The title of this document is "Homosexual Law Reform Bill - third reading (2 July 1986)". It is described as: Homosexual Law Reform Bill - third reading (2 July 1986). The proceedings occurred in Parliament on 2nd July 1986. The main text body is sourced from Hansard, the official written record of the New Zealand Parliament. A brief summary of the content is: Philip Burdon introduced a motion to reconsider raising the age of consent to 18, arguing 16 was too young. His motion was met with procedural disputes and was ultimately defeated by a significant majority (41 votes). Speaker-controlled proceedings reflected the emotionally charged and polarizing nature of the debate. Fran Wilde, the bill's sponsor, criticized opponents for using delay tactics and unfounded arguments. She emphasized that decriminalization was about protecting basic human rights and improving public health, particularly in combating AIDS. Medical experts and organizations like the AIDS Foundation supported the bill, asserting that criminalization hampered education and intervention efforts, especially for at-risk youth. Supporters, such as Judy Keall and Richard Northey, highlighted the discrimination faced by gay individuals, noting the law branded them as criminals, hindered their access to healthcare, and subjected them to blackmail. They stressed that homosexuality was not a choice but an inherent orientation, urging Parliament to ensure equality under the law. Opponents, like Graeme Lee and Geoff Braybrooke, voiced moral and religious objections, claiming that homosexuality was unnatural and a learned behavior. They cited a massive petition with purportedly over 800,000 signatures against the bill. However, discrepancies in the petition's authenticity were later revealed, undermining its credibility. Some opponents, such as Paul East, expressed support for limited reform but objected to the age of consent being set at 16. The debate revealed deep societal divisions, with some MPs focusing on fear of societal degradation and the spread of AIDS, while others pointed out the irony of criminalizing private behavior that caused no harm. Advocates for the bill also called for tolerance and understanding, stressing that it was not Parliament's role to legislate morality but to ensure justice. The select committee process was heavily scrutinized, with opponents claiming insufficient public consultation, while supporters argued that extensive hearings had already addressed the issues thoroughly. The procedural handling of the bill drew criticism from both sides, highlighting challenges in managing such a divisive topic. The third reading continued on 9 July 1986. The main text body begins:  2 July 1986, New Zealand Parliament. PHILIP BURDON (Fendalton): I move, That the order of the day for the third reading of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill be discharged, and that the Bill be recommitted for consideration of the amendments set out in Supplementary Order Paper 30. I move the motion in order to give the House another chance to reconsider its earlier decision regarding the age of consent, which, at 16, is too young. I suggest that the House should raise the age to 18 years. Hon. DAVID CAYGILL (Minister of Trade and Industry): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to challenge your calling of the member for Fendalton. However, I had earlier indicated my wish to raise a point of order in relation to the matter. I rose and called a point of order at the same time as the member for FendaltonMr SPEAKER: The matter does need sorting out because of the contentious and highly emotional issues that are involved. First, a member rising improperly at the wrong time to raise a point of order does not have any pre-emption over another member who rises at the proper time. The member cannot say that he established any claim when he improperly gave notice of his intention to rise. That is quite clear. Secondly, as I had been notified-as has every other member of the House-of the nature of the supplementary order papers, it became inevitable that I should be placed in the invidious position of having to choose one or the other because I was not in ignorance of the contents of those supplementary order papers. I had to make a decision on which one served the greater interests of the House; I was not the slightest bit concerned about any sectional or factional interests. One of the supplementary order papers would have provided for the reconsideration of the age of consent in a limited sphere-not through all of the Bill, but only in part of it. Undoubtedly, that procedural action would have left those who wanted the consideration to be right across the Bill feeling frustrated. The supplementary order paper whose supporter I called achieved the objective of the member who was not called, but also added to it an ability for the House to consider the age of consent over all areas under discussion. Over all, therefore, the ability of the House to consider the whole matter is enhanced by my having accepted the call of the member for Fendalton. That was why I did it. I have no intention of reversing my decision, because I am confident that the decision I made advances the purposes of the House more satisfactorily than the other option would. I am aware that certain difficulties and problems arose during the debate on the Committee stage of the Bill. I have no authority to order the Committee, nor would I wish to have that authority, but, as one of the few members of the House who will be sitting on the side line while the Bill goes to the Committee, may I presume to offer a procedural suggestion to the Committee that might promote a more orderly discussion. I suggest that if the Committee in its wisdom thought it advisable to allow all the amendments on the supplementary order paper to be debated as one, because they are so closely interrelated, the Committee could then divide on each of the issues in the supplementary order paper individually at the end. I make that suggestion because past experience suggests that that might reduce some of the rather intense discussion on procedural motions. The matter is, however, entirely in the hands of the Committee. The House divided on the question, That the order of the day for the third reading of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill be discharged, and that the Bill be recommitted for consideration of the amendments set out in Supplementary Order Paper 30. Ayes 22 Austin, M. E.; Batchelor; Boorman; Colman; Cox; East; Gair; Graham; Gregory; Luxton; McKinnon; McLean; Marshall, D. W. A.; O'Flynn; O'Regan; Richardson; Smith; Storey; Upton; Young, T. J. Tellers: Burdon; Townshend. Noes 63 Anderton; Angus; Austin, H. N.; Austin, W. R.; Banks; Bassett; Birch; Braybrooke; Burke; Butcher; Caygill; Cooper, Cullen; Dillon; Douglas; Dunne; Elder; Falloon; Fraser; Friedlander; Gerard; Goff; Gray; Hercus; Hunt; Isbey; Jeffries; Jones; Keall; Kidd; King; Knapp; Lange; Lee; McClay; McTigue; Marshall, C. R.; Matthewson; Maxwell, R. F. H.; Maxwell, R. K.; Morrison; Moyle; Neilson; Northey; Palmer; Peters; Prebble; Rodger; Scott; Shields; Shirley; Sutton, J. R.; Sutton, W. D.; Tapsell; Terris; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Tizard; Wellington; Wetere; Woollaston; Young, V. S. Tellers: Mallard; Wilde. Majority against: 41 Motion negatived. Hon. DAVID CAYGILL (Minister of Trade and Industry): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think I know the answer to the question I am about to put to you, but it might assist the House if I asked it nevertheless. Is it now open to me to move the motion I previously attempted to move? PHILIP BURDON: No, and the member knows it. Hon. DAVID CAYGILL: I wish the House to have an authoritative ruling, and not an expression of opinion either from me or from other members. Mr Speaker, is it open to me to move the motion I foreshadowed in my earlier attempt to seek, on a point of order, the Bill's recommittal in order to consider Supplementary Order Paper 72? Mr SPEAKER: No it is not, because the wording of the motion is that the order of the day be discharged, and the matter is finished once that has been decided on any particular day. It was to be discharged for a particular purpose. If the third reading is not completed tonight, and the Bill is set down for further consideration of the third reading on a subsequent day that same motion can be moved on that day, because the question relates to whether to proceed with the matter in the way laid down on the Order Paper that day. Third Reading. FRAN WILDE (Wellington Central): I move, That this Bill be now read a third time. During the Committee stage there was the most torrid debate the House has ever heard, certainly in my experience here, and I suspect also in the experience of most members of Parliament. In the end it became not torrid but just plain boring, because members heard repeatedly from a small group of members, stale old arguments that had lost their colour and impact. Many members believe that those arguments were put before the House simply to delay the Bill's progress. It was interesting to note during the Committee stage of the Bill that the public grew more and more aware of the delay in progress, and both the public and the news media commented on the stonewalling tactics that were used. It is important to comment on that, because those tactics show the mentality of some of the members opposed to the Bill. Many members who spoke in opposition to the Bill during the Committee stage did not present arguments, or any factual evidence. They did not refer to anything rational, or to any facts on which this Parliament, and other Parliaments in the Westminster system, normally try to base sound and rational decisions. Members heard merely a long line of histrionics and scaremongering from those members who opposed the Bill. I shall speak on some of the issues put before the House over the past few months, and give a summary of some of the arguments presented. One of the main arguments was that the Bill is offensive to God and religion. That is an important argument, because although some people believe New Zealand is now only nominally Christian others believe that New Zealand is indeed a Christian country. Since the Bill was introduced, members have discovered that many people believe that New Zealand's Legislature, its Parliament, and its system of laws should be based not on the legal system now being evolved, which this Parliament has tried to strengthen during the past 1½ years, but on the Old Testament of the Bible. The problem with that argument was that it was not sustained in the House, or in the select committee hearings that preceded the second reading and the Committee stage. At those select committee hearings, and subsequently in newspapers around the country, representatives of mainstream churches came out in favour of the Bill. They did not necessarily do that because they themselves support homosexual behaviour, or because they themselves are gay. They did it because they believe that our country should be run as a secular State, and that all religious and ethical beliefs should be given equal weight in the eyes of the law. A law cannot be based on a single narrow and rigid interpretation of the Old Testament such as we heard in those arguments. I must admit that after hearing those arguments I worry for the future of New Zealand if the Bill is defeated. New Zealand would be in trouble if the House were to continue to enact such laws in future. Tonight I ask all members present, and all of those who intend to vote on the third reading, to bear in mind the nature of the opposition to the Bill and the kind of argument put forward. If the Bill fails it will be only one in a long line of social repressions inflicted on the people in the name of religion. New Zealand is well past the time of the persecutions of the Middle Ages, which were carried out by the church in which I was brought up as a child. Many other arguments were brought forward in the Committee stage, one in particular revolving around the health issues that have emerged in the past year or so-particularly in relation to the growing problem of AIDS. The problem for those who presented such arguments against the Bill was that they failed to read the evidence and to listen to those who have some expert knowledge, who are working in the field, and who know what they are talking about. The problem of AIDS is a terrible one, and I found it astonishing and very sad that some people in our community wish that homosexuals would contract AIDS and die of it because they see that as a punishment from God. When the Bill was before the select committee we heard evidence from Dr Barker of the Department of Health and from other departmental officials who told us that suppressing law reform would not stop the passage of AIDS. The committee heard from numerous other people who are involved in the fight against AIDS, such as the New Zealand AIDS Foundation. Members will have read in this morning's paper a statement made by Kate Leslie, who chairs the AIDS Foundation. She said that it is imperative that the Bill be passed and that it be passed with the age of 16 as the age of consent, because those young people who would be discriminated against if the age of consent were raised were the ones most at risk. The Bill is now before the House for a third reading at a time when the whole population, not just the gay population, is at risk if a decent and effective public health campaign cannot be mounted. I ask members, before they go into the Noes lobby against the Bill, to think very carefully about the effect that not passing the Bill will have on the campaign that the AIDS Foundation and the Department of Health are trying to set up to stop the spread of AIDS. AIDS is not a disease that is confined to the gay community. It entered New Zealand largely as it did the other Western countries of the United States and Europe - that is, through the gay community-but that is certainly not its genesis, and it is certainly not contained therein. Anyone who has more than one sexual partner at any time runs the risk of being exposed to AIDS. What is more, if we cannot educate, if we cannot run clinics, if we cannot say to people that it is O. K. to be homosexual and that they will not be prosecuted by the law because they are gay, we will not be able to get those people who are at risk to come forward and be tested. They will simply go back into the closet where they have been for the past 100 years, and there they will stay. I have received a great deal of mail during the campaign to pass the Bill. Some of the letters have been very moving. I shall read tonight one of the more recent ones, because it sums up what the problems will be if the repression continues. I received this letter in my office a couple of months ago. "My words will have more meaning by telling you that I am a police officer living and working in a provincial town in New Zealand. I am 20 years old and I am gay. I have been prompted to write this having just read in the local paper that I am indecent and offensive because of my sexuality. It angers me that the community I love and work for will despise me only after they find out I am gay, especially when being gay has given me special qualities to make me a good police officer. It has been a hard decision to make to leave my job. Had I been accepted for what I am things might have been different, but when your won sanity becomes a choice between denying your sexuality or losing a career, there is only one thing that I can change." That letter sums it up. Gay people are not gay by choice, and, even if they were, the House has no right to deny them that choice of sexuality. Gay people are gay, just as heterosexuals are heterosexual. We, as individual members of the New Zealand Parliament, have no right to say to people that they must not practise their sexuality, which is an integral part of their being. During the campaign I had contact with parents of gay children who had committed suicide. I had contact with many sad families of gay people who said they wished they had known before it was too late. I ask the House tonight not to make it too late, and to vote for the third reading. GRAEME LEE (Hauraki): The comment made by the member for Wellington Central, the introducer of the Bill, that homosexuals are born that way, is incorrect. She could not offer any scientific evidence for her statement. In fact, the evidence research over many years shows clearly that homosexuals are not born that way; it is learnt behaviour, which can therefore be unlearnt. Throughout the debate the opponents of the Bill have concentrated on the behaviour. We have attempted to judge people as people. It is a fundamental fact, and the House should once again hear the truth, that homosexuals are not born that way. The member for Wellington Central accused the Opposition of stonewalling the debate, but the House should know, and it should be recorded, that the Opposition has employed every means at its disposal to oppose the Bill, because it has the mandate of 835,000 New Zealanders in the largest petition ever submitted to Parliament. It is on the clear mandate of those people - and it would have been 1,000,000 people if time had permitted that target to be reached-that Opposition members have opposed the Bill, and will continue to oppose it. We call upon the House to seal the Bill's doom by voting against this repugnant Bill and throwing it out. If there were any doubt about the commitment of the people who signed the petition, that commitment has been further tested in the past few days. In Te Atatu 600 people have been canvassed in a comprehensive assessment; 52 percent said they had signed the petition, but 83 percent said they would sign it today. That is a 30 percent increase in support of the petition. That is the strength behind the petition, which, its supporters have told the House, is 2½ times greater than anything else brought before the House. It is possibly the world's largest petition on a per capita basis. It was an unequivocal declaration that New Zealanders did not want anything to do with the Bill. Parliament knows that it has before it the clearest possible expression of the wishes of the nation. The petition was attacked on every front, without result, by the people supporting the Bill. It emerged unscathed, and it will always stand up because it has been found in the Auckland Star to be viable. Indeed, that particular assessment affirmed that the gay petition was valid. I also record, in the context of the accusation of stonewalling, that those who oppose the Bill were gagged several times. The gagging began in the select committee, with an attempt by the chairman to hold back the proper course of the Bill. It continued in the House, with the Standing Orders being employed to stop the proper process of the debate. That was done by the Government-and I except those who have consistently and courageously opposed the Bill-which has aligned itself politically with the Bill. It should be written into the annals of the House that the Government sought through its numbers to exclude a proper clause by clause consideration of the Bill. Members have had to discuss the 2 parts-9 clauses-in a limited-time debate, with 21 amendments being offered. It was entirely wrong. What emerged from the Committee stage, and what underscores this evil Bill, is that it attempts to make wrong right. There is not the slightest doubt that the people of this country believe the Bill to be entirely wrong. The construction of the legislation makes it intrinsically wrong, and it is wrong in every context. The Bill tries to make homosexuality acceptable, lawful, and viable as a future life-style. That is not acceptable. Even in overseas countries where there has been liberalisation - and I refer to the English law, which was used in several arguments and misunderstood-there is limited liberalisation. It is still, in essence, a law for consenting adults in private only. It is still seen to be wrong. In the past 2 days the United States Supreme Court has stated that homosexual behaviour between consenting adults is wrong. The Opposition believes that it is morally wrong, because the passing of the Bill would remove the offence and a barrier to other moral lapse and decline. It is wrong because it is unnatural; it is wrong because it attacks the family, and, indeed, it puts the family at tremendous risk. The mover of the Bill also said that the accusation that the Bill was an offence before God and man was entirely wrong. I have said in the House, and I stand by it, that the Bill is an abomination to God and man. I say that because I believe that the biblical teaching on the matter is abundantly clear. What the member for Wellington Central has said to the House tonight should shock every New Zealander. She asked if we were to return to the Middle Ages and to bow to repressive religion. She implied by that comment that she has no commitment to the Christian faith. She implied that she believes that the Christian faith has no relevance to New Zealand and to the House, yet the laws of the House are based on the Christian faith. I believe that every New Zealander listening to the debate and hearing those words would have been shocked. New Zealanders will now know-if there was any doubt in their minds-that the mover of the Bill is wrong, and that what she has said is wrong. The member for Wellington Central spoke about AIDS and heterosexual incidence of it. Of course heterosexuals will get AIDS when bisexuals make up part of the sexual group that accounts for more than 80 percent of those who spread AIDS. Opposition members believe that we must not pass the Bill, and we must not take action that would logically increase the incidence of AIDS in the community. How, in the name of common sense and sanity, can anyone have brought before the House and the nation at this time a Bill that will increase the incidence of AIDS in this country through an increase in homosexual behaviour? That it would increase has been attested to in San Francisco and Great Britain over the past decade. The passing of the Bill would do just that; New Zealand would have much more homosexual activity, with an increased risk of AIDS. Members are considering the worst killer disease known to man, yet the member for Wellington Central is frivolous enough to say that that is not the point and that it is a matter of heterosexuality versus homosexuality. Members are being asked to pass this Bill as a means of containing the worst killer disease known to man. It is incredible that such an argument could be used in the House. I was particularly pleased that the human rights provision was eliminated from the Bill. I believe that the Bill should be torn up. GEOFF BRAYBROOKE (Napier): I was misrepresented in the previous speech when the member asserted that the Bill was a Government, or Labour Party, Bill. That is incorrect. It is a private member's Bill. I remind the House that several members of the Government have consistently voted against the Bill. Hon. RUSSELL MARSHALL (Minister of Education): I think it could be fairly said that, just as most Government members generally support the legislation, most National Opposition members oppose it. I want to say again that I support the legislation in its entirety, in spite of the fact that we have had months of filibuster from the other side. I support the age of consent being 16 years. I acknowledge that in the end it will be a close run thing whether we manage to achieve that. Anyone who has studied adult behaviour and children's behaviour knows that adult behaviour is governed very much by early childhood experiences. It is not possible for an adult to change his or her sexual orientation, and indeed it is not easily possible to change much of our behaviour. We are, as adults, very much more than most of us recognise, products of our earliest years. I do not know what the causes are, or how these things come to be, and nobody is sure of that, but we are talking about people who grow into a particular kind of sexual orientation. I want to say a little more about the attitude of the Church, but before I do I shall make reference to some of the comments made during the long Committee stage about education, schools, and the relationship of the legislation to that environment. It has been suggested in some quarters that it would be possible-if the Bill were to be passed-for people to force homosexual behaviour on young boys at school. That is not true, and it certainly would not be true if the Bill were to be passed. It is just as illegal for homosexual behaviour to be forced on a young person at school as it is now for heterosexual behaviour. It is just as illegal for under-age homosexual activity as it is for under-age heterosexual activity. The clarity of the debate has been helped not one whit by those who have sought to exaggerate what the Bill sets out to do. I shall concentrate most of my deliberations on the rather presumptuous remarks made, not for the first time in the debate, by the member for Hauraki, who is presumed to speak for God and scripture. I remind the House that there have been a great number of people, official representatives of the churches no less, as well as countless Christian people, who have supported the legislation. It is not possible for anyone in the House, let alone an opponent of the Bill, to say: “God says this Bill is wrong." What I cannot comprehend about opponents of the legislation is the people who seek to describe other people as un-Christian. I would not dare, or have the temerity, to describe my friend the member for Hauraki as un-Christian. I take it very poorly that he should so describe supporters of the Bill. The member may be able to find scriptural records in Leviticus and elsewhere in the Old Testament. I challenge him, and anybody who is opposed to the Bill, to produce one word from our Lord that condemns homosexuality. I ask members to tell me how within the spirit of Christ it is possible to oppose the Bill. Of course they cannot oppose it. I have been brought up to believe that the Christian spirit of compassion, love, and warmth is not to reject other people even if we disagree with their behaviour and even if we condemn that behaviour. I am troubled that the member should take it upon himself, as numbers of his colleagues have done, to presume to speak on behalf of our Lord and to tell the people that they are wrong and evil, and to say what will happen to them. Nobody knows what will happen. I do not know what view the member for Hauraki holds on life after death, and I guess none of us know until we get there. I tell the member that when I asked a question about what is important in life, it is not how many people I have condemned, not how many people I have described as sinful, and not how many people I have cut off and said are not worthy of my time because they are criminal. Is it surely not more a basis for Christian judgment that one ask how loving people were to those who did not agree with them, how warm and compassionate they were to those people, even if they felt they were wrong? One might also ask how patronising or unpatronising one has been. There has been very little of the Christian spirit in those people who have spoken in opposition to the Bill. I want to make a claim on behalf of all those good Christian people, men and women of the clergy and laity, who have spoken in favour of the legislation; all those people who claim-utterly consistent with the main thrust of the biblical record - that the Bill is indeed within the spirit of Christ. The member for Hauraki can quote texts from Leviticus, but I thought the New Testament was the new way. We have grown out of Old Testament ways. I am not here to defend some of Saint Paul's rather strange ideas about the sexuality of men and women, or those people who came to the committee and to the House, and who have sought to follow the spirit of Christ, who have said that Leviticus is inconsistent with the spirit of the Bill. I am sure that there are many people who have been saddened to hear men-and it has always been men-whom they know well criticising them very directly. Everyone in the House knows and is known to male adult homosexuals. Many of us do not know who those male homosexuals are. Many people would now be scared to acknowledge their adult male homosexuality to people they know. I am absolutely certain that every one of the severest critics of the Bill knows, and knows well, adult homosexuals, without even knowing who they are. Those people who have criticised the Bill stand condemned for rejecting much more than they realise people who would value their compassion and friendship. What concerns me is not only the bigotry but also the hatred that has been engendered during the course of the debate; the vitriolic mail that people have received; and the extraordinary things that people have claimed will happen. I would have hoped that by the 1980s we had become a mature society that can accept other people as they are, accept their differences, and realistically face up to the fact that an adult's sexual preference is almost certainly unable to be changed. We are not saying that people as adult males and females cannot practise heterosexual activity. The critics have not volunteered to be celibate for the rest of their lives, but they are determined that the people whose given orientation is different will be celibate for the rest of their lives. What kind of arrogant nonsense and impertinence allows us to come to that view? How do we govern? We do not govern by the number of people who sign a petition. We govern as a House of Representatives - although not very representative; we are mostly middle-aged males who seem to have the greatest difficulty with the Bill-and we are supposed to represent the country. We should not govern by public opinion and by the numbers of people who write in and say they will or will not vote for us, according to our vote on the Bill. Having learnt about, studied, and thought about the matter as carefully as we can we should govern not on the basis of bigotry or on what we feel but on what we have taken the trouble to read and to learn about the matter. Some people think that the Bill will ensure that people can change their sexual orientation. How many people do the member for Hauraki, the member for Invercargill, the member for Whangarei, or any of the other opponents actually know who have changed their sexual orientation? It is virtually impossible to change it. Some people think that we will make more male homosexuals, as if, once the Bill is passed, all of us who are adult males will suddenly turn into rampant and promiscuous male homosexuals. I have not the faintest interest in becoming a male homosexual, and I suspect that applies to most if not all members. I do not think that many people will suddenly find themselves a new freedom and change their orientation. Some people seem to be scared that it will become compulsory, and that once the Bill is passed they will have to show their manliness by saying they are male homosexuals. That is not what the Bill will do. The Bill will not change anybody's personality-unfortunately, in some cases; it will not change anybody. GEOFF BRAYBROOKE (Napier): Members have listened to what I consider to be a sincere speech from the Minister of Education. He eloquently put the case for the Bill, and one would not be surprised, because he is an ordained Minister of the Methodist Church. I would not in any way attempt to clash with him on matters theological. However, he mentioned one matter that needs to be challenged. He said that we should love the sinner. Nobody who professes to be a Christian would argue with that. What he did not say, but hinted at, was that we should also love the sin, and that is where I part company with him. He wants us to love the sinner and the sin. In my view and in the view of many other people, homosexuality and sodomy have been sins for generations. Sodomy has been considered to be an act of gross indecency throughout the world, not only by Christian people but by people of other great faiths, such as Hindus and Muslims. My colleague pointed out, as did the member for Wellington Central, that the Bill has also divided the nation, cities, churches. The proof is that it has divided political parties and, I suspect, even families. It has been one of the most agonisingly, divisive Bills ever to appear before Parliament. I am sorry that the first National Opposition speaker attempted to make small political capital by making it appear that the Labour Party was in favour of the Bill while the National Party was against it. That is plainly not true. During the Committee stage the House considered a motion not to report the Bill back. To be fair, it was the brain-child of the member for New Plymouth, and I supported it. Four National Opposition members voted not to go along with the motion. They voted to continue the Bill. The House should know who those four National Opposition members were-the member for Selwyn, the member for Raglan, the member for Rodney, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It ill behoves anybody in the House to try to pretend that the Bill is a Labour Party Bill. It is not. It is a private member's Bill introduced by the member for Wellington Central-and it was her right to do so. A matter that became clear during the Committee stage was that those who support the Bill and the homosexual community are definite that they want homosexuality to be accepted by society as being normal. In the past year I have put down a written question in the House asking how many homosexuals are in prison. It appears that those in prison are those who committed acts of gross indecency in public places or with small children. It is rare indeed - and I know of no cases-for policemen to creep up to keyholes to look at what is going on in private houses. Homosexual people want society to accept them as normal. They want to put a cloak of respectability upon their activities. They want to be able to say to the world that their so-called orientation is right, proper, and normal. I am confident that I speak for most of the citizens of Napier. I do not pretend to speak for all of them, but I am sure I speak for the majority - and that is part of my job in the House-in saying that they do not want a Bill that legalises sodomy. The religious angle has been mentioned by the previous speaker. It is true that the churches are divided. The church to which I owe an allegiance does not support the Bill. The leaders of my church do not support it. Trevor Mallard: Some of the leaders of our church don't. GEOFF BRAYBROOKE: The member for Hamilton West will have his opportunity to speak. I did not interrupt the previous speaker and I ask the member for the same courtesy. The Catholic Church is opposed to the Bill and I would be happy to table a letter, which was discussed during the Committee stage, in which Cardinal Williams himself opposed the Bill. The Salvation Army, which is a strong Christian church, has also opposed the Bill. The House should know that there is another side to the coin. It would be a tragedy if the Bill were to become law. As I said earlier, it would give homosexuality a cloak of respectability. Young people, and, I suppose, old people, would consider that what is legal must be right. They would be misled into thinking that it is O. K. to follow a homosexual orientation should they wish. It has been said in the House that there will be no sudden explosion of homosexual activities. That is conjecture. It could well be right, but it could also be wrong. In Western countries where the law has been liberalised there has been a large increase in homosexual activity. One only has to go to Holland, London, New York, or San Francisco to see what happens when such laws are liberalised. Homosexuality has become almost an industry, with homosexual bars, baths, meeting houses, and even homosexual churches where they go through some form of marriage to one another. That is considered to be normal in those states. I have consistently opposed the Bill. I admit that I do so on moral grounds and from my experience as a member of the armed forces for many years. Interruption. Do not worry, we have them there as well. I have seen how homosexual people act when they do not get their own way. I attended two public meetings in Lower Hutt and witnessed the disgusting behaviour of a large group of Wellington homosexuals, when those who opposed them were howled down, and when a Salvation Army minister who wanted to lead the meeting with a prayer was ridiculed with blasphemies, jeered at, howled at, mocked at, and screamed at. Those people were not nice, gay, oppressed people. Such people want their own way and if they do not get it, look out. The House will decide on this matter, and that is right and proper. I want to close by saying that I am firmly convinced that if the Bill becomes law there will be a cry of outrage throughout the land. It will cost some members their seats, and so be it-we all accept that probability. I also prophesy that after the next election the Bill, if it succeeds tonight, will be repealed. PAUL EAST (Rotorua): It is curious that while I have to disagree with much of what the previous speaker has said I will probably find myself in the same lobby as he is in when I vote. I congratulate the Minister of Education on an excellent contribution to the debate. The previous speaker represents the city of Napier. He boldly told the House how consistently he has always vigorously opposed homosexuality, yet many of us know that when he was trying to gain a seat in Pakuranga he told the people there that he would be happy to sponsor legislation to make homosexuality lawful. That is why we have a great deal of difficulty in understanding him on the issue. The member says he formed his views on the matter years ago while in the Army, yet only a few short years ago he was telling people that he hoped would vote for him something diametrically opposed to what he has been saying tonight. That is why I doubt his sincerity on the issue. The member for Napier and I may well vote on this matter in the same lobby but I hope I come to the Chamber with cleaner hands than he does. Of all the contributions I have heard, I respect and admire the contribution of the Minister of Education, because one knows exactly where he stands on the matter, and he has been consistent in that stance. I shall vote against the third reading of the Bill. I voted for the Bill to be recommitted. The vote on that matter brought about an unholy alliance with the firm protagonists for the Bill and the firm opponents of it crowding into one lobby to vote that the Bill should not be recommitted. My grave misgivings about the Bill are shared by many New Zealanders. They are that we are trying to do too much too quickly, and that the age of consent is much too low. I adhere to the view that there is an argument for some reform in the homosexual law, but I do not countenance the legislation that we now have before the House, and for that reason I shall vote against it. The age of 16 years is an intolerably young age to inflict on New Zealand when many children are still at school, when many young men are grasping for maturity and manhood, and going through a complex change in their life. It is asking too much of New Zealand society to expect it to adjust to that in such a rapid manner. For those reasons I will vote against the third reading of the Bill. One of the other reasons I will vote against it is the manner in which it has been dealt with by the House. The parliamentary procedures are ill equipped for dealing with issues such as this. There is no doubt that the structure of the Standing Orders has constrained members when they have wanted to have matters recommitted that would bring about legislation better than it might otherwise be. There was an example of that tonight. It is possible to have only one application for a Bill to be recommitted and only one change can be made. That is a constraint in legislation such as this when party Whips do not operate and all members are free to vote according to their consciences. Our procedures do not easily handle conscience matters, and that has been clearly demonstrated through the passage of the Bill. Apart from my grave concern about the major change-in particular, the age limit that will be forced upon the country should the Bill become law-the second concern I have is the manner in which the legislation was dealt with. It was railroaded through the select committee procedures and I, for one, am saddened by that. People can say it was in the select committee for a long time, but I say to members that this is one of the major changes we will make as a Parliament and therefore we should listen to all arguments on the matter. But what did we do? Some months into the procedures of the select committee a Government majority decided to close the hearings, yet how often do we hear that we should have consultation in the House and should listen to everyone who wants to bring an argument here and have a point of view put before a select committee? However, Government members on the select committee voted that it should stop having hearings and that the select committee should cease to hear from the many people who still wished to have their points of view heard before Parliament, including organisations as responsible as the National Council of Women. How does the Minister of Women's Affairs feel about organisations such as that being precluded from having their views heard? Some political heat was generated against some of the Labour politicians on the issue, so as a group they came to the select committee and closed the hearing by a majority vote. Therefore Parliament was not able to hear all the evidence that people wanted to present before the House deliberated on the legislation. Worse than that, many petitions-not just one or two-to be heard by that select committee were not heard. The House knows that the right to petition Parliament is one of the most ancient constitutional rights that a citizen holds, and when for purely political motives a majority on the select committee denies the people the right to petition Parliament about legislation, Opposition members say that those members have gone too far. They cannot expect to force legislation through the House when, first, they have denied people the right to have their points of view properly put to the select committee; and, secondly, they have denied petitioners the ancient and hard-fought-for right to come before the House and have their submissions heard by a parliamentary committee and reported back to Parliament. That was what happened, and those people were denied their constitutional rights. That was a sad day for Parliament. That is the second reason I will vote against the third reading. I am saddened that we do not have a more moderate Bill that would receive more support from members. In my view the legislation will not have the majority support of members, and I believe that is for the two reasons I have outlined to the House. Those are certainly the reasons that have led me to the conclusion that I should no longer support the legislation. Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (St. Kilda): I support the Homosexual Law Reform Bill, which was introduced in March 1985; in July 1986 Parliament is still considering the third reading. I find it extraordinary that it should be suggested that the parliamentary process has not devoted sufficient time to consideration of the Bill. I cannot think of any other Bill that has occupied so much of the time of Parliament. Some members have begun to think that we could look forward to a long career in Parliament with Wednesdays filled up with consideration of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. I believe that the consideration of the Bill has been one of the most regrettable episodes in modern parliamentary history-Interruption. - and some of the interjections we have heard reinforce that point. It has often been said by political commentators, both within the House and outside it, that Parliament is at its best on debates of genuine issues of private conscience. That has usually been so. I can remember listening during my first term in Parliament to debates on the abortion issue-debates that reached a higher standard than is the wont for Parliament. I can recall listening to debates in the 1970s on similar issues, when members with deeply held beliefs, who were deeply divided, managed to debate the issues without attacking each other personally and without stooping to low political tactics. Tonight we heard the member for Wanganui make a speech that was a classic example of the kind of speech the House has been accustomed to hear on private members' Bills of conscience. I am sure he will forgive me for saying that this has not been the easiest week in politics for him, and that he was able to make such a speech is a tribute to what the House should be about when it is considering matters of this kind. However, in general, the debate on the Bill has not reached that standard. It has generated incredible bitterness and extraordinary personal attacks, and it has affected the whole atmosphere of Parliament over the past year. Many of the problems Parliament has faced in its running over the past year have in large measure been generated by the nature of the debate on the Bill, because in the past when the House has come to measures of this kind members have been able to put aside their party colours and to recognise genuinely held beliefs, and to respect those beliefs, even when their own beliefs have differed fundamentally. I have listened to speech after speech, made at every stage of the Bill, that indicated that members seem unable to recognise that other members can hold different views, and hold those views genuinely. That is one of the reasons I have spoken infrequently on the Bill: because of their nature I simply found it somewhat distasteful to participate in much of the proceedings. It is regrettable, too, because there has been a breakdown of the unspoken rules about how private members' Bills of conscience are dealt with as they relate to party lines. There has been an unforgivable attempt by some members to suggest that the Bill is a party Bill, and that the division is upon party lines. I have to say that that is a great insult to my colleagues the member for Napier, the member for Southern Maori, the member for Gisborne, and several others, who have consistently opposed the Bill, and who have never been under any pressure from their colleagues to do anything else. I ask whether any Opposition member can give the same assurance for the National Opposition. The position is regrettable, too, because of the antipathy to homosexuals that has been generated by discussion of the Bill. The Bill is designed to ease some of the burdens that homosexuals suffer, but the discussions have all too often led to outbreaks of what is often called homophobia, and attacks upon homosexuals. Much of what has been said both inside and outside the House in attacking the Bill scarcely makes one proud to be a New Zealander. It is regrettable, too, because of the ability of people to present the issue in a false light. The Minister of Education rightly said that members-both individually and collectively cannot merely be the tools of public opinion. However, it is worth asking what the public opinion is on the actual content of the Bill now before the House. The latest opinion polls show that more than 60 percent of New Zealanders support the decriminalisation of homosexuality. There is only one way to decriminalise homosexuality - that is, to stop making it illegal. GRAEME LEE: That's wrong. Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I will not respond to the member for Hauraki because I may merely stoop to the tactics I have already condemned in members during the debate. There is only one way to decriminalise homosexuality - that is, to stop making it illegal. The significant division has been over age, but the largest proportion of people now support 16 as the age of consent. That is what the public supports, and that is what the Homosexual Law Reform Bill-stripped of Part II, which I supported-actually provides for. That is the reality. If the argument is to be about what the people support, then, in fact, the people support what is in the Bill. However, I accept that the people do not support the Bill, because they have been convinced that the Bill is different from what it is. What the people believe is in the Bill is not what is in fact in it, and the misinformation that has been spread is extraordinary. I am reminded of Gladstone's famous comment when losing the election of 1874-that he was drowned in a torrent of gin and beer. I fear that that is the kind of pressure we are facing. The real, central issue-seldom debated, but touched upon by the member for Napier is whether the law should enforce most people's abhorrence of sodomy, anal intercourse, call it what one will. I do not deny that most people have that abhorrence, but the law cannot be made the medium for enforcing that view. What is right is not defined by what is legal, thank goodness! There are still some matters left to the individuals of New Zealand that are not defined for them by 95 people who sit within the Chamber. Why not? First, homosexuality is not a chosen behaviour, and a law one way or the other will make no difference. Secondly, I am appalled by the lack of basic human understanding of our fellow people. "Judgment is mine" sayeth the Lord. However, any number of candidates wished to pre-empt that final right, both inside and outside the Chamber. The member for Napier said that one should love the sinner, not the sin. Unfortunately, under the present law it is not the sin but the sinner who is sent to jail. Therefore, even the member's own context of “Let him love the sinner, and not send the sinner to jail" does not affect his right to condemn the sin. Let him think upon that before he casts his final vote. I call upon members to show some honesty towards people we know and cherish. Two of my closest friends as a young man were homosexuals, or later declared themselves to be so. I will not fail those people when I vote on the question. We have heard much about the question of AIDS, and what is done by pushing things under the carpet and making homosexuality a criminal offence instead of allowing people to be themselves, to seek the assistance they need, to be able to talk about their contacts, and to be able to ensure that information is available so that we can deal with a very real problem. The question of the protection of minors has been used to muddy the issue. Nothing in the Bill affects minors. I have been asked many times about my children. My children are daughters-they have nothing to fear from male homosexuals. JUDY KEALL (Glenfield): I agree with those who say that while one section of society is oppressed we are all oppressed. Homophobia, or fear of homosexuals, is crippling society. I believe that homosexual law reform is the first step to freeing society of that fear and freeing the gay community from discrimination. Under the present law not only sodomy but all sexual activity between males is a crime. At the third reading of the Bill it is important to be very clear about the present law. It is still a crime even if both parties consent, are adult, and are in the privacy of their own home. All anal intercourse is a crime, including that between a married couple. There are no exceptions to any of those offences, nor are any defences allowed in the law. The penalties range from 5 years to 14 years in jail even if both parties consent. That means that heterosexual married couples are liable to spend 14 years in jail for sodomy. Despite the penalties I have just read out, we all know that the law has not been enforced for a long time. The member for Napier is absolutely right about that. I am amazed at the number of people who oppose the Bill and who, presumably, know what the law is; yet I have never heard any of them arguing that we should imprison all gay men who practise their homosexuality. I have never heard people say that, yet that is what the law states. When I talk to people in my electorate who bring up questions about the Bill, and I explain what the law states, I am amazed at how many of them have been misled by the opponents of the Bill and do not know that the law states that those people should be in jail. When I ask them: "Do you think those people should be put in jail?" they say: “Oh, no, that's not what we want. We don't believe they should be put in jail." I then say to them: "Do you think it will be right if we do not put them in jail?" They say "Yes", and I say: "That's all we are changing; we are changing the law in that respect." They say "That's O. K." Members must be very clear what they are voting for tonight. We will be voting for all private consenting sexual activity between adult males to be made legal. That is all. It is very sad that so many of the Bill's opponents have misrepresented what it is doing. They have engendered fear that young boys will be legitimately seduced and that people will be forced into sexual activity against their will. That is completely untrue. All sexual activity between males to which one party does not consent will still be a crime. Anal intercourse between heterosexuals when one partner does not consent will be a crime. That is rape under the new rape law. Any male who has consenting activity with a boy under the age of 16 years will be liable to a term of imprisonment ranging from 7 years to 14 years, depending on the circumstances and the age of the boy. The penalties in the Bill are strengthened to bring them into line with the penalties pertaining to sexual intercourse or indecency with girls. A new offence is created-that of running a male brothel. The Bill amends the Crimes Act to put homosexual behaviour on the same footing as heterosexual behaviour. The Bill will not legalise soliciting. I want to speak briefly now about the age limit, because when "adult" is defined in the Bill we are talking about the age of 16. I say very clearly tonight that I believe that setting the age of 16 is a matter of equity - no more, no less. When we say that at 16 we consider a young boy or a young girl to be adult in the matter of sexuality we mean that they have reached the age when they are believed capable of responsible action. It does not mean that it is compulsory for a young woman to indulge in sexual activity merely because she has reached that age. So, of course, it does not mean that it is compulsory for a young man to indulge in any sexual activity at 16. It is simply that he or she has reached the age at which we expect young people to be capable of making a responsible decision. As a mother of teenage sons I have recommended to my sons that they do not indulge in any sexual activity at that age. I think they should wait for quite some time. I have made that recommendation, but it is up to them, and I have to trust them from that age to make that decision. When members are talking about the age of 16 they must remember that people can get married at that age. Very few do, but it is the legal age at which one can get married. It has never been suggested by anyone who opposes the Bill that the law for women - the age of 16-should be changed. Why therefore are they so adamantly opposing the Bill concerning young men? I totally reject the argument that young men are less mature than young women. I believe that they are responsible and able to make decisions, and I do not see why young men should be protected more than young women. After all, a young woman can become pregnant, and the dangers of sexual activity for her at 16 are much greater than they are for any young man. I want now to talk about love and the need of all of us for affection. When the Bill was introduced I was very moved when one member of the House who was supporting the Bill made that very point. It is one that has stayed with me all the way through the debate. If we have a need for affection and can find fulfilment of that need only with someone of the same sex the law should not deny that fulfilment. Certainly, some people choose to be celibate, and that is their choice; but why should the law call a criminal a person who can find love only with a member of the same sex? Let us be clear: from all the evidence we heard at the committee-and I, as a member of the former Statutes Revision Committee, heard more submissions than any other member apart from the member for Wellington Central-no clear evidence was ever given one way or the other about why people are homosexual. It appears that at any given time or place about 10 percent of the population is always homosexual. If people are not to be regarded as criminals the law must be changed. I do not believe that the law makes any difference to the number of heterosexuals or homosexuals in society. I do not believe that if we pass the Bill there will suddenly, overnight, be more homosexuals practising their sexuality. The reason for wanting to change the law for all adult males over the age of 16 is humanity and equity. We no longer want those people to feel that they are criminals, or to put them in such a position that they may be blackmailed. We want them to be able to continue being good, upright members of the community, without any fear or discrimination. I strongly support the Bill and I urge members to vote for the third reading, particularly if they initially made a commitment to decriminalisation. It is important for members to understand why one group in our society should not be looked upon as criminals, and should not be liable to be jailed. It is important that members vote for the Bill, even if they do not feel comfortable about the age of consent. I urge members to think seriously about what they are doing to that section of our society if they leave those people branded as criminals. Passing the Homosexual Law Reform Bill, now an amendment to the Crimes Act, is something we can do to help our fellow members of society feel accepted. It is very sad that so many homosexual men in our society still feel pressurised into marriage. RICHARD NORTHEY (Eden): In rising to support the third reading of the Bill, I take my last chance to appeal to members to support what is only a recognition of basic human rights. The most basic of human rights is surely the ability to express love and affection to others in the way that is natural, that is derived from a person's basic being. Someone once asked me what one calls men who love one another, and the answer is, of course, Christians. I have been amazed to find that significant sections of the Christian church in the community oppose the Bill, which is basically about love and affection. I also realise that most churches and most Christian people in the community support the Bill because they respect the rights of people made and born in the image of the Creator to be able to express their natural integrity and natural affection. They reject the views of a minority of people who do not accept the right of others to have different views and to be able to behave in a way repugnant to some people. I find repugnant the economic activities of many people and the way they oppress others, yet there are still laws that allow that to happen. It is appalling that we have allowed to remain for so long a law that denies people the right to love, companionship, and affection. Such an attitude is derived from the same root as racism, the fear many people have of the disabled, and religious bigotry. People who have complained about the anger displayed by gay people in some meetings when their basic nature has been attacked and despised can understand the reaction as being similar to the reaction we see on television screens each day. In South Africa there are people who have been oppressed for two or three generations. Gay people in our community have been oppressed for longer than that, and the change is long overdue. There has been much debate about the causes and nature of homosexuality. One of the clearest statements on that matter was made by 200 leading health professionals after a conference at the Wellington medical school: "We are sure that homosexuality is not an illness or a disease. It is a state of being, in terms of sexual orientation. The expression of homosexual orientation is part of the expected sexual expression in any community, and is part of the normal distribution of sexuality. Homosexuals do not become homosexual through either seduction or habit. Like heterosexuals, they are drawn to their sexual orientation by their own feelings, often most unwillingly. To refuse to accept and understand this process is shutting one's eyes to part of the natural expression of sexuality." I appeal to members who from their own upbringing and natural expression of their feelings find homosexual orientation and activity repugnant to try - if they can step down from the position of power and authority over others that they have by virtue of being in Parliament-to put themselves in the position of powerlessness that is experienced by many homosexual people who are trying to express the basic derived orientation that is as natural to them as is heterosexuality to others. Concern has been expressed about the age of consent, particularly by the member for Rotorua, who said that 16 is too low for boys. I agree with the member for Glenfield that if 16 is too low for boys it is too low for girls. However, I have not heard the member for Hauraki or any of the other members who are opposed to the Bill suggest an amendment to raise the age of consent generally. In fact, we have laws that say people can get married at 16 and that women can get pregnant at 16 - that is an event that certainly affects the rest of their lives much more profoundly than an isolated homosexual encounter. We have strong evidence that many young men have homosexual experiences and activities around the age of 16 but most later become confirmed heterosexuals. It is precious to advocate a different age of consent. It is absurd and illogical, and 16 is the only appropriate age. Setting a higher age would mean that at the time when they are unsure of their sexuality people would be subject to being hunted down by the police and by other members of society, and would be subjected to a penalty, which, I remind members, is up to 14 years' imprisonment. That is a longer term than most people get for murder and longer than people get for inflicting lasting physical damage through beating up others. People have said that they love the sinner and not the sin, but have then suggested that people should be locked up for 14 years. That is intolerable. The change is long overdue. Concern has been expressed about the effect of a law change on the spread of AIDS, yet evidence has been given from the Department of Health, the AIDS Foundation, and notable overseas experts that it is ignorance, fear, and the failure to be able to communicate with people who engage in occasional homosexual activity that is the greatest danger to people within that gay community. To give some examples, Dr Pearl Mear is the chief of clinical microbiology in New York, she said and that New Zealand's laws and conservative attitudes against homosexuality are a major problem in trying to combat AIDS. Dr David Miller, clinical psychologist and leading researcher, said that the single most helpful action the Government could take is to legalise homosexuality. It is only in an atmosphere in which people are able to communicate the need for safe sexual activity that the spread of AIDS can be combated. There is clear evidence from the experience in New York and San Francisco that that is so. We were told that research in New York has shown that the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases among homosexuals has now dropped below the levels for heterosexuals, because contact with them after decriminalisation has ensured that they engage in safe sexual practices. A decrease is apparent also in Spain, where the law has set a relatively low equal age of consent. For both males and females Spain has the lowest incidence of AIDS in Europe. In South Australia, where homosexuality has been liberalised, there is little incidence of the disease; in fact, I do not think any cases have emerged there. The evidence shows that the spread of AIDS is most effectively combated by decriminalising the act, by giving people a sense of self-respect, enabling them to get information, and allowing them to live their lives free of the fear and bigotry they have been subjected to for more than a century. Hon. TONY FRIEDLANDER (New Plymouth): I move, That the question be now putHon. MARGARET SHIELDS (Minister of Customs): I support the third reading of the Bill. It is necessary to sort out what is being talked about with such important legislation. New Zealand is away behind most countries in the Western World in that legislation, but I hope we will catch up. The measure does not advocate any particular form of behaviour; it is about acceptance and tolerance. It is about facing up to the realities of New Zealand society. During the long process of the Bill there has been a lot of talk about Christianity and what Jesus Christ might have had to say about the Bill. Although many people do not attend church regularly, most have been brought up to have some understanding of the Christian religion and some understanding of Christian doctrine. Those who have thought about it at all, and who have studied the priorities that are placed on people in the Christian doctrine, know that the greatest of all the virtues is love-love in the sense of compassion and true acceptance of each other, and love for one another. It is not a qualified emotion; it is a real concern. If members of the House do not front up to that, they may have difficulty in fronting up to themselves. The member for Hauraki disputes the origin of homosexuality. He says that it is learnt behaviour, and, further, that as it is learnt it can be unlearnt. That becomes his justification for opposing the legislation, together with a rather strange reliance on a petition that has had more ballyhoo and doubt thrown on it than any petition brought before the House at any time in the past. I do not doubt the sincerity of the member for Hauraki. I do, however, disagree with him utterly and completely, and so does all the available scientific evidence. The origin of sexual preference is poorly understood. It is known that such preferences are determined at a very early age. Whether one is homosexual, heterosexual, or in some cases, bisexual, is not something that one chooses or that one could choose. It is patently ridiculous to suggest that. That point was well made by my colleague the Minister of Education. One does not choose one's sexuality, and I suggest that, if one could, few would choose the difficult, and at present illegal, path of the male homosexual. I know of no homosexuals who have not resisted the reality of their preference, who have not tried to deny that reality, and who have not suffered enormous pain in acknowledging that preference-first to themselves, and then, if they have the courage, to their family and friends. I should like to talk about the petition because, to my astonishment, and to the astonishment of many others, it is still being bandied around as though it has some kind of factual basis. I personally checked the signatures that were attributed to my electorate on that petition, and I found the petition to be grossly inaccurate. The petition is not something that I would place one iota of faith in if I were a social scientist or a statistician. Alongside my own referendum, which was sent to every voter in my electorate, I placed the results of a Heylen poll that was conducted, coincidentally, at around the same time. The results were entirely consistent, and within the margin of error. I am therefore inclined to think that the evidence from that Heylen poll is probably much more reliable than any evidence from the petition. It shows that two-thirds of New Zealanders support the legalisation of homosexual behaviour, and that about 30 percent-the figure varied depending on the part of the country-were opposed to it. The House ought to know that. Some of the people who came to me - and I know they came to others also-opposing the Bill cited experiences that they themselves had had. Those people were more likely to be males. They cited experiences of being accosted by male homosexuals as young men. The curious thing is that it seems to have had no effect on their behaviour, and that again gives the lie to the suggestion by the member for Hauraki that homosexuality is somehow learnt behaviour, or behaviour that one can, somehow, catch. It is quite clear that contact with male homosexuals does not change orientation. It is annoying, in much the same way as it is annoying for a female to be accosted by a male heterosexual making unwanted advances. Most sexual harassment involves male heterosexuals harassing young women. Why do people spend so much time worrying about homosexual behaviour that is clearly not changing the orientation of those being attacked, but merely annoying them in much the same way as all unwanted sexual advances annoy? Like the member for St. Kilda, I do not have any sons, and, like him, I have two daughters. That does not mean that I do not care about young men, nor does it mean that my own family would be immune to the direct consequences of an unjust law that discriminates against male homosexuals and that, in come cases, forces deceit and ill advised attempts at going straight. In those cases, going straight is an extraordinary way to describe living a lie. I know of several cases of young women entering into marriages with young men, quite sincerely. The young men have been unable to front up to a lifetime of being a male homosexual, and have attempted to be heterosexual. It has not worked, and the tragedy has been enormous. I suggest that most New Zealanders support the Bill, and that most New Zealanders will be immensely relieved when the third reading is completed and the legislation is on the statute book. All objective evidence supports that view. It has been a torrid and divisive debate. The law needs to be changed, and tolerance must be shown for those who differ from ourselves and for those, both inside and outside the House, whose opinions differ from ours. I ask all members to extend that tolerance to those who at present are discriminated against by law for no other reason than that they are different from ourselves, and who, at the moment, cause no harm to any other human being. Hon. WARREN COOPER (Otago): I move, That the question be now put. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think it would be inappropriate to put the question at this stage. There have been eight speakers, and it is a debate in which many members have become involved. The debate has generated a great deal of support and opposition, and I do not think the closure would be appropriate at this time. EDDIE ISBEY (Papatoetoe): I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The issue is a conscience issue, and affects everyone individually. I believe that in the spirit of the House it is wrong for any member to ask for the motion to be put. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. JIM ANDERTON (Sydenham): It is important for the House to make clear to the New Zealand people what the Bill will not do. The Bill will not change the laws about marriage; it will not change the laws on adoption; it will not change the laws about the custody of children; it will not change what is taught in the schools; it will not allow anyone to molest anyone else; it will not force an employer to employ a gay person who is not suitable for the job; it will not stop people from being able to criticise or preach against gay people - and that should please some members. Morality is a human thing: it does not depend on religion, on the church, or even on God. Morality, which some people call conscience, makes us aware of the peculiar psychological phenomenon that gives us all a sense of obligation to do what is right rather than what is wrong. Exercising one's conscience, therefore, is not just a matter of doing what one is told, even by God; it involves understanding, and knowing what one is doing and why. Knowing what one is doing is being human, and that is the first and best reason for doing it. What is at issue and at stake in the homosexual law reform debate? Those in favour of reform do not want criminal sanctions to be retained for use against persons over 16 years of age who engage in sexual activity in private and by mutual consent, whether they be homosexuals or heterosexuals. Those who oppose reform want all sexual activity between males, of whatever age, whether or not by mutual consent, to be a criminal offence. A good deal of the heat in the debate has been generated by those - many of whom profess strong Christian beliefs-who are outraged by the morality, or immorality, even sinfulness, of male homosexual behaviour. That no criminal sanctions exist for female homosexual behaviour is a point on which most are silent. Is it the job of politicians to pass laws that deliver moral judgments on members of our society? Some Christians quote the Bible as their source for saying yes, but the Bible is a dangerous document from which to quote. Christ Himself did not have a high regard for either lawyers or lawmakers. "Unless your justice gives fuller measure than the Scribes and Pharisees", He said, "you shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven." To those anxious to rush forward to judge the behaviour of others and to pass laws on their behaviour, He made an offer, which the mob of his day refused: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."GRAEME LEE: Read the rest of the Bible. JIM ANDERTON: Nowhere in Christian teaching can I find any suggestion that one's values should be determined by public pressure, by referenda, or by the weight of numbers on a petition. Pontius Pilate held a referendum. He knew that his prisoner was innocent, but, as the recognised lawmaker of his time and place, he believed that he could wash his hands of the decision of the mob, and stand aside and allow those with the weight of numbers on their side to have their way. Does the member for Hauraki want to be on the side of Pontius Pilate, or on the side of those who would judge, on its merits and on the conscience of those in the House, whether it is appropriate to pass the legislation? Members cannot wash their hands as Pontius Pilate did. We must decide. My view is that the possibility of objective, well informed, as well as unemotional, consideration of the matter has been shown to be difficult if not well night impossible. My mail, and I am sure the mail of many members, is evidence of that difficulty, and some of the contributions to the debate over the many months-if not 1½ years-have proved that point. I remind the House, as other members who have spoken tonight have done, that, with regard to clauses 4 and 5, it has barely been noted that the term of imprisonment for indecent assault or anal intercourse on a boy under the age of 16 years is imprisonment for between 6 years and 14 years, which is the same range of sentence usually reserved for murderers. What punishment do those opposing the Bill want? Do they want more punishment than for the crime of murder, and, if they do, what are the implications? The member for Napier mentioned the attitude of the Catholic Church towards the Bill, and, by implication, indicated that there was some kind of universal or catholic agreement amongst Christians and Catholics on the matter. In 1956, 30 years ago, before the reform of the law against homosexuality in Britain, a committee was set up by the Catholic Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster to draw up a report on the Catholic position regarding homosexuality and the law in that country. The report submitted to the British Government by the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster made the following conclusions: "Attempts by the State to enlarge its authority and invade the conscience of the individual, however high-minded, always fail and frequently do positive harm. It should accordingly be clearly stated that penal sanctions are not justified for the purpose of attempting to restrain sins against sexual morality committed in private by responsible adults. They" - that is, criminal sanctions-"should be discontinued because, (1) they are ineffectual; (2) they are inequitable in their application; (3) they involve punishments disproportionate to the offence committed; and (4) they undoubtedly give scope for blackmail and other forms of corruption." With all due respect to my colleague the member for Napier, I would suggest that the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster knows a good deal more about the theological position of the Catholic Church than the member for Napier. That is a serious and considered reflection of the Catholic Church of Great Britain, which supported the reform of homosexual laws in that country. No one could accuse the committee of being extravagantly radical or wanting to hasten the demise of Western civilisation or any other such claim. The decriminalisation of homosexuality does not require that one approves of or wants to promote homosexual behaviour. Moral and personal condemnation are compatible with a human activity being legal. It does not mean that one agrees with it, and that is the essence of the Bill. The Bill is an attempt to achieve equity. I conclude by quoting from a letter I received from a former London policeman now living in New Zealand. He wrote: “In the matter of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill there appears to be no mention of who does the arresting if consenting adult homosexuality in private remains a crime. Will it be members of Parliament, or a religious group, or a vigilante squad, or the police? Before the English law changed I was a young policeman ordered into the dark streets and the private recesses of London to hunt and arrest homosexuals. My actions were the immoral act; their crime-their sexuality; my shame-that I had no brief to crush the sensibilities of fellow human beings. To criminalise private morality turns us off the steep path to civilisation." That is what would happen if the law were left as it is. That would be reliance on a law that could not be implemented. that would bring the law into disrepute, and that is something to which the House should not be a party. Dr BILL SUTTON (Hawke's Bay). There must be many people listening to the debate who are astonished at the capacity of members of Parliament to continue discussing this important issue for 18 months. There are many things that should still be said in the third reading debate, and there are many members who wish to be heard on the matter who have not yet had the opportunity to have their final say. I deplore any attempt to railroad the House into voting on the third reading before all those who wish to speak on the Bill have had an opportunity to do so. The member for Rotorua advanced an interesting argument. He was one of the 22 members who supported the attempt to discharge and recommit the Bill in order to reconsider the age of consent. He told the House tonight that he believes that the law relating to homosexual acts should be reformed, but that he finds he has such difficulty with the Bill as it stands that he could not support its third reading. He particularly objected, first, to the age of consent; and, secondly, to the manner in which the Bill had been dealt with by the House up until this point. I strongly disagree with him about how the House has dealt with the Bill. The select committee that was given the responsibility of conducting hearings on the detailed evidence sat for an unprecedented number of hours, and heard an unprecedented number of oral submissions. I do not believe that simply because the committee did not hear every group that wished to appear before it and endlessly repeat the same arguments, and because it did not wish to hear all of the petitions that had been presented, that establishes that it did not give the Bill adequate consideration at that stage. During the debate on the reporting back I told the House that I wanted to hear a cogent argument that there had been evidence to be presented to the select committee that was significantly different from the other facts placed before it. I invited members such as the member for Rotorua, who were criticising the select committee, to give examples of evidence that should have been heard, but they were not able to do so. At the same time, I asked the members supporting the reporting back to prove to me that everything had been done in the select committee that should have been done. Once again, they were not able to put up convincing arguments. I was forced to abstain from voting on the reporting back, and I left the precincts of the House in order to do so. That select committee gave a great deal of time to consideration of the Bill, and the house has also given a great deal of time to it. It is true that we have not yet devoted many hours of debate to the third reading, but we certainly did to the earlier stages. It is an interesting reflection on the tactics being used that, whereas in the earlier stages of the Bill its proponents were moving that the debate be abbreviated and the motion put, and the opponents of it steadfastly maintained that further argument should be considered, the tables have been turned tonight. The opponents of the Bill seem to be determined to push it to a final vote, and the other members do not wish it to be concluded until they have had an opportunity to speak. What we have had - and it has come out in the earlier stages of the debate-is two organised groups of members: those who are wholeheartedly in favour of the initial reform put forward by the member for Wellington Central, and are clearly an organised group of people with coherent and logical arguments who were able to marshal their supporters; and those who are totally opposed to any reform of the law relating to homosexual acts and want to keep New Zealand locked into a position that has been relinquished by almost every other Western democracy-they also were an organised group of M. P. s who clearly marshalled their supporters and told them which way to vote on every division. The only thing that has saved the debate, the Bill, and the people of New Zealand from having a decision foisted on them one way or another that would not command majority support has been that neither of the organised groups has an absolute majority. Neither group has been able to have its way with any certainty. If there were a vote on the third reading at this stage no member could be confident of the final outcome. I am sure that the organisers-the numbers men-have done their jobs; I am sure that they are optimistic that they hold the edge; but I am also sure that they cannot guarantee the outcome. That means that there is a group of members whose votes on the issue will be critical, and I want to hear some of them speak. I want to hear more of them than just the member for Rotorua and myself explaining the reasoning they intend to apply in the final voting; there is much more to be heard from them. Since the earlier stages were debated there have been some interesting developments, and they are worth considering. For example, a recent survey has been published on where the people of New Zealand stand on the issue. It is interesting that almost 64 percent of the population now supports reform. That is a significant increase on the proportion-57 percent-that supported reform 18 months ago. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, under Speaker's rulings 41/1, 41/3, and 41/5. The member on his feet is proceeding on a much wider basis than is customary at a third reading. I quote Speaker's ruling 41/1: "The exact boundaries of the narrower third reading debate” - and so on. I suggest that the broad canvas that the member for Hawke's Bay is attempting to paint is well beyond the boundaries encompassed in the Speaker's rulings to which I have referred. Dr BILL SUTTON: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I should like you to be guided on the matter by the precedent set by earlier rulings during the course of this long debate. It has ranged far and wide, and it has generally been accepted that on a broad issue such as this-a moral issue and a private member's Bill-considerable latitude is allowed to members to explain their reasoning. Therefore I do not feel that I or any other member should be constrained to speak narrowly at this stage. TREVOR MALLARD: It is important to consider Speaker's ruling 41/3: “Debate on the third reading is more restricted than it is on the second reading." - and especially the second sentence: "It is limited to matters contained in the Bill as it comes from the Committee." The implication is also that the debate in the Committee can be gone over, and it is important that we do that, and remember that 7 months were spent during that Committee stage considering a wide range of issues, many of which are now being reconsidered. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The matter can be dealt with in this way. It is perfectly correct to note the Speakers' rulings that generally apply in the third reading stage. However, I have to say that this is not a typical third reading debate. I have been aware that members have ranged beyond the narrow considerations usually given in the third reading to matters that pertain to the debate that took place in the Committee. I have not been in the chair all evening. However, during the time I have been in the chair I have been listening to material that I believe comes within Speaker's ruling 41/2: "The third reading debate should be in the nature of a summing up". I take it that members are attempting to sum up their views of a long debate that has taken place over several months, and I think it is proper to allow them some latitude. Dr BILL SUTTON: One of the most interesting features of the debate in the Committee stage was the tactical manoeuvre adopted when Part I of the Bill-which has effectively become the Bill for the third reading-was not amended, other than to make an exception for the armed forces. I spoke against that amendment, and I voted against it, because I believe it is illogical to have one set of criminal activities for the armed forces, and another for the general population. That can readily lead to illogical discrimination amongst people who are in the armed forces, people who have recently left the armed forces, or people who are about to join the armed forces. I believe that the amendment was passed purely as a compromise by one particular group of members, who felt that it was necessary to compromise. What was not passed was any attempt to alter the age of consent for homosexual activities or for sodomy. Those votes revealed an unfortunate alliance between those members who were wholly in favour of reform and those who were totally opposed to it, which resulted in those members being out on a limb and voting by themselves. Those members have established again tonight that they cannot command a majority in the House. There is no doubt that a majority in the House could easily be commanded by those members who sought a compromise combining with either major faction-those who are opposed to reform or those who are in favour of reform. Because that group of members who sought a compromise did not enter into discussion with either the opponents of the Bill or the supporters of it they failed to find an accommodation. They failed in their responsibility to bring forward reform legislation that could command a clear majority in the House and in the country. ROGER McCLAY (Waikaremoana): I move, That the question be now put. TREVOR MALLARD (Hamilton West): First I condemn the loss of Part II of the Bill during the Committee stage. In voting against it the House lost the opportunity to pass a law that stated that, no matter what a person's sexual orientation, he could work and live wherever he wanted. The House decided that that was not appropriate. I believe that the decision was not a good one. For most of the hearings of the select committee I was in the chair. I went to 26 sessions over 70 hours in that committee, and the proceedings were tedious repetition. Many groups made the same point, not making it well, and, at the later stages, not adding information for the House or the committee. The most moving part of the select committee hearings was in Auckland, where we heard several confidential submissions. Two of those submissions were from women whose husbands were homosexual. Both the men knew before they were married that they were gay. They had really believed that getting married would mean that they could work through their sexual orientation, and that not only would they become heterosexual but that they would be happily heterosexual. Of course, in both cases it did not happen, because it does not happen that way. The tragedy of one of those cases was that the first time one of the women became aware that her husband was gay-and this was after many years of marriage-was when the police told her that he had been arrested for a sexual act in a public toilet. That is an indication of the way the law works to push people, first, into marriages that are totally inappropriate, and, secondly, into casual sexual relationships that I abhor. At the select committee we also heard from several medical experts. With one exception - a person holding a minor position in an Auckland hospital - those who came before the committee were unanimous in the opinion that it was appropriate to decriminalise homosexual activity. The select committee made some major changes to the Bill. I heard it said tonight that there is a group of M. P. s who are unwilling to compromise on the Bill, and that it is being pushed through. I want to make it clear that that is not correct. During the Committee stage two substantial changes were made. The first was moved, I think inappropriately, by my colleague the member for Island Bay, as Minister of Defence. It made a major change in the application of the law to the armed forces. The second major change was the decision to drop Part II - the part that had regard for the human rights of people of different sexual orientation. It protected not only homosexual men and lesbians but also heterosexuals. It meant that the sauna parlour operator could not say: "I am not employing you because you are not gay." That point needs to be remembered. There were also some minor changes. I moved an amendment, and although some people regarded it as insignificant I regard it as significant from at least one point of view-it gained the unanimous support of the Committee. That amendment tightened the law on homosexual activity with intellectually handicapped people. I thought the Bill was deficient in that regard and that it was one of two matters that deserved change, and the Committee agreed to change it. The Bill not only affects homosexual relationships. Even as it is amended, it also affects anal intercourse. Anal intercourse is an act that is carried out regularly, so the Committee was told, by about 50 percent of homosexual couples. We were also told that if not a majority then a very large minority of heterosexual couples have at some stage in their relationship, if not regularly, experimented in activities that include those we are discussing tonight. It is my belief that the Bill is inappropriately named. On the question of AIDS I want to quote Dr Paul Goldwater, a senior lecturer at the Auckland medical school, the person I believe to be New Zealand's expert on that subject. He said that some people are now using AIDS as a justification for amending the age upwards and voting against the Bill. He said: "It assumes that legal prohibition stops homosexuals from practising. There is no evidence to support this claim that I am aware of. In fact, there are many reasons to believe the current criminal provisions have no effect at all on the incidence of homosexual acts. I believe legal prohibition merely drives the homosexual person into a covert and closeted existence. It is quite impossible to stop the spread of any disease effectively under such circumstances." I want Parliament to consider carefully what it is doing. I appeal to the House to hear all the members who wish to speak in the debate. I was one of the members alongside the member for Whangarei in the lobby opposing the closure on the second reading, because I believe that at important stages of a Bill all members have the right to tell their electorates and the country what their view is. During the second reading I was denied by many of my colleagues my right to state my position. I support the Bishop of Hamilton, Bishop Gaines, in his view that legislators have to work hard to know the difference between morality and legality. BILL DILLON (Hamilton East): The issue being debated has brought out both the best and the worst in the House, not only in the speeches that have been made but also in the mail that members have received and in the incidents that have taken place outside Parliament. I speak with some 25 years of experience as a criminal lawyer in a provincial High Court centre, as a person of strong Christian beliefs, and as a practising Roman Catholic who stood down as the chairman of the cathedral parish council when selected to stand for Parliament. I also voluntarily stood down as a leader at Sunday mass when the Bill came before the House. I did that because I did not believe that my stance should divide the cathedral parish. I am one of those who regularly attend something that the people of New Zealand may not be aware of-regular prayer breakfasts held at 8 a. m. in the Beehive. I share that custom with the member for Hauraki. It is important that those credentials and my background should be known in order to lend validity to the stand I take. I apologise for not being able to attend the prayer breakfast this morning, as I was still coming from Hamilton on a flight that did not arrive in Wellington in time. The Bill sets out to decriminalise homosexuality; it has been promoted by its opponents as one that will legalise it. However, the important issue is that the weight of current medical research indicates that homosexuality is an orientation, not an illness that can be cured, and that in most cases the orientation is established very early in life-probably before the age of 5 years. The orientation towards people of the same rather than the opposite sex is found in 5 percent to 10 percent of a given population. The Bill would allow those people the opportunity to express their orientation without being discriminated against. On occasion I chaired the select committee hearing the Bill, and it dealt with more than 1200 submissions. Further, if the petition that was presented to Parliament was to be taken at face value, my electorate is vitally at risk over the issue. The total number of names on the Hamilton East roll is 20 829. I was told that the petition in my electorate contained 20 299 signatures, which would amount to an amazing 97. 25 percent of the electorate. That is not an acceptable form of lobby, and it is certainly not believable. A Heylen poll conducted in June of last year recorded 61 percent in favour of reform. More recently that figure has climbed to 64 percent. However, as a result of the publication of the petition figures for Hamilton East, Professor Poole of the University of Waikato undertook to check the poll. He conducted a random survey of 677 people in Hamilton East from 19 to 21 September. His result showed that only 37 percent signed the petition. The names, not only on the main petition but on supplementary petitions affecting the Hamilton-Waikato area, have been carefully and closely checked. The results of those checks have not previously been made known, either to the House or to the press. They have been made known to private individuals who have asked me about them, but I believe they are important. Of the 20,829 people on the Hamilton East roll, those identified as having signed the petition number 3193-as opposed to the alleged 20,299. Of that number, there were 218 duplicates, 197 signed twice, 16 signed 3 times, 4 signed 4 times, and 1 assiduous person signed 5 times. I think it is important that the credibility of the figures should be known, because my stance is that I am in favour of the Bill. I am in favour of the decriminalising of homosexuality. I am certainly not personally in favour of homosexuality, but I do not believe that New Zealand law should discriminate against those of that orientation. At the time of the second reading, I expressed reservations about the age of consent being 16. I still have those reservations. I believe that at another time it might be possible to have the age of consent altered. However, in contrast to the member for Rotorua, if the choice is 16 or no reform, I am in favour of the Bill rather than of its defeat. That is a serious choice for me. It is one that I do not take lightly, but it is one that I believe, in principle, must be mine because-age 16 or 18-the element of discrimination is so abhorrent that it is important that the reform go ahead. NEILL AUSTIN (Bay of Islands): I move, That the question be now put. Mr SPEAKER: I am becoming increasingly disposed to accept the closure, because relatively few of the third reading speeches I have heard conform with the requirements of a third reading speech. I am also disposed to accept it because the result is not predictable, as it would be if party matters were involved. In a true sense, the House has the matter in its own hands. I am prepared to listen to one further speech, and then it is my intention, if the House so wishes, that the strength of the opinion of the House be tested. Rt. Hon. BOB TIZARD (Minister of Energy): This has been the longest debate on a Bill in all my time in the House, but I must say that it has been the most divisive Bill-public or private-that I have heard debated during that time. I suggest that it has been even more divisive than the debate on the abolition of capital punishment. It is clear that there has been more emotion, and more misdirected emotion, in relation to the present Bill than in relation to any other. I know that there are some strictures about the form of the debate. I shall concentrate on the Bill in the form in which it came from the Committee of the whole House. That seems to be the nub of the problem. There is now only a Crimes Amendment Bill, containing a very limited part of what was originally intended to be a much wider Bill. All the Bill will effectively do is decriminalise homosexual acts between consenting adults-adults being defined as persons, male or female, above the age of 16 years. Members must accept the Bill in that form. If we do not, we are being asked to legislate for morality rather than for or against a criminal offence. We have heard the views of many people, many of them earnest and well-meaning, some of them well intended, but still it is private morality that has been expressed. We are not looking at the needs of our society. I stress that there are more than enough divisive issues in society today without adding one as divisive as this. Tolerance has been less evident throughout the debate than it has been in most of the other debates on private members' Bills that I can remember-specifically, tolerance of another's point of view. The member for Hamilton East stressed that he had reached his view not because of any personal choice, but because of his need to take cognisance of the affairs of society. That is why I think that members should support what is essentially a Crimes Amendment Bill. We are dealing with what would remain in the statute book as a crime, but the debate has centred on morality. I wonder whether members really appreciate the changes in morality in the world today, and the changes that have taken place in our society over a period of time in relation to the difference between what is regarded as a crime and what is regarded as a sin to be morally condemned. I do not think the House should have any part in moral condemnation. That is very much a matter for the churches and for the people who believe in them and belong to them. I am very much in favour of people living up to the standards of morality that they profess for themselves, but I have no concern whatever with sticking those moral judgments down somebody else's throat. I remind Opposition members that there are societies today for whom New Zealand is prepared to change some of its laws. I refer specifically to Muslim countries. New Zealand is prepared to change its practices in the freezing works to conform with Muslim views, but it does not accept Muslim religious views on personal morality. Adultery and fornication are at present punished in two Muslim states by stoning the practitioners to death. The women are the more usual victims because the evidence is often more readily available than it is when the woman is simply found in flagrante delicto. We must also look at our own past society, in which the strictly religious could condone the execution of a child for striking its parent. Those are extreme instances, although in the course of the debate I have head the reasons why people fought in recent conflicts and heard of the values they thought they were protecting or fighting against. Members should certainly not be seeking at present to limit the actions of consenting adults in private, because that is all that the Bill is concerned with as it comes before the House for its third reading. The member for Rotorua alleged that the Bill's opponents were not given a full hearing of their point of view at the select committee. That may well have been so, but if he fixed his voting patterns on the side of those whose views were not fully heard in select committees there would have been no National Development Bill, no State Services Conditions of Employment Bill, and much of the trade union legislation passed in the previous Parliament would not have been passed. The Bill has received much discussion on its introduction, in the select committee, in the second reading, in the Committee stage, and now in the third reading. Supporters of the Bill are having more to say in the third reading, although its opponents had the most to say in the Committee stage. There has been ample opportunity for most members to express their point of view at some time, but those who have expressed their point of view have not shown much conviction. While some of the evidence that was examined may have caused people to change their minds discussion in the House and in the Committee stage has not. It has tended to harden attitudes, and to divide the groups more clearly. In summary, I stress that, as the member for Napier said, without realising what he had said, we should love the sinner; even if we recognise his actions as being sinful, we have to tolerate the existence of that sinner. I would not like to be judged by anyone else in the House, and I wonder how many members would like to have me judge them. One member said that he represented the voice of conservatism. I am afraid that that member often identifies conservatism with rabidity. I do not think personal representation of rabidity is needed in a debate such as this. Therefore, let members have a little of what is said to be the Christian virtue of charity; let us have better view of those we might consider to be weaker than ourselves. I certainly have no sympathy for homosexual practices, but that is my personal view. What consenting adults do in terms of what remains in the Bill will remain a sin in the eyes of some, but, I hope, not a crime in the eyes of most people. Hon. BILL BIRCH (Franklin): I move, That the question be now put. Mr SPEAKER: The question is, that the question be now put. PHILIP WOOLLASTON (Nelson): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to question the ruling that is implicit in your acceptance of that motion, but I do want to draw a matter to your attention and seek your guidance. I have been seeking the call for approximately 1½ hours, the member for Papatoetoe has been doing so for a similar time, and the Minister of Social Welfare for a slightly shorter time. When you resumed the chair some time ago I drew it to your attention, in a brief exchange, that I was seeking the call. On the present occasion I did not call against the member for Wellington Central. I started to rise to seek the call, saw her rise, and knowing that you had told the House that you were disposed perhaps to consider the closure - Mr SPEAKER: I have been listening with some patience to the member. It undoubtedly appears that he is questioning my ruling that the matter should be put in the hands of the House. As I pointed out to the House previously, the outcome is not a foregone conclusion as it is in party matters. The question is entirely in the hands of the House. If the House decides that the question should not be put, the debate will continue. I am not prepared to accept any point of order that implies a contravention of my decision that the motion should be put. That will not be opposed. FRAN WILDE (Wellington Central): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: What remedy does the member want to raise? FRAN WILDE: It is not a remedy. Mr SPEAKER: Why is the member raising a point of order? FRAN WILDE: I want to know whether the mover of the Bill is entitled to a right of reply. Mr SPEAKER: The mover does not have that right when the House is deciding whether the question should be put. Hon. DAVID CAYGILL: But the House hasn't decided. Mr SPEAKER: What remedy does the member seek? Hon. DAVID CAYGILL (Minister of Trade and Industry): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker, and I do so with great reluctance. I ask you to reconsider the ruling you have given. Mr SPEAKER: That concern might well be appropriate in party matters, but in the present matter I would defy anyone to predict with certainty what the House will decide. I will put the matter over to the House to decide. I will not allow any further attempt to delay it, as I see members are trying to do. By their so doing I presume that they may have a greater knowledge of what the decision of the House will be than I have. I am aware of a definite attempt to delay the matter, and I will not allow it. The House divided on the question, That the question be now put. Ayes 42 Angus; Austin, H. N.; Austin, W. R.; Banks; Birch; Bolger; Burdon; Colman; Cooper; Cox; East; Falloon; Friedlander; Gerard; Graham; Gray; Jones; Kidd; Knapp; Luxton; McClay; McKinnon; McLean; McTigue; Marshall, D. W. A.; Maxwell, R. F. H.; Morrison; Peters; Richardson; Rodger; Smith; Storey; Tapsell; Terris; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Townshend; Upton; Wellington; Young, T. J.; Young, V. S. Tellers: Braybrooke; Lee. Noes 43 Anderton; Austin, M. E.; Bassett; Batchelor; Boorman; Burke; Butcher; Caygill; Cullen; Dillon; Douglas; Dunne; Elder; Fraser; Gair; Goff; Gregory; Hercus; Hunt; Isbey; Keall; King; Lange; Marshall, C. R.; Matthewson; Maxwell, R. K.; Moyle; Neilson; Northey; O'Flynn; O'Regan; Palmer; Prebble; Scott; Shields; Shirley; Sutton, J. R.; Sutton, W. D.; Tizard; Wetere; Woollaston. Tellers: Mallard; Wilde. Majority against: 1 Debate interrupted. The House adjourned at 11. 06 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_third_reading_2_july_1986.html. Please note that this document may contain errors or omissions - you should always refer back to the primary source material to confirm content.