends of mine, people in every walk of life. Many of them are ordinary working people; others are professional people such as lawyers, doctors, policemen and policewomen - women are involved, of course, in the second part of the Bill, by the removal of discrimination-teachers, and trade union officials. For a long time those people have wanted this change in the law. They have wanted male homosexuality to be decriminalised, and they have wanted a change in the law so that gay people will no longer be discriminated against in housing, employment, and various goods and services. I know that it is very important to them that the Bill should be passed. I support the Bill in its entirety. I come to this position of support from a background that is a traditionally Christian one. I was brought up in a Presbyterian home; my father was a Presbyterian minister. I am a woman deeply committed to the welfare of the family. I am a member of Parliament who has sat through many hours of the parliamentary select committee that heard evidence on the Bill. I sat through every sitting of the Statutes Revision Committee on the Bill, and three sittings of the Justice and Law Reform Committee. Along with the member for Hamilton West and the member for Wellington Central, I think I would have heard more submissions than any other member. I have been most impressed by the weight of submissions in favour of decriminalisation. The Bill has had a fair hearing. Nearly 60 percent of the submissions heard supported the Bill, and, of the 85 submissions not heard, 63 supported the Bill. Most of those people have written to say that they are happy for the Bill to be reported back and the criminal law should not punish private consenting behaviour. It should proscribe only behaviour that occasions positive harm. The Bill decriminalises homosexual acts between consenting male adults in private. The law has no business having any control over what consenting adults do in private. The law should be concerned to protect people from harm and to keep order in society. When people do something quietly in the privacy of their own homes they harm no one. The Bill does not allow the molestation of children. It does not allow sexual acts in public. It does not allow soliciting. In fact, it strengthens the law against those who seek to have a sexual relationship with a boy under the age of 16, putting a penalty of 7 to 14 years' imprisonment on that activity. Part II of the Bill includes those of homosexual orientation or perceived to be of homosexual orientation amongst those against whom one should not discriminate. It is important here to emphasise that we are talking about homosexual orientation; we are not talking about homosexual behaviour. Most of those who have spoken in the debate so far are getting muddled about the provisions of Part II. It contains nothing about homosexual behaviour. It is simply about those of homosexual orientation or those perceived to be of homosexual orientation. The Bill is exceedingly conservative in that area and it strictly specifies the categories of employment, accommodation, and the provision of goods and services. I plead with the member for North Shore and the member for Remuera, who seemed to have a very enlightened approach to the problems of homosexual people and discrimination against them, to read the submissions made by the legal faculty of Victoria University, which clearly point out what this part of the Bill does. It does not lay down attitudes. A person can still think what he likes about the matter, but the Bill refers to discrimination against a person's homosexual orientation in the provision of goods and services, employment, and accommodation. It is very important to pass that part of the Bill so that people have to re-examine whether they are discriminating against their fellow human beings. Homosexuality is not a disease or an illness but a valid form of behaviour. The submission of the Department of Health clearly stated that, and I shall briefly read from it: “Homosexuality is no longer generally considered within the medical and other health professions to be a disease. Increasingly, it has come to be viewed as a psychosexual variant, one of a number of possible sexual orientations. This was given expression when after 1973 the board of directors of the American Psychiatric Association removed the classification of homosexuality from its diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. This manual is increasingly accepted as the standard reference for the clinical classification of mental disorders, both in New Zealand and elsewhere.” Homosexuality is not in that manual. The development of homosexual orientation is not a matter of individual choice. In the committee we heard of no one cause of homosexuality, but it was very clear that at any given time or place there appear to be about 5 percent to 10 percent of homosexuals. The committee was made aware that research by many reputable sources showed that. Regardless of how homosexuals come to be that way, and regardless of the law, there always appears to be about the same number of them. In some geographic areas the percentage is higher. In the cities it is near the 10 percent mark, while in the small provincial towns, where social attitudes do not accept homosexual behaviour under the present law, the percentage would not be likely to be as high as that. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, the Mental Health Foundation, and the New Zealand Society on Sexology all gave strong submissions that provided evidence and research on those matters. It is interesting to consider the law in other countries. From the way some people have opposed the Bill one would think that New Zealand is leading in this matter, but it is following. Most Western countries with a similar kind of life-style have already decriminalised. Some of them have never had a law against homosexual acts. Britain decriminalised in 1967. Sweden has the same age of consent - 15 - for heterosexuals and homosexuals. In Norway the age is 16 for both. In France the age is the same for both, but I am not sure what it is. In Denmark the age is 15 for both. Austria has decriminalised at 19. The Federal Republic of Germany decriminalised at 18. Italy has never had a law against homosexual acts. The age of consent in the Netherlands is 16 for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. In Belgium the age is 18 for homosexuals and 16 for heterosexuals. In Spain the age is the same, and I think it is 12. Twenty-five American states have decriminalised. In Australia, New South Wales has decriminalised. In the Australian Capital Territory the age is 18 for both heterosexual and homosexual behaviour. In South Australia the age is 17 for both. It is interesting to note that South Australia, which decriminalised in 1972, has not had one case of AIDS. Some prominent countries that have not decriminalised are the Soviet Union, Romania, South Africa, Chile, and the Republic of Ireland. That speaks for itself. I believe that everyone has the need to give and to receive physical affection. Some people choose to deny that need and to become celibate, but that should be their personal choice and should not arise from legal necessity. Homosexual males are members of families - sons or husbands. One of the most common arguments used against the Bill is that it will cause the breakdown of the family. Some of the people who brought submissions to the committee were concerned about tension in a marriage when the husband turned out to be homosexual. They gave evidence of suicides in difficult marriage relationships or in family relationships when a son had been found to be homosexual. I point out that that happened under the present law. We must face the sad fact that as long as the law states that homosexual acts are criminal many men in society will feel socially pressured to enter into a heterosexual relationship. Many young men in families will feel that they cannot explain their feeling of difference. The Minister of Customs described that problem very well when she explained what had happened with a friend whose son had committed suicide because he felt he could not explain his life-style to his family. If homosexuality is decriminalised, part of that problem will be removed. The change will not happen overnight, but it is to be hoped that social attitudes will change and men will be able to develop stable homosexual relationships rather than having the tension, upset, and strain of trying to be heterosexual when it does not work out. Homosexuals are members of families. There are many different kinds of families. I see nothing very wrong in homosexuals setting up their own family life in a stable relationship. Surely that is better than a promiscuous relationship. On that matter, we must be very careful about arguing against the Bill by saying that it will encourage promiscuity. After all, some heterosexuals are promiscuous and we have not brought in a law to ban heterosexual sex. Promiscuity has nothing to do with the Bill. The Bill concerns the decriminalisation of homosexual acts between consenting adults. If those acts are decriminalised there will be more encouragement for people to develop stable relationships. The private morality of one section of the community should not be imposed on all. Under that heading, I should like to discuss the different Christian viewpoints. It is fair enough, as the member for Palmerston North pointed out, that various people should have different beliefs about homosexual behaviour, but they should not expect those to be imposed on everybody else-certainly not through the secular law. A democratic society should embody tolerance of the varieties of human behaviour. In my ideal society we would accept different cultures, different races, and different life-styles. It is most frightening to look back at Nazi Germany and to see how many millions of Jews were killed. At a conservative estimate, 250,000 homosexual people were also killed under that regime. When I hear the arguments being made against the Bill I see the same kind of regime being encouraged, in which people's views are imposed and there is intolerance of people with differing life-styles. The age of consent is another matter. It is difficult to sustain the argument for a higher age of consent when two individuals are morally responsible for their actions and consent to their actions. After all, 16 is the age of carnal knowledge for young women. That is the age at which young men and women are allowed to marry at present. If that is the present law I believe we should decriminalise homosexual acts also at 16. Many opponents of the Bill also fear the spread of AIDS. Unfortunately, the spread of AIDS has very little to do with the processes of the law. One needs only to look at two American states and the high numbers of people with AIDS-one is California and the other is Florida. In California homosexuality has been decriminalised but in Florida it is still illegal to take part in homosexual acts. The law has very little bearing in that case, because AIDS was in the area before there were any changes in the law. As I said earlier, in South Australia, where the law was changed in 1972 and education has been able to take place more openly, there have been no cases of AIDS. I congratulate the AIDS Foundation in New Zealand on the excellent work it has done among the gay community in educating it about the dangers of AIDS. Recent statistics show a great decrease in the number of sexually transmitted diseases. If the Bill is passed that education programme will be easier. In the end, all members must vote according to their consciences, but I plead with members of the House to give the Bill a second reading so that arguments on some matters about why some members are still uncertain can go further. I plead with the member for Kaimai, in particular, to vote for the second reading so that his constituent who does not want her husband to be called a criminal any longer will have a further chance for the Bill to be passed. How can what two consenting adult males do in the privacy of their own home have any detrimental effect on society? I am confident that it will not hurt any of the people I know, my family, my children, or any of those whom I love. I plead with the House to vote for the Bill in the interests of humanity and equality. Hon. PHIL GOFF (Minister of Housing): I have carefully considered the evidence and arguments put forward and it is my intention to support the Bill in its present form. That is not a decision I have arrived at suddenly. I have given thought to the issues involved in homosexual law reform over a period of time that pre-dates the legislation. The issue was raised occasionally in my electorate during two election campaigns. At that point I made it clear to my electorate that I would support a measure to reform what I regarded and still regard as outdated criminal legislation on homosexuality. This is not an issue on which the vote is taken along party lines. It is a so-called conscience issue on which each member of Parliament must exercise his or her own judgment. Opinion in my electorate, as in all others, is divided. Inevitably there will be people in my electorate who will not endorse my decision on this issue. Unlike other members, I have not taken a formal poll of electorate opinion. I believe - and share this belief with the member for Tamaki - that a decision should be based on the merits of the arguments and not simply on a count of heads. A member of Parliament is elected to exercise his or her judgment on issues. That does not imply that I have ignored or not listened to the views and opinions of all in my electorate. There are those who sincerely hold an opinion that is different from my own. I have answered all correspondence on the Bill and I have willingly discussed the issue with anyone in my electorate who has sought to raise it with me. My correspondence reflects divided opinion. Initially, the correspondence was heavily against the Bill, but some time ago it swung to being predominantly in favour of it. My electorate is one that has a reputation for its religious character. However, I must say that the majority opinion of church leaders and regular church attenders who have spoken to me about the issue is overwhelmingly in favour of reform. In reforming the law it is clear that by now Parliament will be following public opinion rather than leading it. Heylen polls have consistently shown that majority support is in favour of reform. The most recent poll suggested 62 percent in favour to 33 percent against. Regardless of the poll results, however, I repeat that judgment ought to be exercised on the evidence and the logic of reform rather than simply on numbers. Fundamentally, the question to be answered by the House is whether personal morality can or should be imposed by law and the threat of criminal sanctions. I do not believe that that is the proper role of the law. I do not believe that the State has any role in prying into the bedrooms of the nation to determine what is acceptable sexual behaviour between consenting adults in private. Each of those words - "consenting”, “adults”, and “private”-is important. The Bill does not legalise any behaviour that takes place without consent. Indeed, it imposes strong sanctions against any person forcing their sexual attentions on an unwilling party. It explicitly prohibits and provides penalties for the exploitation of minors and sexual activity with young people under the age of 16 years. Exactly the same protection is accorded to a minor against homosexual or heterosexual acts. I believe that that protection should be consistently applied. Young men and young women should receive equal protection. Similarly, the Bill does not allow explicit sexual behaviour in public. Homosexual and heterosexual acts will equally be governed by the same laws affecting acceptable public behaviour, as at present. Indeed, I strongly object to receiving through the mail from someone purporting to be a crusader for morality pornographic material on homosexuals, sent with the suggestion that that is what will inevitably follow the passing of the Bill. That suggestion is inaccurate. I suspect that it is dishonest. Nothing in the Bill makes legal or acceptable any form of pornography, whether homosexual or heterosexual. The Bill seeks to remove a criminal sanction that subjects homosexual behaviour to a penalty of up to 14 years' imprisonment. Such a sanction is totally inappropriate and I have heard no member-indeed, not even the member for Hauraki-attempt to justify the maintenance of such a sanction on the statute book, or its enforcement. The only countries in the world that attempt to enforce such an approach are countries such as Iran. In this country that approach is totally out of place. If we as a country were to determine that morality was properly to be imposed by the criminal law then we should at least be consistent, as they are in Iran. Lesbianism, adultery, fornication, and any other act deemed by some to be immoral should be proscribed. They are not, of course, and nobody seriously suggests that they ought to be. As well as removing the criminal sanctions against persons for homosexual behaviour the Bill also seeks to end discrimination against persons on the grounds of their sexual orientation. The orientation of most people in our society is, of course, heterosexual. For most, homosexuality is not normal. For a significant minority, however, a homosexual orientation is normal. To the best of my knowledge, those people have not threatened or harmed society or any other individual. They have, nevertheless, been persecuted and discriminated against, been liable to blackmail, and often been subjected to physical abuse. Regrettably, there is evidence that the emotional wave that has accompanied opposition to the Bill has again encouraged physical violence against homosexuals. Official sanctions against and intolerance of homosexuality have had profound consequences for those whose only offence is that they are homosexual. People have been forced to live in the shadows and to pretend to be other than what they are. The result has been unhappiness and misery for thousands of people and for their families. Our society and archaic laws have condemned people to psychological distress and, as we have heard in the House during the debate, sometimes even to suicide. Others have been forced to resort to what I guess has become a stereotyped homosexual life-style. I do not believe, however, that promiscuity or sexual flamboyance inevitably reflect the aspirations or behaviour of most homosexuals. That may, however, be the lifestyle to which our laws and our society have compelled many. Opponents of the Bill fear that acceptance by society that some people have a different sexual orientation will threaten or undermine society. It is further argued by those people that decriminalisation may cause mass conversion from heterosexuality to homosexuality. Neither point has any basis in logic or in evidence. Most Western democratic nations have long ago decriminalised homosexual behaviour between consenting adults in private. Those societies have not been transformed or damaged by the change; nor is it true to say that homosexuality inevitably becomes more ostentatious through law reform. I have heard warnings from some that if the Bill is passed New Zealand will become another San Francisco. No evidence exists to suggest that that city is any more a relevant model for New Zealand than are hundreds of other cities in which homosexual behaviour is not a criminal activity. However, what does stand out is that those countries in which homosexuals are not discriminated against are the same countries whose record of observance of a full range of human rights and tolerance is much higher than in those nations-often authoritarian - that retain criminal sanctions against homosexual behaviour. On the matter of the conversion of heterosexuals to homosexuals, I cannot find any evidence to suggest that homosexuality is a choice or even a life-style into which people can be seduced. Scientific evidence suggests that sexual orientation is inherent, rather than acquired. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists told the select committee that there was strong evidence that the direction of sexuality in almost all people is determined at a pre-school age. The suggestion that the seduction of adolescents was likely to be a major factor in determining subsequent sexuality was not supported by the evidence. I do not believe that any person should be persecuted or discriminated against simply on the basis of sexual orientation. As the law faculty of Victoria University told the select committee, clause 9 will not coerce people into accepting behaviour or activities of which they disapprove. The public right to disagree with or criticise homosexual behaviour is unaffected by the Bill. The Bill means that a person's right to employment, housing, or the provision of essential goods and services should not be affected simply because of sexual orientation. I cannot see that even those who are opposed to the Bill could oppose that provision. Many groups told the select committee that their opposition to the Bill related to a person's homosexual behaviour, rather than to homosexual orientation. The final issue to which I want to refer is AIDS. AIDS is undoubtedly a serious threat to health and life, which our community must minimise and contain. The primary way in which AIDS can be caught is by sexual contact, and contagion is, so far, predominantly confined to the homosexual community. Clearly, indulgence in particular sexual acts and promiscuous behaviour increases the danger of the spread of AIDS. However, the answer to that problem is not unenforceable criminal sanctions against certain sexual practices: far more useful has been the education campaign conducted by the New Zealand AIDS Foundation, which has warned people against behaving in a way that is unsafe. That campaign, and efforts by the Department of Health to detect and contain AIDS, are not enhanced by the present criminal law. There is far more reason to expect that the efforts of the Foundation and the Department of Health will be assisted if the fear of criminal prosecution is removed. The Department of Health told the select committee that it could not justify the present legislative provisions on homosexuality on health grounds. The Bill should be supported by the House. In a democratic and pluralistic society such as New Zealand it is not appropriate for the criminal law to intervene in the private lives of citizens to enforce any particular moral viewpoint. Rather, the role of the law should be to prohibit behaviour that causes identifiable harm to others. People should not be persecuted because of their sexual orientation, which all the evidence suggests is something that they have been born with rather than have acquired voluntarily. The passage of the Bill will be a mark of the maturity and tolerance that our society has achieved. HELEN CLARK (Mt Albert): I have supported the Bill from the time it was introduced into the House, and I have done so for reasons similar to those expressed by the Minister of Housing. Fundamentally, I believe that what people do in private by way of consenting sexual behaviour should not be within the reach of the criminal law. I strongly believe that what people agree to do in private is no business of mine, or of anybody else, or of the law. New Zealanders have traditionally enjoyed a great degree of personal freedom, and that is as it should be when the rights of other people are not infringed by the exercise of that freedom. I would not argue for absolute personal freedom to act without regard to the rights of others - no rational person would do so. However, the point about the practice of homosexuality is that when it occurs between consenting persons in private it infringes upon the rights of nobody else in society. For a long time the New Zealand statutes have treated consenting homosexual activity as if it were such a heinous offence that it warranted the special attention of the law, and as if it in some way infringed upon the rights of others who are not so engaged. While it is true that homosexuality is regarded as an affront to the morality of a section of the community, it can in no way logically be turned into an argument that an affront to the morality of some should deserve criminal sanctions under the secular law of the land. It is extremely important that when Parliament passes judgment on the Bill it should make a clear distinction between what some people in the community regard as a sin and what is a fit subject for the secular law of New Zealand, and all that the enforcement of that law entails. Those who believe that homosexuality is a sin are entitled to hold that view, and I personally defend their right to hold it. What deeply concerns me - and has increasingly concerned me throughout the public debate that has followed the introduction of the Bill-is that some people would seek to have the law enforce their moral viewpoint on into the twenty-first century, as it has done for the past 100 years. I believe that by doing that we would carry on a serious injustice and would continue seriously to impair the civil liberties of a minority in society. By world standards New Zealand has a remarkably free society. People here are free to practise any religious or ethical belief they choose, and are free to follow any political cause they choose. New Zealand has a free press - we often curse it, but we would not be without it. The world human rights guide rates us extremely highly on all the criteria it uses to judge whether or not a society can be considered free, open, and democratic. Along with countries such as Finland and Denmark New Zealand enjoys a 96 percent rating on that index of what constitutes a fair, open, and democratic society. If the Bill is passed that rating will increase to 100 percent. The Bill removes the injustices that those who are seriously concerned with human rights regard as the one serious blot on our image. As it stands now only New Zealand and Ireland in the Western World continue to regard male homosexuality as a criminal act. The British Act on which the law is based was changed almost 20 years ago after the acceptance of the Wolfenden report on homosexuality. It is time New Zealand took out of the statute book a law that was passed in the British Parliament 100 years ago and adopted into New Zealand law a year later. It was a law that was not intended to have the effect of totally outlawing male homosexual activity. It was put forward as an amendment by a member of the British House of Commons at the time to protect young boys from prostitution. The way in which the Bill was drafted-poorly and without thorough parliamentary scrutiny-led to the Commons actually outlawing all male homosexuality. It was a mistake then and I think 100 years is much too long to have lived with a mistake such as that on the statute book. Surely now, 100 years later, on the centenary of that event, we can take the step to remove that blot from our own statute book. We have heard much debate in the House and in the public arena about the age at which it is appropriate to decriminalise consenting homosexual behaviour. At present there is no age of sexual consent whatever for men concerning heterosexual activity. At present the law imposes an age of consent only on women, and that age is 16. It is an arbitrary age. Before the 1880s the age of consent in New Zealand was 12; it rose to 14, and later to 16 in the 1890s. There is nothing preordained about an age of consent. It is an arbitrary judgment, arbitrarily fixed, and it varies widely across countries. The age of consent has no bearing on the age at which young people become sexually active. The age at which they become sexually active is more likely to be related to levels of sexual maturity and to peer group and life-style pressures. If, however, there is to be an age of consent the one for which we have settled as being appropriate for young women for about 90 years is logically the one we should now accept as appropriate for young men. I can see no logic in the argument being advanced by some that boys are more deserving of protection in that respect than girls are; nor do I see any evidence to suggest that an age of consent of 16 for boys could lead to their being seduced and orientated to homosexuality against their will and before they have had a chance to make up their own minds. Those who argue that way are poorly informed about the nature of homosexuality. We know that sexual preference and orientation are fixed rather earlier in life than 16 years of age. No one quite knows why or how it is fixed. It is probably valid to describe homosexuality as a fundamental tendency in human behaviour that will show up among certain sections of populations across all cultures. Some people will be exclusively homosexual; others will be truly bisexual; many will have at least some, or occasional , homosexual experiences during their lifetime; but most will probably be exclusively heterosexual. Whatever we turn out to be, we probably have very little choice in the matter. Our sexual orientation will have been set early, and will be well established by the time we are 16 years of age, which I submit is a fit age at which to establish the age of consent in the Bill. I suggest that even occasional homosexual experiences - even seduction-cannot make a blind bit of difference to the fundamental sexual orientation of young men in our community. We are either predisposed to act in that way or we are not. Some have suggested in the debate - and we have heard the case again tonight - that the community is not ready for decriminalisation at the age of 16, but that it might accept a higher age. The ages of 18 years and 20 years have been put forward. I put it to those who have argued that way that we have a role as opinion leaders in the broader community and we have a responsibility to do what is sensible and logical and to persuade others of the reasons that 16 years should, in all logic, be seen as an appropriate and sensible age of consent. The report of the Department of Justice gives some weight to that argument when it states: “Logic and principle would seem to support a uniform age of consent for both heterosexual and homosexual relations. In the absence of clear evidence that boys need a further period of protection in respect of homosexual acts, there is a logical difficulty in justifying higher age of consent for homosexual acts” - I stress “a logical difficulty”. Others have suggested in the course of public debate on the Bill that decriminalisation of homosexual acts might lead to an increase in the numbers of homosexuals in the community. I believe that the evidence I have already alluded to shows that that view cannot be supported. People are either predisposed to homosexuality or they are not and the position of the law on the matter will not make one iota of difference. People cannot be recruited or seduced into permanent identification with homosexuality. What a change in the law may well do is increase the number of people in the community who are known to be homosexual. It often amuses me when I hear people say that they have never met a homosexual. Almost certainly they have, but those people have not felt able to express the fact that they are homosexual, given the present state of the law in this country, which buoys up unfortunate public attitudes towards homosexuality. Many homosexual men and women repress their homosexuality because they are afraid to express it. For men it is a criminal offence to do so. For women it is seen by a vocal section of the community as offending against social norms. Many homosexual men and women lead secret and unhappy lives because they feel unable to express the way they are. Some of them came to the select committee the day I sat on it in Auckland and told us what it was like to grow up as homosexuals in a society in which legitimate expression of their homosexuality is denied. We heard oral submissions such as the following from a male homosexual: “As a teenager my life was confused, sad, and frightening. At school there were no role models presented which had any relevance for me. My peers proved unmerciful at any suggestion that one's behaviour or sexual interest was anything other than that of a pattern determined by macho male role models of a type best exemplified by reference to film star heroes or famous rugby players. The total effect upon myself over an important formative period of my life was the development of an extremely negative self-image. Any list of adjectives I might have honestly used to describe myself would have included sinner, abnormal, dirty, wicked, and perverted. Such was the influence of my peers, societal mores, the church, and the education system." We heard similar evidence from a female homosexual who told the committee that through lack of information, confusion, and social naivety as a teenager when she was brought up in a small country town she thought she was the only homosexual in New Zealand and that marrying and having a baby would cure her love for women. She told the committee: “I do not want another generation with probably 10 percent of its adult population so utterly miserable.” Last week the member for Hauraki took exception to my statement in the House that the passing of the Bill would help to build a healthier social climate in New Zealand. I stand by that statement now, as I did then. I believe that society is far less than healthy when it represses fundamental aspects of the identity of some of its citizens. Society is not healthy when it sends overt messages to that minority that their behaviour is disgusting, abnormal, and so perverse that it should be regarded as criminal. Society is not healthy when it forces on people secretive and closet life-styles because of a fear of their expressing what they are. I believe that society will be healthier when people acknowledge their differences, acknowledge that the preference of a minority is not a fit subject for legal or other persecution, and accept homosexuals as normal members of any community-as they are entitled to be accepted. Finally, I come to the second section of the Bill, which would prevent discrimination against New Zealanders on the basis of their sexual orientation. Some members have told the House that while they accept the case for decriminalisation of homosexual acts they are still unsure about the second part of the Bill. I put it to them that the second part of the Bill, dealing with anti-discrimination measures, follows on naturally from an acceptance of the case for decriminalisation. If we accept homosexuality as a form of sexual practice that is normal for a minority and not deserving of criminal sanction, what then is the case for saying that others, presumably of a heterosexual orientation, should be free to discriminate against that minority? The rights of the minority in that case are thereby very seriously infringed. I suggest that we will have made little progress if, on the one hand, we decriminalise, at whatever age, and, on the other hand, fail to take steps to discourage discrimination on the ground of sexual preference. It would be utterly wrong for the House in any way to imply, by failing to pass the second part of the Bill, that it is legitimate for employers or landlords to discriminate against people who are homosexual. There will, of course, be good and bad employees and good and bad tenants among homosexuals, but there is simply no case to be made for blanket persecution and discrimination against homosexuals because they are homosexual or for refusing to employ them on that basis or refusing to rent flats to them. The experience with anti-discrimination legislation in New Zealand has been that over a period it has the effect of lessening prejudices against those likely to have been discriminated against before those laws came into effect. In the case of women, antidiscrimination legislation has helped to build a social climate in which it is accepted in the employment field, for example, that girls can do anything, and that they are fit to be employed across a wide range of occupations. Similarly, it has been found that legislation to prevent discrimination on the grounds of race and national or ethnic origin has helped to bring about a change in attitude and practice towards those minorities. I hope that, in the same way, if anti-discrimination provisions to protect gay people are enacted they will, in the longer term, lead to greater acceptance of them, their talents, and the useful role they can play as citizens of a healthy society. On that basis I appeal to those who are still thinking of supporting the first part of the Bill on decriminalisation and not supporting the second part to think again. I support the Bill in its present form, as I believe the evidence before us and simple common logic compels each of us to do. REX AUSTIN (Awarua): Every person who puts himself forward for parliamentary office - and certainly every member who is elected to the House-does so with personal gifts, personal goals, personal aspirations and ambitions, and personal morality. A member may stand for a party, stand on a party platform, espouse a party manifesto, and be elected on a party ticket, but as individuals all members bring with them their individualism. That is what distinguishes one from the other, and that is what sets each of them apart. It is entirely that parameter, that boundary of individualism, that will determine how each of us views the matter before the House and how each of us will cast his or her vote. The nature of the Bill forces us to square up as individuals, and that is how I want to present my short contribution-entirely as an individual. I cannot honestly assess, condemn, or, for that matter, praise other members, nor should I make judgment on them. To do so would be both presumptuous and wrong. I stand alone on the matter; I stand against the Bill. I intend to vote against every clause and do everything I can to prevent the advancement of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. I do not want to be identified as supporting it in any way, and I do not want any part of the persuasion embraced by the proposed legislation. It is wrong, and if the Bill is passed the country will rue the day it accepted and passed it into law. Certain distinct issues are contained in the Bill, and the most important one is the issue of human rights. It is to that issue that I want to address my next remarks. As I understand the Bill, and as it is interpreted by many, the issue is that human rights demand that every individual shall have the absolute right to follow his sexual persuasion. I cannot subscribe to an all-embracing licence. While I admit that the sexual drive is a powerful and sometimes consuming element of human nature, it is, nevertheless, human nature, and it cannot be disregarded. However, I submit that boundaries, rules, limits, judgments, disciplines, and responsibilities are equally important, if not more important. It is the duty of members to set those parameters for our own protection, for our children's protection, for our families' protection, and for society's protection-indeed, if taken to the ultimate, for the survival of the country and its people. A great writer, Bronowski, made what I thought was a profound comment in the foreword of a book he wrote called The Ascent of Man: “Man is a singular creature. He has a set of gifts which makes him unique among animals so that, unlike them, he is not some vague figure in the landscape. Man has the ability to shape that landscape." I shall not go with the tide. I have no intention of joining the ballot of convenience, and I do not want to drift. I want to accept my responsibility for shaping the political landscape of the country - and the encouragement of homosexuality forms no part of that landscape. I shall not step aside from my duty, or acquiesce by default; nor will I make the mistake of not accepting a moral judgment. I consider it to be a moral judgment. We have a duty to improve humanity whenever possible; to bring forward our personal gifts and ideas to make life more comfortable, acceptable, and proper for each person in the country. Those views are well understood in my electorate. The people there know my views, and, I hope, respect me for them if they do not, I do not deserve to be here. I cannot change my mind on the issue. I have no inclination to be persuaded against my moral and my personal conviction. As I perceive it, there is no other important issue - the issue of homosexuality itself, the attraction of one sex for members of the same sex. As an individual I am conditioned by my knowledge; my logic; the environment I have grown up in, both physical and personal; my religious persuasions and convictions; and my experiences. Few New Zealanders have had an opportunity to visit countries in which homosexuality is widely practised. What disturbed me more than anything else - and I was not a member of the select committee-was the evidence that suggested that the homosexual tendency is limited and is more or less consistent worldwide at 10 percent. The figure of 10 percent gives credence and authority to the belief that, come what may, not more than 10 percent of New Zealanders would ever find themselves involved in the practice of homosexuality. From personal observation and knowledge I find that figure and that evidence to be false. They are misleading, and should not be relied on. If we study the history of the human race we find that among certain Polynesian nations the incidence of homosexuality was reliably assessed at not more than 2 percent. However, even today, in many countries in the Middle East the number of those who practise homosexuality in some communities is higher than 50 percent. I submit that the incidence of homosexuality can be set at between 2 percent and 50 percent. Its incidence is determined by the mood of the society, the environment of the society, and the acceptance of the practices of people. I invite the House to contemplate the 50 percent incidence of homosexuality amongst certain tribes and races of people, some of whom conform to the religion of Mohammed. In those societies homosexuality is not condemned; it is encouraged, and enjoyed. It is approved, and there are good social and environmental reasons for it. For example, in a Muslim society a man with money can, with the approval of the church, legally take unto himself, four wives simultaneously. It follows that the climate for homosexual practices amongst deprived males is ripe for exploitation when that practice is approved. Most of us know that. We may not know the details, but we are generally familiar with the practice. If one reads about the early Greek and Roman empires one finds that the seduction of young boys was widely known and practised. It is still the practice in many Muslim societies today. That climate is further enhanced, because those young boys are given preferential social status; they reap rewards and have powers conferred on them. That may seem an extreme example, widely divorced from the New Zealand scene. The only point I want to make is that it is possible to create environments in which the incidence of homosexuality can increase greatly beyond 10 percent; in the right climate it can be as high as 50 percent, or higher. I do not want to be identified with any law that opens the door to that remote possibility. I do not want to leave the House someday knowing that I have been a party to increasing the practice of homosexuality. It is possible that it could come in abundance; I am sure of that. I want to preserve in this country those elements based on the Christian society that preserve the right of children and the right of the home, and enhance the family. I do not believe that the Bill will enhance any of those elements - it will undermine them. It will also undermine the Christian religion. I do not believe in humanism, or that we live in a world in which human practice alone should rule supreme. I believe that religion is so much a part of man that when he divorces himself from it he lowers himself and exposes himself to practices some would call evil, but which to me simply mean that man degrades himself. I shall vote against every clause in the Bill, but I shall support the amendment that offers me the opportunity to raise the age of consent as high as possible. I propose to do that because I think the Bill will be passed, and that more people will support it than will vote against it to defeat it. I will regret that very much when we come to the vote. I shall vote for the highest possible age of consent amongst males, because not to do so would be to impose upon young boys the age of 16 as the age of consent. That, to me, would be regrettable. There is a difference in the age at which males and females reach maturity. To me, it does not follow logically that what is good for the young female is automatically good for the young male. Males mature more slowly, and if it is possible for me to protect young boys that is exactly what I shall do. I want to make a final plea. I do not believe that it is valid to feel that because something happens one has to accept it. We must all make judgments; that is why people put us in Parliament. As individuals we cannot divorce ourselves from moral judgments. Most people expect us to be moral and to bring a moral judgment to the House. As an individual that is exactly what I intend to do. NOEL SCOTT (Tongariro): I respect the integrity of the member for Awarua, and the fact that we disagree fundamentally on the issue is surely testimony to the need for tolerance and rationality of debate. In recent times the matter of homosexuality as a social issue has been matched in the New Zealand public arena only by the Springbok tour, in terms of fervour and division, extreme reaction, bigotry, and the absence of calm, reasoned debate. There are some interesting parallels. Each of the issues involves a widespread, longstanding, and, for many New Zealanders, seemingly inalienable conviction-first, that rugby assumes the place of paramount right; and, second, that male homosexuals are pooves to be despised and outcast. There is among New Zealanders a remarkable coincidence of opinion that is pro-tour and anti - Homosexual Law Reform Bill. Public opinion on both issues has undergone dramatic changes and has generated powerful lobby groups. The reasons that might explain that change are worth considering. I think it is a basic reaction to the overreaction from both extremes; a result of increased public discussion and education; and, significantly, because world opinion has finally expressed its pressure in New Zealand. A totally different argument is presented by each of those lobbies, and I want to consider them carefully. On the one hand, it is claimed that there should be absolute freedom for sports people to follow their favourite interest wherever they wish and with whom they wish. On the other hand, there is a belief that male adults must be legally prevented from homosexual acts, even if they are between consenting adults in private. I have drawn the above parallel because it closely mirrors my own opinion development. For some years I shared a common belief that rugby was supreme and that pooves were bad news. My change of opinion in both cases followed a conscious questioning of reality when placed against the wider social and international ramifications of the issue. To me the answer was clearly and irrevocably negative. Therefore I support the Bill in its entirety. Struggle as individual members might - and those who have the gracelessness to sit in the Chamber during such a debate and mutter inanities might think a little on this - the vote on the Bill is a conscience one. If members ever have the cover of referenda those decisions will not take away the conscience vote. There is no electorate machinery that adequately enables a member to cast a vote reflecting the majority opinion. Within the Tongariro electorate, which I represent, hundreds of opinions were expressed to and at me, directly, in about equal proportions. There were distinct variations between the rural areas and the urban areas, and between towns in different parts of the electorate. I acknowledge openly and sincerely that hundreds of humane and sincere people expressed strong emotions and opinions on both sides and extremes of the issue. I respect their opinions and their right to express them. I shall not interrupt other members who speak, as the member for Waikaremoana is trying to do to me. If they wish to translate their reactions into an antagonisticJIM MCLAY: I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I ask the member on his feet to correct the assertion he made about me. I have not interjected once. NOEL SCOTT: I apologise to the member if that is so. I am sorry. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Generally, members have been tolerant of other members, even when they have disagreed with them. Generally speaking, that is the tenor members would want in the debate. If members cannot restrain a desire to interject I suggest they should leave the chamber. TREVOR MALLARD: I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I did not want to interrupt the member who was speaking, but I point out that the member for Whangarei interjected from a seat closer to the speaker than his own. It is important in a debate such as this that tolerance is shown, and that, at the very least, members do not shift closer to a speaker in order to interject. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am aware of movement in the Chamber, and I have been watching various members who are inclined to interject more than others do as they have moved around the Chamber. I shall say no more than that. It would be most unfortunate in a debate of this nature if a member were to be required to leave the Chamber. I ask members to afford each other the tolerance that has been generally characteristic of the debate. NOEL NOEL SCOTT: I sincerely apologise to the member for Waikaremoana if I named him incorrectly. I entirely accept the right of people in my electorate to translate their reaction into an antagonistic decision at the ballot box, and if they do so I will not complain. Regrettably, the major petitioners against the Bill have discredited their cause. The supposed total of 800,000 signatures is an acknowledged question. I found the public presentation of the petition to be a frightening enactment of things that are anathema to most New Zealanders. Many people who signed the petition have said so to me. The invective and openly threatening demeanour and statements accompanying the presentation were distinctly unchristian. JOHN BANKS: I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I refer you to new Standing Order 165: "Offensive or disorderly words - When any offensive or disorderly words are used, whether by a member who is addressing the Chair or by a member who is present, the Speaker or the Chairman shall intervene." I put it to you, sir, that pursuant to your last ruling about orderly conduct in a debate on a conscience issue, if that member persists in using words of that type strung into sentences against those good people who presented the 800,000 signatures to Parliament I will get disorderly - and that is a promise. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Whangarei will not threaten the Chair in that manner. That is disorderly. If he wants to threaten disorder he will take the consequences of showing the disrespect for the Chair that that implies. As far as he has gone the member for Tongariro has not encroached upon the rules of the House, the rules of debate, and the rules of good behaviour that are generally required of members in a debate of this type. NOEL SCOTT: It is not my intention to do that. Most of all, the exercise of the petition, in my opinion, largely illegitimised many of the humane concerns of tens of thousands of New Zealanders who genuinely wished to debate and present their point of view while constructively tackling an issue that requires, above all else, rationality and humane decision making. Those petitioners caused many New Zealanders to decide eventually that the threat that some of the petitioners presented was even greater than that represented by homosexual acts. Clearly and irrevocably, the homosexual tendency is as genetically inevitable as genius, intellectual handicap, or the tendency to aggressive, excessive heterosexuality. Scientific and social research affirm that fact overwhelmingly. The natural range of sexuality is as totally inbred as that of intelligence. There is more than reasonable proof that the proportional distribution of reasonably hard-core homosexuals and excessively heterosexual males roughly approximates the lower and upper divisions of intelligence quotient distribution-about 10 percent, which is a reasonably normal distribution curve. Historically, society has tended to blame the individual for a quality or a feature that many fear or dislike or find themselves without-it is the old “blame the victim" trick. Examples are ugliness, alcoholism, mental illness, and - for too long in New Zealand-homosexuality. Sections of society have continued to want to persecute those who are different from themselves. Homosexuals have been subjected to such persecution more than any of the other groups I have mentioned. The very existence of the present punitive law that the Bill seeks to change proves that point. Sexuality is a basic driving human force; emotion, and much more; passion that is the heat of this issue. Public expectations and assumptions of what is normal in terms of sexual behaviour are steeped in mythology, custom, religious conviction, and straight mumbo jumbo. The Bill deals with that expression of sexuality that is most commonly regarded as abnormal-male homosexuality. As the present law operates, acts of male homosexuality are a criminal offence, even between consenting adults in private. The history of attempts to protect society and such men, supposedly from each other, has been a sorry one in terms of the law, in terms of social impact, and in terms of the social traumas involved. In terms of the law, it is honoured only in being ignored. What possible justification is there for such a law? In terms of social impact, there is widespread hatred and division, and this debate has exhibited just how trenchant and harmful those emotions can be. In terms of personal trauma, I suggest that every member's mail and every member's personal experience will have been touched many times by tragic individual examples. The sexual issue involved is central to, but not the only component of, the debate and the Bill. Unfortunately for many, the issue does not in any way seem to transcend the banal, the raw, the physical, the earthy, the seamy, or the aggressive. People paint pictures and seem to delight in them. That is sad, because were those people able to view the wider involvement of social dignity and equity, and, most of all, basic tolerance and even understanding and acceptance, the issue might then be publicly viewed with that combination of compassion and dispassion that is essential to calm and rational law making. Love is a much more complex passion and emotion than its mere physical expression. The sexual expression of a relationship is far more than the orgiastic component that gets so much attention now. If the law is to invade the bedrooms of the nation to put the whole matter of sexual behaviour and acts under scrutiny, let it logically extend its purview to include heterosexual and female homosexual relationships. Who is normal? What is normal? Is anal intercourse by heterosexuals acceptable? Research would indicate that it is apparently widely practised. What is depravity to one, deviance to another, bestiality to another, is another's delight. What is normal? Is sex for procreation only, as some would have us believe? I suggest that the judges of that might have a little difficulty working out who is holding to the law. Adults must decide for themselves what is normal for each of them. If there is infringement of personal standards beyond what is acceptable in terms of force or lack of consideration let the individuals involved find their own solutions-unless, of course, they need help and protection to do so, in which case the community must provide the support machinery. By and large, that is available now. Decriminalising an act, whether that act be adultery or blasphemy or acts of male homosexuality between consenting adults - that is, stating in law that it is no longer illegal - does not necessarily make that act attractive of itself or acceptable to others, let alone compulsory. To hear some of the points made in debate, one would expect that when such a law was passed everybody would be indulging in homosexuality. The law must, as it does now, continue to educate, to define limits, to apprehend, and to adjudicate in order to protect our young. The protection of our young is of central significance to every New Zealander. I accept that, and I am certain that that is true of all people, no matter what their sexual orientation. I contend that, far from impeding that vital aspect, the decriminalisation of male as well as female homosexual acts between consenting persons over the age of 16 years will allow a more balanced scrutiny of the range of indignities both homosexuals and heterosexuals inflict upon our young. The dangers are much more from heterosexuals-relatives, friends, and close acquaintances. In all seriousness I suggest that the attention of people, such as the many who signed the petition, should be directed at the social conditions and attitudes under which far too many of the aforementioned activities flourish. Efforts to isolate and deal with such activities must remain a high priority for the police, the social agencies, and particularly the families involved. I acknowledge that the 16-year age division is controversial. I contend as well that any other age limit would be controversial. No legal age limit will of itself prevent such acts absolutely. The passing of a law and the imposition of an age restriction cannot prevent it and make sure that it does not occur. I am amazed that the matter of female homosexuality has been conveniently ignored and its effects minimised. It is an issue central to the Bill both in terms of decriminalisation and, more important, the danger posed by acts and threats involving those under 16 years of age, and thus specified as being protected in the Bill. After very careful consideration, I support the 16-year age provision for several reasons. The arguments about equality of the sexes count heavily with me. The experience of the 16-year age of consent for women has worked reasonably well. That is, there is at least enough public acceptance of it not to have excited cries for change. Were there a need, there would have been large-scale and rapid cries for change. It would remove the unjustified legal expectation that one does not need to look after oneself until some later stage in life - that the law will protect people until they are 18, perhaps until they are 20, or, as now, for ever. Are we protected for ever now? The human rights aspect is the most straightforward. Basically, I believe it is inhuman and unacceptable that laws discriminate against any New Zealand citizen on the grounds of age, sex, colour, or sexual orientation. The basis of justice in all cases for all people must be whether they threaten, interfere with others, or break the laws that bind us all, and not just some. Great fear has been expressed about homosexual teachers. Let it be clearly understood that there are already a considerable number of those. The fear and tension under which they operate at present could only be relieved to the benefit of their charges were the law to be changed. In my experience - which I would say is not inconsiderable in this field-young people have been much more at risk from aggressively heterosexual teachers of both sexes, both physically and educationally, than they have been from those who are markedly homosexual. I say that in total sincerity. In conclusion, I contend that all actions of teachers or others that are dangerous or unprofessional should be dealt with decisively and immediately, whatever the sex, religion, or sexual orientation of those involved. There are no justifiable grounds for human rights discrimination against homosexuals. For that combination of reasons I give the Bill my full support. WINSTON PETERS (Tauranga): The member for Tongariro began by comparing the Bill and the Springbok tour. He said that those who supported the Springbok tour were strangely opposed to the Bill. I ask him whether he thinks the converse is true. If he does not, why did he raise that issue tonight on an entirely separate Bill? The overwhelming proportion of his electorate of Tongariro is opposed to the Bill, but he is entitled to cast his vote on the basis of his conscience. That is a fundamental principle of democracy, and I respect him for it. I am not opposing him on the grounds that he is out of step with his electorate. He is in step with his conscience. For that reason, those of us who have a different view should respect him. I shall begin by quoting the words of Geoffrey Weeks in a magazine called Coming Out: “The law does not create public opinion, but it does shape and reinforce it.” The member for Wellington Central said in the second reading debate - and I am paraphrasing what she said - that all the Western World had done it or was doing it, and so should we. If that is the case, why do we not follow other Governments' economic policies or defence policies, or is there something peculiar that means that we must do what the Government does on such issues but not what it does on issues of paramount importance to a greater proportion of humanity - to follow the Benthamite policy that used to motivate the New Zealand Labour Party and its socialist supporters? The member for Wellington Central then said that basic sexuality was like being left-handed or right-handed, and made the accusation that those who did not support the Bill were prejudiced, biased, or homophobic. I thank her for not repeating a claim she has made before - that Sodom and Gomorrah were merely practising a hospitality code. She made that claim against all the analysis of history, but dropped it in the second reading debate, and I thank her for that. She did not seek this time to identify famous men who are now dead and claim that there were what they were not. For that, the House should be grateful. TREVOR MALLARD: How do you know? WINSTON PETERS: I do not know, but I do not believe in damning people who are not here to defend themselves. The member for Hamilton West would not know about that. The member for Wellington Central then asked M. P. s to look beyond their own vague anxieties. We are expected to respect each other's points of view in the Chamber, yet the promoter of the Bill asks those who do not support her view to look beyond their own vague anxieties, as though they were not concerned about those people in their electorates who support the Bill. The member for Wellington Central said that members should follow the professionals and the experts. But what about the ordinary New Zealanders, the ordinary men and women? Are they not entitled to a voice in our democracy and in Parliament? They are not professional, and they are not expert; they are just ordinary New Zealanders, the salt of the country, the people who made the country and will always be the driving force behind our economic survival. The member said that research had shown - and I do not believe this, because I sat in the select committee for as long as she did, for more days than she did TREVOR MALLARD: Rubbish! That's untrue. WINSTON PETERS: -and for more days than did the member who is interjecting. TREVOR MALLARD: That's a lie. ROBIN GRAY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! WINSTON PETERS: I do not want a point of order; I can handle him. (Interruption.) DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I do not require any advice from any member-Interruption.)-including the member for Invercargill . The member for Hamilton West will rise, withdraw, and apologise. TREVOR MALLARD: I apologise, and withdraw. WINSTON PETERS: The member for Wellington Central said that 25 percent of all men have had significant homosexual experience. As a redeeming feature, she said that not all are basically homosexually orientated. The member for Hamilton West said that 60 percent of men had had homosexual experiences. NORMAN JONES: Fifty percent. WINSTON PETERS: I believe that I have knocked around as much as any member of the House who is my age, and I do not believe that research. What is more, scientific analysis cannot substantiate such a claim. Both the member for Hamilton West and the member for Wellington Central know that. If the argument is meritorious, why falsify it? The member for Wellington Central went on to quote further from evidence given before the select committee. For that reason I shall analyse the committee's history. First of all there was a petition. The most outrageous claim I heard was that the men at Marsden Point-the men who have a strike record of independence against their own unions and against the Federation of Labour that is unparalleled - were being strong-armed into signing the petition. The member for Wellington Central made that claim in May 1985. If the arguments for the Bill are so meritorious why falsify the facts? According to the member, the men at Marsden Point were frog-marched into the place where the petition was held and told to sign it. When the Bill was before the committee in May 1985 there was a by-election. The committee's hearings were adjourned because the matter became politically embarrassing. If the arguments for the Bill are so meritorious why was a select committee of the House fiddled with and manipulated? Those who support the Bill - not those of us who have a different view-should answer that. If the arguments for the Bill are so cogent, powerful, and convincing, and if the majority of New Zealanders are for it, why was the committee examining the Bill manipulated? The position does not improve. There is logic to my argument-1 do not care what side of the issue people are on. If people support the Homosexual Law Reform Bill and believe it is meritorious the logic lies with the facts, not with somebody's human political behaviour. On 18 September the member for Hamilton West wrote to all Government members of Parliament. He was then the chairman of the select committee. He wrote 1/2 pages opposing the petition's coming before the committee. Did anybody ever act in such a partial, biased, and prejudicial way? I say again that if the arguments in support of the measure are so cogent, powerful, and meritorious, why did people act in such a fashion? Why did they pervert the parliamentary process? If the Bill stood on its own merits why did they pervert the select committee process? Let those members get up tonight and answer the allegations. I should not have to, because I am motivated for reasons that may, on the face of it, not be apparent, but before I finish tonight I shall explain that for me it becomes a matter of my background and the need to survive. RICHARD NORTHEY: Ha, ha! WINSTON PETERS: The member for Eden may laugh. I assure him that if medical science does not find a remedy for what we face he will not laugh in 2 years' time. If he has no conscience he might have a sense of responsibility. I was on the select committee when the matter came up for consideration-or, rather, should have come up for consideration. Government members sought to pervert the parliamentary process. There was no consideration of the matter before the committee, as there should have been. Expert witnesses on the final evidence were not called, and the committee, which had been convened to consider a matter that had generated more interest than any other, was shut down. NORMAN JONES: On a party vote. GEOFF BRAYBROOKE: I didn't vote for it. WINSTON PETERS: I did not say it was a party vote, but I say to the member for Napier that some people have rudely dealt with the support and the background of his party. That is a fact. The Deputy Prime Minister said that he would give select committees more power, and that they would be able to initiate their own inquiries. He said that minority reports would be permitted, and that we needed a real opportunity for the public to participate in the making of public decisions. JOHN BANKS: Who said that? WINSTON PETERS: It was said by the paragon of constitutional virtue, the Deputy Prime Minister. He used to give lectures about it. He has to sit here tonight knowing that what I am saying is true. He knows that it has happened in the way he said it would not happen, and he has not uttered a word of protest. The public needs a real opportunity to participate in the making of public decisions. The petition was signed by 800,000 New Zealanders. I do not care if 100,000 signatures are wrong, false, or fraudulent. That petition warranted due consideration and it received a vote of no recommendation. Trevor Mallard: 1 raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is my understanding that the select committee decision on the petition has not been reported to the House. I therefore ask whether that comment was in order. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I think the point is well made. The member is debating the principles of the legislation, and I think he tied his comments in reference to the petition to what he perceived as a principle in regard to the handling of the legislation. I ask him to confine his remarks to reflections upon the principles of the Bill. WINSTON PETERS: The principle I am talking about tonight is survival. That is a principle that has not been considered by many members in the House, and I do not believe it ever will be. If I am wrong I would be happy; but if I am right it will not be on my conscience. It will not be on the consciences of people who feel like me, but it will be on the consciences of those who would not face the facts before them, and they will live to regret that. I hope I am wrong. A woman called Kirsty Burnett, of the Lincoln College Students Association, wrote to me in total support of the Bill. I wrote to her on 28 May and asked what kind of survey she had done at Lincoln College. I am still waiting for a reply. A person from Victoria University wrote to me in support of the Bill, and I found that that person had surveyed 5 percent of the studentship. I am still waiting for a reply about how that person could demean the democratic voice of that institution and make totally false claims. I am still waiting for a reply about what the public of New Zealand feels. The Heylen organisation claims to have conducted a poll on how New Zealanders feel. The people who conducted that poll know full well-as does anybody who has ever studied political science - that that analysis was totally unscientific. They did not put before the people the full issues contained in the Bill. Did somebody seek to pervert the public voice in favour of the Bill? I am drawn inexorably to that conclusion. The Heylen poll made no mention of the human rights provisions, or of Part II of the Bill, yet the people who conducted that poll try to tell me that the public feels a certain way. A survey conducted in my electorate of Tauranga showed that 15,721 people had signed the petition. I do not mind that, because this issue is a conscience issue, and, in the end, people must live with their consciences. However, 15,721 people signed that petition, and a member opposed to me said that I live in a freak, cranky electorate. I want to talk about the issues that concern me. The leading witness told the select committee in submission 416 that he saw nothing wrong with homosexual marriage, or adoption, and that he would not go along with any law that prevented homosexuals from giving blood; I was appalled at that. He said he would be disturbed if educationists promoted heterosexuality. An article in the Auckland Star of 30 September stated: “Gay secondary school teachers will form a group to identify their rights and protections in the profession. The Post-Primary Teachers Association Sex Equality Advisory Committee will co-opt a group of lesbian and homosexual teachers to present the policy paper at next year's conference.” That is the hidden agenda. However, the Australian agenda was made public by Tim Maltby of the Australian Paedophile Support Group. He said: “The Australian community seems unwilling or unable to make a distinction between paedophilia and child rape. Can we develop a radical course of action to throw off the accusation that gay people are child molesters, fight the problems of rape, and accept paedophilia as a viable sexuality?” DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I must draw it to the attention of people in the gallery that they are not part of the debate. Therefore it is not in order for them to register any form of reaction. What they are doing is not in order, and they will not be allowed to stay if that continues. Neither is it appropriate for any member to address the gallery. WINSTON PETERS: I was not addressing the gallery. Mr Maltby did not end there. He said: “Childhood is the last bastion of patriarchal capitalism, and we must take up the struggle.” In conclusion, I believe that we are sitting on a medical holocaust that requires an answer to the problem long before we consider the concerns expressed in the Bill. Dr Goldwater, who spoke during an AIDS conference in Atlanta, said that we face a holocaust to match a nuclear holocaust. The only greater holocaust would be a nuclear holocaust. In Australia 1000 people already have AIDS. The member for Wellington Central said that we must go to San Francisco and see. People have been there and have noted that sexual diseases in San Francisco have increased by 2400 percent since the liberalisation of homosexuality. She cannot deny that - those are the facts. As at 22 April 1985, 3415 people had died from AIDS in New York City, and 1141 had died in San Francisco. Those cities have no laws against homosexual practices. On 16 August AIDS was said to be the top killer in New York. At the end of the day it is the duty of every member of Parliament to prevent a preventable evil, and for every New Zealander AIDS is still a preventable evil. If overseas evidence is any indicator and the Bill is passed, within 2 years AIDS will be the No. 1 medical problem in New Zealand. Some will say that sexual hedonism is more important; others will say that the greater public good lies in giving in to sympathy and to fine feelings. It does not. RICHARD NORTHEY (Eden): I was amazed to hear the previous speaker commenting on my response to his speech. I had been sitting with my pen poised to write down anything he might say to do with the Bill so that I could reply to it, but the pad is still empty. It is a matter of basic human rights - our ability as mature adults to allow other mature adults to express sexual activity that is basic to their own nature. It is a question of the right to develop and express one's own intrinsic nature. It is the ability to be able to give and to receive affection from others. It is a question of ensuring equal access for all people to basic needs such as employment and accommodation. I found it quite amazing to hear the previous speaker suggest that the passing of the Bill will bring on a holocaust and the collapse of human civilisation. Most countries have treated heterosexual and homosexual acts equally in law and in the role of the State for a very long time. In Spain, which has allowed both heterosexual and homosexual acts from the age of 12 for the past 150 years, the incidence of AIDS in the population is only one tenth the incidence in New Zealand, because people are able to seek and gain basic information, education, and responsiveness regardless of their sexual orientation. There have been suggestions about paedophilia being promoted. They are nonsense; that is not in the Bill. There have been suggestions that 50 percent of the people in the Middle East are homosexual, and the only reason given was that they are allowed four wives each. There is nothing in the Bill to allow people to have four wives, and Muslim teachings are based very much on the Old Testament. They proscribe homosexual acts just as strongly. In Iran the penalty for homosexual acts is death. PHILIP BURDON: What's that got to do with it? RICHARD NORTHEY: It has a great deal to do with some of the comments that have been made about the Bill. The fact is that about 10 percent of any population, regardless of its social structure, naturally expresses homosexual orientation. The submission of the Department of Health gave clear evidence that “Homosexuality is no longer considered within the medical and other health professions to be a disease. Increasingly it has come to be viewed as a normal psychosexual variant, one of a number of possible sexual orientations. An essential and integral component of mental health is the individual's sense of identity and self-esteem and his or her perceived value in society. This position underlies the frequent observations made in clinical practice that the major causes of mental distress found among some persons of homosexual orientation derive not from that orientation itself, but from the attitudes of the wider society and the laws which give them expression." The United States National Institute of Mental Health noted that the problems facing many homosexuals are caused by the need for concealment and the emotional stresses arising from the opprobrium of being in violation of the law. As with heterosexual orientation, there is strong evidence that homosexual orientation is formed in the very early years of life and that it is not a matter of choice for the individual. It is something like left-handedness, developed early in life and perfectly normal. It is ludicrous to suggest that something that is common to all societies is not normal. To go on and deny legal acceptance and legal rights to those who differ from us in only that respect when they cause no harm to others is ludicrous, grossly unfair, and shows a lack of respect. There has been much argument about the question of life-style, and the description of homosexuality as an alternative life-style in some ways derives from the obsession with sexuality that many in our society have. In most cases it is only the sexual component of their lives that is different, and even in that the methods in which it is expressed are in most cases the same as those for most heterosexuals. The suggestion that sexual orientation can be changed or determined by seduction or rape is as ludicrous for homosexuals as it is for heterosexuals. There is clear evidence that such events do not change basic sexual orientation and may leave permanent scars in terms of expressing sexual activity. It has been clearly shown that the attraction to sexual activity with children is an illegal and harmful variant as common among homosexuals as it is among heterosexuals, and to the same relevant degree. The question that really arises is the human right to be able to express affection, and on an emotional life for all people, rather than a continuing persecution for a characteristic over which people have no control. It is a question of mutual respect and acceptance of people as people, and the right to full participation in life. That is a stand that members should take on the evidence and on what is right or wrong. When I stood for Parliament I said quite clearly that I would support reform of the law that would ensure that homosexuals and heterosexuals were treated the same in law. I received 953 letters from my constituents in favour of the change and only 176 against change. Of those 953 in favour, 930 were in favour of the whole Bill, including the provisions of the human rights clauses and an age of consent the same as that for heterosexuals. The petition against the Bill was signed by many people on the basis of their sincere belief, but it is a fatally flawed document in many respects. The suggestion was made by previous speakers that the workers at Marsden Point would not succumb to such pressure. That is misleading. The macho attitudes prevalent in society mean that that is exactly the kind of pressure that the workers at Marsden Point could not stand up to. I have received letters that refer to similar pressure being applied. A woman who was terminally ill in a hospital in my electorate was pressured by her nurse to sign the petition. That was an invasion of her privacy and rights, particularly as she was totally dependent on another. She argued the point, did not sign the petition, and died within 24 hours. I urge members who may be considering voting against the second reading, because they are not yet convinced of the rightness of some parts of the Bill, to allow it to go forward. There is clearly a need to change a law that sentences to lengthy terms of imprisonment people who are carrying out activities basic to their nature. What may be regarded as a sin against God cannot be regarded as something for which such severe penalties should be provided in the law of the nation. There is a desperate need for change, and I urge members to vote for the second reading, and to consider the appropriateness of the amendments and the appropriate way to vote at a later stage. One of the key questions is the implication for the physical health of people. The Department of Health submission stated: “Physical health problems can result from promiscuous sexual behaviour in 'both homosexual and heterosexual persons by contributing to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, such as syphilis. It should be emphasised that it is the promiscuity rather than the sexual orientation which is the crucial factor determining the transmission of such diseases.” The best way of reducing such practices is through effective education in a non-coercive environment. The December 1984 edition of the expert publication Sexually Transmitted Diseases found in New York that there is a lower proportion of sexually transmitted diseases amongst homosexual men compared with the general populace. That arises because they are intrinsically no more promiscuous and careless in their sexual activities than other people; and, of course, the publicity about AIDS effectively reached that population in areas where that activity was legal, and the incidence of disease rapidly decreased amongst that population. The extent to which promiscuous and dangerous sexual activities occur is related to the nature of the law and to myths that surround the issue. The views expressed in the House tonight about different levels of activity in other countries are related to those myths rather than to reality. World experts on AIDS have made the following comments. Dr Pearl Ma, the chief of clinical microbiology in New York, said: “New Zealand's laws and conservative attitudes against male homosexuality are a major problem in trying to combat AIDS.” Dr David Miller, a clinical psychologist and a leading researcher into AIDS prevention, said in Auckland in January of this year: “The single most helpful action the Government could take is to legalise homosexuality.” The AIDS Foundation and the New Zealand gay community have done a tremendous job in effectively educating the openly gay community about prevention and safe sexual practices. The problem is in the education of, and the dissemination of information to, practising homosexuals who keep their activity and orientation secret, and who also take part in heterosexual activities, often within a marriage. Unless the law and social attitudes are changed they will spread AIDS into the heterosexual community. Promiscuous and dangerous sexual activities, whether homosexual or heterosexual, must be prevented if the spread of AIDS in this country is to be prevented. The view has been expressed that homosexuality is an inferior sexual activity because the length of relationships is less and more promiscuous activity is engaged in. That is very much caused by the legal position. If that position were changed, those who are concerned to preserve families, whether the traditional family or a family that consists of a stable homosexual relationship, would be able to secure those relationships and make them more lasting and greater in depth. Many distressing examples of the effects of homosexuality in marriage were given in evidence to the committee in Auckland. There was one case of a woman who found out that her husband was a homosexual when she was rung from the police station and told of the activity for which her husband had been arrested. There was another example of a woman who sends her child to a special school outside her neighbourhood in an effort to prevent other pupils from describing the child's father as a criminal and a pervert. There is clearly a need to support a change in the law; having token laws is bad for respect for the law in general. For several reasons the age of consent should be the same for homosexual and heterosexual activities, and for boys and girls. It has been clearly implied that boys are more special than girls and need protection for a longer time. I reject the sexism inherent in that assumption. I am concerned that if the age of consent were raised to 20 years the dilemma of the young person uncertain of his or her sexual identity would intensify, and ability to seek counselling and advice would be greatly reduced. Given the harm that would be done to that group at a time when people are at their most vulnerable, I am not sure how I would vote if the age were raised so that that group was not given protection. The human rights aspect is also vital, and there are some misinterpretations about it. The law clearly states that people can say whether they are in favour of homosexuality or even if they regard it as a mortal sin. Discrimination in employment would still be possible on the basis of sexual activity; the law deals only with the question of sexual orientation. That is something that is not determined by the person; it is as intrinsic to the individual as one's sex or the colour of one's skin. If public attitudes are to be changed and real protection given to those people to enable them to play an equal role in society, it is essential that the law be changed. I urge Parliament to pass the second reading so that the degree of reform needed can be carried out. ROB STOREY (Waikato): I voted against the Bill when it was introduced to the House. Many people have written to me and asked why I did so. My answer has been that I voted against it because of the method and timing of its introduction. I voted against it because I believed it was introduced by the member for Wellington Central, the Junior Government Whip, with the full connivance and support of the Government, as a useful diversion from serious matters affecting our economy and our deteriorating position within the world family of free developed nations. I voted against the Bill because I objected to the way in which a measure that was studied at great length in Britain - where it was sifted, examined, considered, went to a royal commission, and then came back to the parliamentarians, who are really laymen elected to make laws, with a body of expert opinion on which they could rule - was brought before the New Zealand Parliament with very little expert opinion. I believed, as I still do, that that would have been the proper and correct action to take with the proposal. If that action had been taken, much of the damage that has been done between the homosexual and the heterosexual communities, and the rift that has developed which will not go away, no matter how we vote on the Bill - could have been avoided, and still could be avoided. If the matter were referred to a royal commission, an opportunity would be given to the many people who have been unable to have their submissions heard. More important, it would also enable people who are experts in particular fields of knowledge about which the House requires information to use their expertise to examine the submissions, to comment on them, to criticise them, and debate the subjects introduced, thereby arriving at a considered body of opinion on which the parliamentarians could work. That has not happened. Having gone through a lengthy select committee procedure we are in the process of debating a topic about which very few of us know a great deal. We have listened to facts that certain people describe as myths, if it suits them to, and other judgments have been made on the basis of individual experience and limited knowledge. If that is the way we as politicians and lawmakers are prepared to go about changing a most important law, it is little wonder that from time to time the people of New Zealand have a very low opinion of our reasoning and thinking capacity. No matter what decision is made, the debate will continue. If most New Zealanders do not accept the final decision after the debate, the estrangement that exists between the homosexual and heterosexual communities, which did not exist before the Bill was introduced, will be continued, heightened, and widened. The ostracism that is said to be felt by homosexuals will increase; it will not go away. I shall comment on the way in which I went about polling opinion in my electorate. Initially, a local newspaper conducted a postal survey, to which about 130 people responded. Of those, 90 wanted the law to remain the same, and 29 wanted the legislation introduced and the legalising of 16 years as the age of consent. That survey was conducted in March. The gay rights movement commissioned the Heylen poll in Huntly, and found, according to its poll of an undisclosed number of people, that 55 percent of the people in Huntly favoured a change in the law. I later undertook a poll of 400 people in my electorate. In that poll, 56 percent of the respondents were against a law change, and 44 percent were in favour. I then took an opinion poll of the churches in my electorate and found that seven of them were against change and four in favour of change. I finally came 10 perhaps the most important sector, the medical fraternity, and polled the doctors who practise in the electorate. Four were against change and five were in favour of it. The question was whether or not they felt that a change in legislation would help or hinder the containment of AIDS. I did not consider the petition presented on the steps of Parliament to be an extreme or reactionary document. I did not consider the way in which it was presented to be extreme or reactionary, any more than I found the way in which the gay rights movement went about its protest in most cases to be unacceptable. At times there were extremes on both sides. I deplore that kind of behaviour, which can only further divide the community. I noted with interest that 4580 people in my electorate signed the petition against the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. I have no evidence to show that any of them had been pressured to sign or that anyone who signed it did not understand what he or she was doing. I accepted that petition, as I accepted the petition of 56 staff members at the University of Waikato who asked me to support the correction of an existing law that effectively denied equal rights to homosexual citizens in New Zealand. I have had two conflicting petitions, and I acknowledge them both. I accept the viewpoint of the people who signed those petitions. I am opposed to both sections of the Bill as they are before the House at present. I understand some of the psychological problems of homosexuals who feel alienated from society. I have sympathy with their needs. I shall talk for a moment, not about the psychological condition of homosexuals but about AIDS, and mention a petition that was presented to the committee but was not heard. It was an expert submission from a surgeon who is involved in his day to day work with surgery in the rectum and anal areas. He has a particular knowledge of - and, I suppose, a particular concern for - the effect on medical people of the passing of the Bill. The surgeon was Geoffrey Wynne-Jones, who comes from the Hamilton East electorate, which may be of interest to the members for that electorate. He is a past president of the New Zealand Association of Part-time Hospital Medical Staff. That person very much regretted that he did not have the opportunity to go to the select committee to make known his expert point of view. I shall present to the House some of the information that he presented in written form and would have elaborated on had he been invited to attend that committee. Mr Wynne-Jones makes one or two points. The first is about one of the common dangers to nurses and doctors - the danger of needlestick. I have here a needle that is commonly used to extract blood from patients. It is one of the old type of needles. The person using the needle takes off the guard, places the needle in the patient, and withdraws the blood. By that stage the needle is probably infected. The person using it puts it back - with a bit of luck, into the guard - and does not damage his or her fingers. A good deal of luck is required, because the rate of needlestick injury to hospital staff as reported overseas is about 15 accidents for each 100 hospital beds. About 80 percent of those people are nursing staff; about 10 percent are theatre staff. Most needlestick accidents in the theatre involve potentially contaminated needles, knives, and instruments. One positive thing to emerge at last as a result of the grave concern of the medical profession about the disease of AIDS is a guard that can prevent needlestick. When the needle is put back into the guard the guard can go over the top, and, instead of the needle sticking into the hand of the doctor or nurse, it goes through into the guard, or it can be placed through the hole and the cover put back over the needle. I am told that doctors have been asking for many years for something like that to combat the effects of infection from hepatitis B. It was concern about the disease of AIDS, and the effect it can have on doctors and nurses and surgical staff, that led to the development of that device in New Zealand, so I suppose we can say that one good thing has come out of this real concern. Perhaps not too many other good things have come out of it. The concern expressed by Mr Wynne-Jones is that all sexually transmitted diseases-STD-are transmitted by anal intercourse, as is hepatitis B and AIDS as well. He noted that syphilis has almost been eliminated from the general population in the United Kingdom. Only one case of congenital syphilis was reported in the past year. There are still 3000 cases of adult syphilis in the United Kingdom, and nearly all of them are male homosexuals - and that in a country without restrictive legislation against homosexuals. A high proportion of male homosexuals become hepatitis A antigen positive within 2 years of becoming active as homosexuals. AIDS, both epidemic and endemic, parallels the behaviour of hepatitis B more closely than anything else. Neither disease is sexually transmitted, and neither should be labelled as sexually transmitted. AIDS may become endemic, in the fashion of hepatitis B, which has become a real worry in New Zealand. There have been several debates in the House indicating concern about the prevalence of hepatitis B in some parts of New Zealand. There is obviously a real link between hepatitis B and AIDS in homosexuals. One of the points made in that submission, which was not considered by the committee, was that, had the Wolfenden report been brought before the British Houses of Parliament at a time when a disease such as AIDS faced the country, it is unlikely that it would have been carried, because the thrust of that report was that sexual activity between consenting adults, when no damage was done to anyone else, could be accepted by society. Anal sex, whether it is homosexual anal sex or heterosexual anal sex, carries a major risk of AIDS, and there is a very good reason for that. I have here two photographs that I intend to table, and even from a distance most members will get the general idea of what I am saying. The one in my left hand shows the thin layer of secretory goblet cells that line the rectum, and there is a very thin lining across the top. The second photo shows the vaginal mucosa, which is a tough, thick, protective surface, 20 times thicker than the lining of the anus. If the committee had been prepared to hear what Mr Wynne-Jones had to say, it would have heard that his concern is that anal sex rather than homosexual activity per se between males is the major cause of AIDS. To pass legislation at this time that gives tacit approval to anal sex, until Parliament knows more about the ways in which AIDS can be contained, would be to give the wrong message to society as a whole about our concern regarding AIDS. It shows an acceptance of a means of making sure that the disease continues. I hope that members, particularly those members of the committee who did not have the opportunity to hear that submission, can take that point, because it is a very real one. It impresses me that a surgeon was prepared to stick his neck out and give some technical information to the House, which, as far as I know, has not yet been presented. I said earlier in my speech that I have a concern for homosexuals in New Zealand society, and that I deplore the way in which the Bill has been introduced. I shall vote against the Bill in its present form at all stages. However, if an amendment were moved showing that the House cannot give a signal to people that anal sex is a satisfactory method of sexual intercourse at a time when we are concerned about AIDS and know very little about the disease, but the amendment could in some way meet the needs of the homosexual community-because not all homosexual acts are related to anal sex-I would be prepared to consider supporting it. Hon. KORO WETERE (Minister of Maori Affairs): Te Hemana, ko koe te Rangatira o tenei whare. Tenei ra te mihi atu ki a koe, oti ra ki te whare e whakaaro nei ite kaupapa. Me ki ko te kau ma tahi pea te tau i whakaarohia ai i tenei whare i nei kaupapa. I tera wa ko te mema o waitotara te kaihautu o tenei kaupapa. I tenei ra ko hoki mai ke taku tuahine mana i kokiri ai i roto i te whare nei hei whakaarohia ai e tatou i te kaupapa e mahiotia tenei o tatou. Tuatahi kei te mihi atu ki a ia a me tatou katoa e whakaaro mei i te kaupapa e pehi nei ki runga i a tatou. Otira ite marama o Mei i tenei tau i tu ai te hui o nga Wahine Maori toko ite Ora ki roto o Heretaunga. I reira i tantokongia ai te kaupapa i roto i tenei pire. I tuhingia ai e au kia rateu, pehea o ratou whakero ki te kaupapa nei, me te te mohio ano ka nui tatou te iwi Maori kua tai ki roto ki tenei kaupapa. Ko taku i mea atu kia ratou, he taonga a o tatou matua me whakaaro atu ai e ratou. Maku e ki atu kei te mohio tonu tatou i nga taonga a o tatau matua mo tenei, e penei ana te korero. “He aha ra te mea nui maku ra e ki alu-he tangata, he tangata, he tangata." Ko wai o tatau hei whaka he i tera taonga i korerohia e ratau mai ra ano i te wa a tai ano ki te rangi rei. I runga ano i tenei rerenga korero ara i waihotia e ratou kei whea he korero maku ki te whaka turikina i tera whakaaro e hangatia e ratou. Tenei te whakaaro o to koutou mokai, “me tu ki runga ki nga kaupapa i waihotia e ratou ki te tantoko ai i tenei pire mai tona timatanga, a tae ano ki tona mutunga.” Noreira kei aku rangatira, tenei ra te mihi atu ki a tatou katoa e hui nei i teni po me te mohio ano te nuinga o to motu e whakaea ana kia penei tatou. Noreira tena koutou, tena koutou, tena ano tatou katoa. About 11 years ago the House considered an identical measureWINSTON PETERS: Not identical. Hon. KORO WETERE: O. K.-it dealt with almost similar circumstances and was introduced by the present member for Waitotara. I said in Maori that in May this year I had attended the annual conference of the New Zealand Maori Women's Welfare League, which unanimously endorsed the proposals contained in the Bill. The House will know that I have canvassed issues such as this with the league-for example, the Bills on adoption and abortion and have come to the conclusion given in a proverb left by our ancestors: "What is the greatest thing on this earth? Let me tell you, it is people, it is people, it is people.” I have chosen that proverb and could not depart from that philosophy. We have followed it to the letter on all occasions. Others in the House have spoken about human rights. I accept, as I am sure all of us do, that Maoridom has gone through many changes in the past 140 years, more particularly in the past 20 years. Maoridom has to accept that many of our people are now in this position. As the member of Parliament for Western Maori, I cannot afford to cast aside those of our people who have decided to take that upon themselves as their way of life. I therefore intend to support the Bill. I congratulate the member who introduced the Bill. She went through a traumatic experience. (Interruption.) I am sorry, but the member for Tauranga has had his opportunity and he can get another call during the Committee stage. There will be plenty of opportunities. I remind him of one simple fact, and ask where he stands in terms of the proverb I referred to. WINSTON PETERS: Man alone; survival. Hon. KORO WETERE: I asked about the proverb. Of course he would know where it came from. If he knew what it was all about and where it came from - its origins-I am sure he would have no difficulty with it whatsoever. I challenge the member about it, because it is well known in his district and to his people. Those people are to be admired, and if he is moving away from those principles I ask him to think again. I also ask him to consider the position of our people at present. He well knows that 75 percent of them are urbanised, and that 75 percent of them are below the age of 25 years. A great number within that age group have now joined this section of the community. I shall not deny the people who have chosen that course, but I simply say that Parliament has been called on to make a judgment and to pass a law that will give those people the right of choice. That is what I believe we are being asked to do. As I said before, I have considered this matter for some time. It is not the first time it has come before Parliament. This time round I think a sign of maturity had been demonstrated, and most people have come to accept the need for reform. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON (Papakura): I have seldom heard the Minister of Maori Affairs so defensive. Indeed, earlier in the debate I called to him and he knowsMr Gerbic: Get away from personalities. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: We heard from that member about a week ago and have forgotten what he said - and rightly so. I called to the Minister of Maori Affairs, who is the senior Maori Government member - and I see that he is being congratulated by the member for Mount Albert. I concede that this is a conscience issue and that he, of all members in the Chamber, has the authority, the prestige, and the seniority to speak for the Maori people, particularly as he has for many years - and I do not include the present year-managed the land affairs of the Maori Queen. Hon. K. T. Wetere: Oh, really! Hon. M. L. WELLINGTON: He protests, but that is so. I have joined the Minister on the marae on a number of occasions-for example, St. Stephens College, which is one of the premier Maori colleges. I use that word advisely, for it is primarily a Maori college and one of distinction and prestige. I have enjoyed the Minister's company and I have enjoyed his comments on occasions on the marae. By way of interjection I said to him, "Speak for the Maori people.” I was disappointed with his comments tonight, because in essence they were by way of prevarication; they were ambivalent and ambiguous. I wonder who has been at the Minister of Maori Affairs in recent weeks and recent months. Who has hammered him into shape? Is he speaking for the Maori Queen? Is he speaking for the four quarters? FRED GERBIC: I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. The member has been on his feet for 5 or 6 minutes, supposedly talking about the Bill, but he has not referred to any part of it. Instead he has referred to the previous speaker. I ask you to call him to order. ACTING SPEAKER (TREVOR YOUNG): Order! The member has not been speaking for 5 minutes - he has not quite finished his first 2 minutes. In any case, I think he was referring to some of the matters contained in the contribution made by the Minister of Maori Affairs. It is in order for any member of the House to do that. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: I record my disappointment at the contribution made by a senior Maori member of this assembly. WINSTON PETERS: The Minister used to be a senior member. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: That prophecy will be proved correct. Of all the people in the Chamber the Minister of Maori Affairs has the authority to speak for the Maori people. He did not do that. Who got at him? Does he reflect the views of the Maori Queen? Does he reflect the views of the four quarters? Every member in this assembly-excluding a few such as the member for Glenfield---will know to what I am referring. His speech would not go down at all well at St. Stephens College, Queen Victoria College, and Te Aute College, because the Bill does not serve the interests of our young people in any realistic or practical way. It calls for the legalisation of homosexual activities from the age of 16 onward. I mentioned St. Stephens College advisedly, because in 1962 I took up a position there as a teacher. I assure the Minister of Maori Affairs, who has a responsibility as the local member - which he shares with the member for Franklin - that his views would not be tolerated for 2 minutes on the marae of St. Stephens College, or its sister school, Queen Victoria College, in Parnell, Auckland. The Minister would be run off the property if he made a speech on either of those two marae such as he made in the House tonight. I am disappointed that the Minister of Maori Affairs has given the Maori people such a bad steer and a bad lead in the Chamber tonight. The time is now 10. 47 p. m., and the lights will be out in St. Stephens College. The member for Eden and the member for Tongariro - wo extreme liberals-may well scoff, but they will get their reckoning in due course. I am disappointed in the Minister of Maori Affairs, and I am sure that Mat Rata, who once sat in the House, would be equally disappointed. I am sure the honourable member for Southern Maori is bitterly disappointed, as her father would be, and I make no apology for bringing the ancestors of the honourable member for Southern Maori into the debate. The Minister of Maori Affairs made a disgraceful contribution to an important debate. He made such a contibution because he is a Minister in the Labour Government, which happens to embrace this latest piece of liberalism. The Minister of Maori Affairs thinks he owes his position in the Chamber to his mates in Cabinet and on the back benches. His greater loyalty should be to his own people. I pay tribute to the member for Hauraki, the member for Invercargill, and especially the member for Gisborne. I know the pressures that have been brought to bear on the member for Gisborne. He is in a marginal electorate, but he had the courage to say that that is what he believed in and what he believed his people sent him to do. That member is not like the Minister of Maori Affairs, who is under the Whips. He has been brought into line and he knows it, and tonight he merely regurgitates the party line. To the member for Napier, who tried for various Labour seats around the country and finally won the seat in Napier, I say “good on him”, because he had the courage to defy his party on the issue. I pay tribute not only to those four members, but also the people who have backed them and who have been damned in the House. Those people have no right of reply under the panoply of privilege in Parliament. People such as Keith Hay have been damned in the House for presenting facts and events. Government Members: Oh, oh! Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: There they go again-they damn those people and scoff. People such as Sir Peter TaitRICHARD NORTHEY: When will the member start talking about the Bill? Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: The member for Eden is in trouble. In Auckland we heard representations from various people, and the member for Eden and the member for Mount Albert did not ask a question or make a comment when the liberals and the lesbians came in, because they knew very well that if they did their arguments would be cut to pieces. If the member for Eden continues to interject I shall ask him where Ms Soich is. I suggest that the member for Eden keep his mouth shut, as the member for Hamilton West is advising him to do. I pay tribute to the people who brought the petition before Parliament. It was the largest petition in the history of the country. Those people sustained unprecedented attacks in the House. I pay tribute to them, as I do to the four members who backed them. They have no privilege within the panoply of this particular place. As I have listened to the meandering speeches in support of the Bill I have been reminded of the eighteenth century political philosopher, Edmund Burke, who wrote 200 years ago: “The concessions of the weak are the concessions of fear.” In the past 10 days I have read that the member for Ohariu has polled his electorate and it has told him what to do. That is a concession of the weak. I have heard of the confusion of the member for East Cape, who said that she had polled her electorate and that she had thought she was for the Bill, and then she was against it, but she had polled her electorate and now she was for it. What integrity! In 1980, on another issue, at a different time, the people in my electorate said to me at an electorate meeting that unless I voted the way they wanted me to vote they would fix me. Members on this side of the House will know of what I speak. I told them that they had sent me to Wellington, and if they did not like what I had been doing they could follow that course. I am still here. I will not deal with that issue, but simply say that it was in 1980, and after two terms as Minister of Education-when my two immediate predecessors, both Labour and National, were cut short in their electorates - I say to the member for East Cape and the member for Ohariu, “Stick to your guns”. The member for Glenfield should stick to her guns. Do what is right; do not obey the dictates of an amorphous mass. The member should do what she thinks is right on a conscience issue. The Minister of Customs polled her electorate and had her mind shored up–God bless her. She should stick to her guns. I say to those members and to the people out there - the people who brought the petition and the people who did not sign it, perhaps because they did not have the chance or did not want to, because they were not seized of the importance of the matter - "Obey the dictates on what you consider to be a conscience issue when you stand before the supreme body of the country, Parliament.” The member for Ohariu has changed his mind; the member for East Cape has changed her mind; the member for Glenfield has changed her mind; and the Minister of Customs has changed her mind. The concessions of the weak are the concessions of fear: they are fearful for their electoral hides. What a way that is to make decisions affecting the people of the country, and in particular the young people! I referred earlier to St. Stephens College. I went to a boarding school, as did many members. I repeat what I said when the Bill was introduced - that to fix the age of consent at 16 years will be to sow not just the seeds but the actuality of discord and dissent in school after school across the country. Government Members: Ha, ha! Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: Government members may laugh: do I see the Minister of Internal Affairs smiling wryly, or does he agree, and believe in what I am saying? A 16year might be in form IV or form V, or if a young person is fairly bright he may be in form VI. If homosexuality is legalised at form IV, form V, or form VI, the seeds of discord and dissent will be sown from the far north to the deep south. The Minister of Internal Affairs knows that what I am saying is correct, and that is why the Minister of Maori Affairs has Aed the Chamber. THE ACTING SPEAKER (TREVOR YOUNG): Order! I remind the honourable member that he may not refer to the absence of any member. He understands why members leave the Chamber, and it is disorderly to refer to a member's absence in that way. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: The Minister has departed on urgent public business; I can see why, and I do not blame him. I have referred to Edmund Burke's comment on the concession of those who are fearful. He also said that something may look specious in theory but be ruinous in practice. That is the burden of my argument. If the Bill introduced by the member for Wellington Central was the alpha and omega of human male and female relationships, what is it that gives her a monopoly on human wisdom in 1985? The member for Hamilton West is discomfited. Politics and political fortunes come and go, but one thing is certain in the political life of this country - the member for Hamilton West will be gone within the next 2 years. He is finished as a representative within the House. He is ancient history before his term has finished. The member for Mount Albert, the member for Wellington Central, and all those other fair-weather friends of everybody and everything who change their minds, have polls, and say they will decide when they know what their constituents think, are also finished. The people know what Burke knew a long time ago - that something may appear specious in theory but be ruinous in practice. If that were not so, why did some enlightened lawmaker not bring this measure in many years ago and have it passed in the Chamber? It is because the theory is specious and the practice would be ruinous, and most New Zealanders know that. They are suspicious of measures brought into the House by a Government Whip under the guise of a private member's Bill. TREVOR MALLARD: Here we go. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: That is why, apart from the member for Napier, the member for Southern Maori, and the member for Gisborne, Government members have been whipped into line. This measure was introduced at a time when the economy was doing badly, and when the ANZUS debate and a few other foreign policy issues were warming up. The member for Wellington Central, who is the Junior Government Whip, said she would bring in a private member's Bill to take people's minds off all this nonsense. Unfortunately, it is not nonsense. They are serious and weighty matters foreshadowed 2 centuries ago by people such as Edmund Burke. The people of succeeding generations were warned by Burke and others not to go down that road and other roads of like description. It is as simple as that. I have heard a lot about rights - the right to do this and the right to do that. I have heard nothing about responsibilities. Let us forget the adult population and think about the 16-year-olds, the 15-year-olds, the 17-year-olds, and the 750,000 pupils in primary, intermediate and secondary schools. What about their rights? TREVOR MALLARD: Mr Speaker. ACTING SPEAKER (TREVOR YOUNG): Is this a point of order? An Hon. Member: Time's up. ACTING SPEAKER (TREVOR YOUNG): I have not rung the bell yet. WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. I understand that under the Standing Orders the member on his feet is entitled to go to the allotted time. That is a historic and well publicised provision. No bell has been rung, but the member for Hamilton West was on his feet like a jack-in-the-box. ACTING SPEAKER (TREVOR YOUNG): Order! I think members were reading my hand signs. The member has 5 seconds left. I did not ring the bell. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: I have heard nothing from the proponents of the measure about the responsibility of people. Debate interrupted. The House adjourned at 11 p. m. 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_16_october_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.