Parliament: Committee of the Whole House - Homosexual Law Reform Bill (20 November 1985) - part 1

This page features computer generated text of the source audio - it is not a transcript. The Artificial Intelligence Text is provided to help users when searching for keywords or phrases. The text has not been manually checked for accuracy against the original audio and will contain many errors. If you would like to help create a transcript, please volunteer to listen to the audio and correct the AI Text - get in contact for more details.

[00:00:00] This audio comes from the collections of the lesbian and gay archives of New Zealand. For more information visit leggins.org.nz. need [00:00:09] less delay [00:00:10] bigger I move that have been restrictions of the Committee of the Whole House, that it was consideration the homosexual reform bill that may consider the bill part by pop. The question is that in the instructions committee of a house, that the instruction be that the bill be considered part by [00:00:38] friend wild [00:00:39] pig, I just want [00:00:40] to tell a half of the member for hierarchy and I have consulted on this and we have reached an agreement that this would be a rational way of debating the committee [00:00:47] stages of the [00:01:00] Say state the question. The question is about in the instruction to the Committee of the Whole the instruction be that the bill be considered bypass those who are I [00:01:17] Mr. McKinnon [00:01:20] This is a debatable nation as it [00:01:23] was done aware that there has been a an arrangement between [00:01:27] the [00:01:28] journey government web two stands at one extreme of this other one actually one side of this particular issue and the member hierarchy. On the other side of the issue. There are quite a number of members in this chamber right now who are looking quite bewildered. Let's just say how many paths are in this bill. And I really think it's necessary I'm not suggesting for one minute but [00:01:50] I'm trying to prolong the thing. I made a decision I made the decision some time ago, I wouldn't even speak on it. [00:01:59] But I think as a as a member in this chamber was some responsibility on the side of the opposition. I think members should in the next couple of minutes have a chance to look at the bill as I have to do as individuals. Because this is not a party matter, it is a conscience matter and every member may have a different position on this particular bill as to whether it should be divided five by five. [00:02:25] And given [00:02:26] given the few minutes is required to do just that, I think we'd be in a better position to [00:02:33] vote on it. [00:02:34] Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm informed by the three parts of the three. [00:02:40] For now that there are the bill is divided between pot one is the short title to the balance of those clauses, and part three of the human rights [00:02:53] short title in part one, so the intention of [00:02:56] those moving at the Order, order right [00:03:00] I do realize that there is quite some validity in the [00:03:09] opposition senior opposition with contention here. So that although I must not involve myself in the debate, it is my duty to look after the interests of all our members. And I would suggest that it would serve the interests of all members, if one or two people got up and draw attention to what was involved in each of the parts and clauses, and gave some suggestion to the house as they thought this debate should be conducted. Now, I'm not doing this in the hope for longing. In fact, I'm doing in the hope of avoiding a prolonged debate about a procedural manner. But I think that the house does not want need to know exactly what was involved in this and why this procedures seem to be advantageous by those configure? They are. [00:04:04] Really and conclusion It seems to me that [00:04:06] those that promoted this idea may give consideration to allowing the debate to begin on the short title. And having signaled in advance they wish to debate subsequent Pat, Pat bipap, it could then be moved after the short title of the balanced be moved handled path by that, [00:04:25] but that will not affect the short title [00:04:27] debate of In fact, that's an honor as a standalone debate. Mr. Speaker, the [00:04:34] Honorable Judge, Mr. Speaker, this is not a matter in which I have taken any direct interest, but I think I should say something about the procedure that the house might now wish to adopt. If the committee is going to consider this bill, [00:04:51] part by part it is necessary for [00:04:53] the house as a whole to give that instruction to the committee before the house goes in committee. Therefore, it is not practical to adopt [00:05:01] because that the senior opposition with has to do [00:05:06] it has to be done by the house as an instruction to the committee. [00:05:10] That's the first point. [00:05:12] The second point is that the structure of the bill does seem to lend itself to the sort of motion that is being suggested. It does that. For this reason that the divide on the short title on which each member will be entitled I think if there are no other members expecting the call to a total of four or five minute calls, each member this [00:05:39] five minute calls on tours one which [00:05:42] which ought to give any members of his house ample opportunity to say a great deal. I would think that that deals with the nuts and bolts of the bill but as the most general advice that the committee of the hall will have. The second the second part of the bill deals with pot with the crime And all a part one, as far as I can see deals with amendments to the Crimes Act and the criminality with which the substance of this debate has always been concerned. Now, if that part is dealt with again, each member will be entitled to for five minute calls on that path. And all amendments which will would members would want to move will be able to be moved and be able to be considered, does not definitely with any of that. [00:06:36] I don't think the secrets of the amendments will be changed the role, because what will happen is that the committee will vote on the amendments at the [00:06:43] at the aim [00:06:45] ml vote on them, I would think in the order [00:06:47] that they made the clauses of the path [00:06:50] and if that is the case, [00:06:52] they should be not logical difficulty involved in it a tool that and when they when the house is dealt with. That part of it, it was then move to the part two of the bill itself, which is the amendments to the Human Rights Commission. And and and that is to causes the [00:07:11] bill in a discreet manner quite separate from [00:07:14] the criminal provisions which available in part two now. [00:07:17] We are then left with a shaker. [00:07:19] And I think probably that the shedule would have to be dealt with separately. [00:07:27] Yes, [00:07:29] they are Romanian. [00:07:31] Mr. Speaker before I could pull it [00:07:35] over this this proposal, [00:07:36] I would need to have a clear reason for before me and before the house. Why we should restrict the discussion on clauses of the bill because, quite frankly, when measures government measures [00:07:53] move to be taken path by path. We know quite well. It does facilitate the past Job such measures [00:08:01] through the house. [00:08:03] Now, in this case, it is not a bill of a large number of clauses. Whereas another time when the house is considered a resolution such [00:08:14] as this, the bills have been managed bill [00:08:18] and the house as needed to make some progress on the intention of the government has been about in this case, Mr. Speaker, not only do we have a smaller bill, and as the deputy prime minister said, one that has we know to separate Ah, but it doesn't affect divided into two separate building binary because there are two acts that are being amended if both path in life circumstances and in the knowledge that there is widespread interest in the manner in which Parliament deals with this legislation. I believe that we may be unnecessarily pushing parliament. In the consideration of the committee stages of this piece of legislation. I like to point out that in Clause five in particular, there are a number of amendments and members were made made to have very clear in their mind during the committee stages, just which ones they would propose to support, and which ones I would propose reject the proposal for a new course by all lies, I think, Mr. Speaker, deserve the separate consideration of this house. And I do recall that perhaps the most difficult issues that members have to deal with when it comes to a number of amendments on a private member's bill, which is a constant issue, different stances that individuals or groups may take. [00:09:56] Now I haven't had all I know the house [00:09:59] wants to present When we do not want to have the committee stages with us for another three weeks, we want to make decision. It seems to me that there is some danger [00:10:10] in short circuiting the rights of members to speak to individual [00:10:16] clauses. If we follow the suggested course. [00:10:21] The Honorable George get, [00:10:24] Mr. Speaker, I have considered myself how best we might proceed with the stage of the bill. And I have had words with one or two people in this regard. It seems to me that the proposal before us does Mike imminent good thing, but I do believe to win the support of the house. The proposal needs to explain how the sequence of amendments would come before the House. Now I have in mind particularly Mr. Speaker, the question of changes in the question of age. Unless we adopt a process of elimination, on the matter of age, we could get ourselves into all sorts of trouble. May I give you an example? There is a proposal in the bill for an age of 16. I myself with supplementary order paper number seven have proposed 18. There is a proposal at 20. A different proposal give again that comes in at 5am at 20. Now, sir, l 16. is in the bill. Clearly the amendments will have to be put before the substantial clause in the bill. It seems to me that we should buy a process of elimination, work from a higher age by amendments down to the substandard proposal on the bill. And in this way, we will learn the mood of the house. If but in terms of the sequence in which the ESOP is one largest, we could in fact, I know I realized that I realized that the concern of members, I think some of whom perhaps have not considered this proposal before this debate right now, the concern of members is happily about the right to speak, but it's pappi about how they will have the right to make a choice, when the amendments come forward. Now, if we can be clear, if we can be clear that this and agree amongst ourselves, that the order, the order of choice is made available to members, according to ID sending order of age, then and these would all be taken in series on the completion of the debate at the end of Part Two, and the consequential amendments through the causes of path to would then follow I think, sir We might have the best solution that we can in this circumstance. [00:13:05] Yes, Mr. faders. This big I [00:13:09] like to make it playful normalcy and conventionally metal. [00:13:12] I believe that the closer should be debated close by laws. For example, I would like to have a shorter debate would like to say [00:13:20] that we have a debate and respect to, and this [00:13:23] little boy between 12 [00:13:24] and 16 years of age. I believe we should have a debate on this recent assault on boy by a man I believe Sir, we should have at the base on keeping price of resort to homosexual acts. And this is also in part one. Now, I understand my colleagues desire for a top five top five, but really, it's in the hands of proponents of this bill. If some of the clauses are out of place, [00:13:52] that is [00:13:54] that they should be rearranged for the convenience of the base, left him So suppose I read Right. [00:14:01] That's in the member for weren't unsettles hands and the government's here. But it's not for them to ask us to abandon the conventions of [00:14:12] the conventions that are attached to me every bill a pass through it purely because I may subscribe to a certain approach in respect of this bill. Now, certain this week, the path to I would like to know whether we're going to have the beta on the Human Rights Commission Act, discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation on being unlawful, that's close nine, and the schedule. Now there's a separate matters. [00:14:37] For the end of the day, I come back to this point, [00:14:40] if there are laws, clauses, which because of their placement and this bill, [00:14:46] create typically for I logical from logical [00:14:49] debate. That's for the movie from the for the member from openshift from learning to redesign now, rather than to ask members of the House Abandoned and asked us to abandon the convention. The tradition of discussing building this out late I'm opposes bill. But my for in moving of motion was to recognize the difficulties that house would otherwise get into and on. And, regrettably, the confusion that may follow in terms of not realizing that the substantial minimums apply to cause five that in the chronology of the chair haven't address causes. One of the time causes three enforcer, which perhaps hasn't been quite clearly indicated, referred to the age below 16, where fences can occur, and which, as far as I know, don't draw any amendments, perhaps is one small technical amendment, but otherwise they're not drawing any amendments. Now, sir, with the Standing of that point, cause fire therefore will be the important benchmark close. Now, so it was only my attempt to facilitate the chair by suggesting that those areas could be taken together. Now, so it could be addressed in other ways. My colleague from Telenor says the calls might be rearranged. So Bill, if they took the calls and three, four and five, there's a decision by the chair that would also make it possible. Certainly the point raised by member for North Shore in terms of addressing the amendments for the age benchmarks in decreasing order or decreasing age would be automatic, sir, would be automatic. So that points set aside. So so that's the reason and the present time the motion simply means that causes up to clause seven, in fact, is addressed within the motion. It will not preclude any discussion in fact, in mind Understanding they would allow the best result and I repeat, I am against the whole bill. [00:17:07] The question is that in the instruction to the committee, the instruction [00:17:17] instruction fee that the bill may be dealt the bill be dealt with in [00:17:25] those venues. I I have a contrary opinion will sign [00:17:32] the eyes have it [00:17:36] is division cold for [00:17:40] ringing the bell? Right, [00:17:52] the nose will go to the left patellas for the eyes. Friend loud and Lee and they tell us Hello Mr. Peters and he [00:18:04] tells the ringing in parliament building some all members to the chamber to vote in a division [00:18:10] that [00:18:14] motion be agreed to those who have the [00:18:18] eyes 35 [00:18:21] vanos 21 promotion will be agreed to unlock the door. I [00:18:31] declare the house in committee on the homosexual law reform bill. They, in the conduct of some has the committee will deal with a bill bipap. [00:18:50] Order they have some committee on the homosexual law reform bill. The question is that clause one. The short title [00:18:56] is then part of the bill. [00:19:01] A point of order Mr. Banks. Mr. Chairman, I understand pursuant to the standing orders that a member can take a call four times, three, three times. And is it your intention to take a call a subsequent call from a member? Once? First time callers have taken their option as it were? Or can they take them all at once? [00:19:26] Or how do you propose to do this? [00:19:28] Now the the situation is set out in the standing orders on page 219. On the short title of a bill or any amendment there to each member is entitled three speeches of five minutes It doesn't mean five or three consecutive speeches, five minutes if I understand the members question correctly, [00:19:45] that is what he is asking. [00:19:46] Now, I think that the main will be better for better not to be the main will be better not to seek a ruling on this question because I think that the the short title stages will be no different from any other and The way in which it will be treated well, I think evolve as the committee proceeds. Second, I think that it will be clear to the member how speaking rights are beaten to be determined, as the as the bill proceed, we don't have big invest. We don't have a situation where we normally do where two sides of the house debating the issue. So I will be relying on members to make it very clear that they are seeking the call from me. And I will determine the call on the basis previously set out in the in the matter that the village races in the handling of the bill, in previous stages. That's I think a precedent has been set in that regard. [00:20:46] So the question then, is that the short title here? [00:20:49] Dan Pappas, briber. Chairman, [00:20:51] Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt at all that this bill has divided us England is divided this nation, possibly Like No Other bill, it is even divided our churches, our communities, and in many cases, our own families. It is a bill which has brought out the best in some people, and regretfully the worst and others, but throughout our community as it is for resentment, anger, and in many, many cases, outright discuss, Mr. Speaker, I have thought long and hard about this bill. I my conduct has not been perfect, and I do not pretend that it has ever been. But I have come seriously to the conclusion that nobody Mr. Chairman, had a mandate to introduce this bill, just out of the blue on to the citizens of this country. It certainly was never discussed as a major issue at the last election, no political party, or in my view, no particular member had a mandate for it. And so Mr. Speaker, I believe that one is required is a royal commission of inquiry to investigate all aspects of this question of homosexuality, so that we may all be the better for it. I do not know all aspects of it, I doubt whether any member does. But I am confident that in this country we could set up a royal commission of inquiry, we have set up many others on many different subjects. Indeed, and probably the last important one on a moral issue was the Royal Commission of Inquiry which reported on the contraception sterilization and abortion debate. I therefore, formally news Mr. Chairman, the supplementary the the amendment in my name on supplementary or the paper that enclosed one to admit sub close to and all the words in line six and seven on page two, and substitute the following sub clauses. This actual comments are false on the date to be appointed by the Governor General by Order in Council three now Auto Show We might under subsection two of this section, unless and until the Governor General is satisfied that I I roll Commission has investigated and reported on all aspects of homosexuality in New Zealand. That is part one. And I believe that if members wish to just vote on that particular sub clause, then I would be happy to agree to that. Part B of my amendment reads that I national referendum of persons eligible to vote in the general election of members of the House of Representatives, and majority of persons who voted for in favor of each of the following propositions. One, that homosexual conduct between consenting adults in private should not be a criminal offense, yes or no. To that discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation should or should not be made law unlawful under the Human Rights Commission Act 1977. Mr. Speaker, I believe that that is a fair and honorable way of setup. This divide. If we do not, either I set up I roll Commission of Inquiry for the benefit of us all, then the issue will drag on. I am strongly in favor of referendum, although I know that I'm probably in the minority here. But if we do not have a referendum on this question, then it will not go away. It is no good voting tonight or next week in this and say, I hope that having voted on it, everybody's going to sit back and accept it. They will be repealed bills bought into this house, it will be an election issue. It is not a subject for which we, in my view, are fit and proper persons to judge upon this great moral issue. But it is an issue which New Zealand should decide upon, and a referendum will settle it one way or the other, because it is the people of New Zealand who have to accept the laws which we sometimes force upon them. This law should not be forced upon any citizen to speak at the Royal Commission of Inquiry shortly My view have the widest terms of reference, including traveling overseas to view what has happened in other countries that have liberalized this law. They should also look into the question and that terrible affliction of eight. And I've no doubt that we will hear more about that during this debate. But it is urgently needed. Even in the United Kingdom. They did not dream of amending the law before they had what was then known as the Wolfman didn't report. I very much doubt as a woman don't report was to sit now it would come back with a recommendation that it did in the United Kingdom, because one of the clauses that hit said was that he would only agree to liberalisation, the law provided that nobody in society suffered. And now of course, that hideous infliction of AIDS has changed all day. It's just bigger. There is no doubt about it. I Royal Commission of Inquiry made up of the best medical, legal, [00:25:55] even people from other all [00:25:56] walks of life should be admitted to it. The question was what's the short title stand pad since when the sebrae book has moved in the term sit out and supplementary order paper number 71. A question that has of the amendment. We agreed to [00:26:16] the honorable Ben young [00:26:20] men to Chairman, I think most of us would feel that there was a solution in a amendment put forward by the member for Napier. It would absolve ourselves from a responsibility that we we find quite onerous dealing with a bill that unfortunately, I do not believe that the course set out by the name of America is isolation anymore. Then I referendum to make up our mind as individual members how we should vote on the Difficult causes of this bill. In fact, that means that we are doing our job or fulfilling our responsibilities members of talent. We, our constituents our attention, we owe them the responsibility to place their arguments and submissions before the government of the day and to present them in Parliament. We also can stick to [00:27:32] my judgments on this bill [00:27:36] tells me that I should support the amendment that is to be moved later by my colleagues the member for fame Bolton. [00:27:46] It means that the law of vain would be China the parliament except that amendment to decriminalize homosexual acts between consenting Male at all [00:28:02] in price. [00:28:04] Let me emphasize the word [00:28:05] at all. Because the hassle of my dad have some difficulty when considering the several pages of consent that are offered first of all in the bill, and secondly and by way of an amendment [00:28:22] under that us, I person is an adult when he or she reaches the age is really [00:28:32] not it [00:28:34] and certainly [00:28:35] not 16. [00:28:38] These reasons and the reasons that such a an age of consent has been found acceptable and passed in the Parliament of countries such as Canada [00:28:52] is sufficient evidence to me that that is I step that I believe that this Health should be able to type I might say, that is in the deliberation room during the committee stages, the house decide that there is to be some younger age of consent for homosexual acts between consenting people, then I will apply the path of the bill that is to be considered first. In any case, I am going to oppose part two of the, my position, Mr. Speaker is simply this, that I support the intention for myself as a member of them, I will invite him on the causes of the bill in a manner in which in which his proposal could be accepted by the house, [00:29:49] that is to reject the [00:29:51] causes, three, four and five and approve the inclusion of a new five a that would result in the position are just outline. I cannot [00:30:05] accept part two of the bill when it is considered [00:30:12] gramley. This is pretty good [00:30:17] though before the health is a thoroughly bad, repugnant bill. In fact, it's, in my opinion the most obnoxious bill ever bought before this hell certainly in my time as a parliamentarian. So the house should realize again that in fact, it is a bill that's been uniquely prepared for this time. And it has in fact, the focus of the whole the homosexual world apart. [00:30:47] And it should be, [00:30:49] indeed in itself a point of concern this house that a group of people have chosen this time to introduce this particular bill. A bill with you The most progressive of a type ever introduced to any place in the world. [00:31:05] And so I've chosen this time [00:31:07] to introduce such a type of legislation. Now well, let me correct that my colleagues is not progressive is progressive in the technical term. But what the house I'm sure understands it's progressive in the sense that it reaches further than any legislation of this time. Therefore, for that one alone, I believe is extremely bad. In fact, the bill therefore, is not amendable the bill cannot be Amanda. It cannot be in fact, I repeat be thrown out eliminating part to the human rights section sir or lifting age benchmark will do nothing to eliminate the threat the bill poses to public health to the family life or to the risks to the individual. [00:31:57] Now, so [00:31:58] we have been through and addressing this bill a second reading with probably has become the longest second reading [00:32:06] in the history of this parliament. [00:32:08] So again, put the house at sure the depth, the sensitivity, the division of this bill and the fact we have gone this path surely should speak volumes, just from that point of the second reading address alone [00:32:22] a point of auto trader MATLAB. [00:32:26] pretty important for the consideration and this committee that we get the rules pretty clear at the beginning. [00:32:32] I asked you the four to [00:32:34] consider speakers ruling 36 five and six. And this speech as to whether it is one of general principle or addressing the causes of the bill. [00:32:48] is I think that the point is well taken this as the member for Hamilton were suggested important that we get the ground rules clear no different of course from the ground rules that apply to any other committee. stage during the discussion on the short title, but we have perhaps concentrated a little more upon the importance of the speaker's rulings as they apply [00:33:12] in this in this particular case, [00:33:16] I think that I can just say that for the for the committee in this way, that I'm looking for members to address themselves as speakers rulings require them to do in the short title debate to the clauses. That is to say, and I think that enlisting to the member for how accurate he wasn't really doing it. Order, but I want members in the short title debate, to go through and consider or ask the committee to consider their position in relation to the various clauses, and I take care for my authority in this respect, speakers rulings on page 36 number six, the purpose is not to have a security discussion of the broad principles but consider when clause one is being Consider the drafting of the technical details of clothes for clothes 44 any other cloth? I believe that members have discharged their responsibility in this in this respect, provided they are ranging across the clauses in the bill and Spirit speaking to specific clauses in the bill. And I'll be listening very carefully to ensure. And I think it's an important point that the mayor of the Hammond West has raised that we don't have a second reading debate that we don't start to debate the the [00:34:26] principles will rather [00:34:27] we talk about the way in which the clauses should be applied, and if necessary, when we get to them. I mean, I think so far at least the debates been pretty well. Yes, [00:34:39] thank you, Mr. Chairman. the sake of clarification, the ruling because I thought by addressing the bill in the third in the short title that I could reasonably draw the implications of those causes, and results of those causes becoming more I thought, My comments in were relevant for a reason [00:35:03] I had to the member has to take me of us because what I've done is to roll that what he has so far told the committee is relevant within the confines of the standing orders that apply. The member is debating and appropriate, but let's delete. [00:35:16] Thank you. [00:35:19] Chairman. Chairman, I [00:35:23] would wish just address right now the amendment offered by the member for Napier, in calling for a royal commission required so I could support that. [00:35:33] I could support that because I believe at this point of time, such an inquiry could be relevant, I believe it would have this effect. It would reveal that many parliamentarians in this house have failed to understand the full facts and such an inquiry couldn't fake show to the nation. [00:35:52] That in fact, sir, [00:35:54] homosexual the the the bill before the house is not a suitable bill at all. Now say this There is a precedent for this type of inquiry call in Britain the Woolford and report. That report, however, of interest came down supporting the criminalization. But sir, I believe that the significant difference in time right now is that today we have before this nation and certainly before the world, the greatest killer disease threat ever known to mankind. So that's why I am confident that such an inquiry by proper people would recognize that there is no way that in fact, this bill could possibly, or should be able to become law when that disease of age is about to strike this country. And indeed, we have a period of grace right now. And which we have been able to address the implications and know something other effects and the enormity of that disease. So therefore, I believe that particular member could be relevant, but searching To me that it's a it's a gross, it's a gross move from sanity, if not common sense for this house yet even now, to be at this stage addressing this bill when there is, in fact such an absolutely overt threat to this nation through the issue of AIDS. [00:37:20] Now, so [00:37:22] I also want to mention the house that there has been the clearest possible expression of the voice New Zealand against this bill. And the bill sir has been presented the public and New Zealand Nikolas is contained there in has clearly indicated that this bill is not warranted or accepted by [00:37:45] the honorable Mr. Prebble. [00:37:47] Mr. Chairman, not had an opportunity to speak it to this bill on the fire. I believe that I have a duty to explain to the health The reasons for my voting on on the I was to show the neighbor that I will explain it to them as the Speaker of the various elections of our student open Central. This question has always been asked of me and I made it quite clear that I do not support. I do not support the sending of people [00:38:20] to jail for [00:38:23] sexual acts committed between consenting adults, in private. I don't believe having listened to most members of the House that they actually support that action either. The action of sending somebody to jail for homosexual acts, is of course, very rarely done. But there is no reason for not amending the law and data if we file to amend that sections of the law. We will be sending a very clear signal to the court that this parliament in a fake supports sending people to jail for homosexual eggs. I don't believe that that's what Parliament thanks. [00:39:05] I believe it is very bad [00:39:08] legal practice for the house to leave on the statute books, laws that we do not wish to be enforced. That brings the law into disrepute. And that is that is bad on a general law and order, rule of law philosophy. And as such, I have always oppose such law as being on the statute book, and in this case, are therefore support the general thrust of the bill, that two other questions then have to be basically dealt with. And the first is the equation of the age of consent. The age of consent, of course, for women, there's no age for men engaged in heterosexual activity is 16. And that raises interesting questions. DHP 16 for homosexual acts, the number of different arguments put up in this house, but I put it around this way. Why did Parliament decide on 16? As an age for women, why not hire one at law? How many members of parliament actually support? You young girls of 16 engaging in sexual activity? I most certainly do not. But I don't support lifting the age. The reason I don't support lifting the age is because there's a limit to the protection that the law can grant to people. And the reality is that the parliament cannot take table over the age of women over the age of 16, who engage in sexual activity. I frankly think that the same thing applies with homosexual activity. And even though I am those number of different ages put forward 18 and 20 I frankly don't support people engaging in homosexual activity at any age. And that seems to me that the right I say for we should determine that question on sound, more making principles, and on sound law making principles. The age of 16 is probably the limit of the protection that the court can grant. [00:41:21] The [00:41:22] Parliament can grant, but then have a Christian impact to as to whether we should move past decriminalization to a Christian or whether we should extend the Human Rights Commission. To those who are engaging in homosexual activity. I represent the central, which I am informed, I don't know how people can possibly make such judgments is the center of capital of homosexuality in New Zealand. I'm not sure that that is in fact, true. But it is true that open central is a very tolerant electric minorities who are perhaps persecuted in other parts of the country, tend to go to welcome Central. That's one of the reasons why I personally love it and like, like, representing that electric, I have to inform my howsoever that I get people complaining to me about various things I have never had in the 10 years I've been a member of parliament never had a case of somebody telling me that they were unable to get accommodation, because they are homosexual. Because the reality is, of course, that landlords actually like homosexuals don't have children. And the children are what are people are discriminated against? So I've had many cases of people coming to see me because, Jim, [00:42:49] Jim, do 95 minutes, but [00:42:52] I want to thank, Mr. Chairman, I think this would be an opportune time to Canada. This meta with you that you didn't wish to Canvas at the stat when I raise a point of order regarding the number of features. And I think that the member for Auckland central has precipitated this by endeavoring to seek a further call. Now personally, I don't mind if the main performance central takes a second call, because he obviously is only halfway through what he wants to say. And the point I make, in respect of this seem logical that he could do that in order to finish off the tenor of what he wanted to telehealth. Now, if he has to wait until next Wednesday night, or the following Wednesday night before we can finish off what he's got to say, maybe not the whole thing. Now, I don't want to put you in a position where you might make a ruling that you don't wish to but I just say simply that this is exactly the case that I was talking about before. And the difficulty that we're going to get into [00:43:50] speaking to the front of all of the animal was able to reach out to me for maximum for [00:43:53] war over. But it's up to the house. I've indicated that I want to call up someone else calls are going to be course they will, I will not be able to complete my remarks [00:44:02] here the physician is that the member may, of course, continuous speech if there was no other members seeking a call. If another member does however secret call, then that member will receive preference from the chair. [00:44:17] The the honorable Richard pribyl. [00:44:19] You know, I think the health I've never known a case of a homosexual being refused accommodation on those grounds. I'm not saying that's never occurred, but it's never it has never come to me. I've had many cases of married couples being unable to get accommodation clearly before they have children. I've also a very good reason why that person was sick. And I had a case recently of a union, which was accused by one of the staff of having second person because she was a lesbian. And the union secretary said, well, that's extraordinary because I knew she was a lesbian before I even harder. Of course, I didn't beg for that reason. And maybe produced that person's employment record was quite clear. The reason why I have doubts about had to go through them it I'm very much support the Human Rights Commission. I don't believe that women in this country [00:45:15] have we got equality. [00:45:17] Human Rights Commission most certainly haven't completed a task. I don't believe that we have racial equality in this country. And [00:45:25] those are the [00:45:26] those are two priorities. And the reason I make them priority [00:45:30] is you can't change your six. You're born with it. You can't change You're right. There is a we can have [00:45:36] an argument about whether people are born homosexuals or not. [00:45:40] There is some doubt about it. [00:45:41] But there's absolutely no doubt that people cannot change their rights. And for that reason, I believe parliament has extended protection in the area of rice and the area of what sex you are, I don't believe that we can extend it to the area of sexual [00:45:57] preference [00:45:59] and addition to It [00:46:01] creates a very great difficulty. what it will mean is that if somebody is a homosexual, [00:46:07] and I am fired by will always be [00:46:09] able to rise this particular claim against their employer, and how do you answer an accusation of that sort? I think it is extremely. It's extremely difficult. [00:46:20] I think we all have great problems with it. [00:46:22] But there's another reason we'll have problems with it. It's clear from this house, that there are respectable members of the community [00:46:29] who have very strong [00:46:30] upset, exceptions to homosexuality, in what we will have, but those people will still go on carrying out their beliefs, and we will be persecuting them because they believe and can I advise the hell, [00:46:45] that martyrdom is something that Christians believe in? [00:46:50] It is never a very good idea, to Parliament to pass a law that could make Christians in the matter and I am the same discovered that wasn't a good idea. And it's still not a good idea today, [00:47:04] I say on sound, [00:47:06] low miking ground, or do not believe it's a good idea to make the member of a hierarchy into I matter, because I'm sure he's not going to change the obvious mommy picking him out. But I'm sure he's not going to change his views because of a law passed in this house. He believes that he should follow laws passed and another and high house. Mr. was the chairman. So for that reason, I think that we will be going far enough if we pass part one of the bow. And as I've explained my electric and the electric, there's no doubt about this. I'm going to support part one, and I'm going to support a completely not none other. pussyfooting around I'm going to support part one, and I am going to oppose [00:47:53] Patty [00:47:57] Mr. Banks week On this side of the argument, delighted to hear the revelations of the member for open central who hasn't spoken in this debate, I don't believe that he's going to. He's not going to support part two. We think this is a pretty obnoxious section of this bill. We think that the legalization of the act of sodomy for 16 year old boys is apparent to us on this side of the house 16 year old kids, that we won't have any part either of the second part of the Act which simply put this down as an art inacceptable orientation sexual orientation in the eyes of the law, because we say on the side of the house that the next thing will be coming, that this will mean is that dumb, as someone who commits the act of incest can be accepted under these kind of terms in terms of the human rights of the country. somebody that has other kinds of perversions, with perhaps animals or something else should be accepted that because of their sexual orientation, they shouldn't be discriminated against one employee or anyone else. And I have employed more people than anyone else in this house by thousands. And I have never ever turned anyone down for employment opportunities on the grounds that that person is I homosexual or something else, and other words, equals of her or his sexual orientation. And that I am one of those on the side of the house that is totally opposed to this parliament, legitimising and legalizing on the statute books about one of this bill, and that is the legalization of the act of sodomy between consenting boys of 16 years of age. And that's what we're considering. Yes, we do have an amendment from my friend and colleague, the member for Pendleton, lifting this age limit, if you like, to 20. But as, as we see it in the substantive part of the bill, and the bill before the house right now, is that the age is should be 16. And we say that we don't want to know about that on this side of the health and the men before Oakland central isn't quite right. Quite right. When he talks about people homosexual x, we are not here saying and opposing the act of homosexuality, meaningful relationships between two men, whether they be 16 year old boys, or 18 year old men, what we are opposed to [00:50:49] is [00:50:50] this parliament, legalizing the act of sodomy in this bill for 16 year old boys. So we are opposed to that, Mr. Chairman, and on this side of the argument, we represent 800,000 New Zealanders, many of whom will be listening with great interest tonight, to hear what we've got to say, we propose to fight this bill, this evil bill that will have serious consequences for the moral fabric of this nation as a cornerstone of this society, the family unit and ultimately democracy and we said is wrong. I hundred thousand New Zealand decides wrong the majority of the people have on the right side is wrong. And I had plenty of evidence of that. So I have sent me down here with a mandate to oppose this. I oppose it anyway. And I'm interested that the member for nykeya issues the challenge to the house to accept his amendment which is very worthwhile indeed, to have a wolfred and diet inquiry done on this or referendum. I've got to say that even if even I referendum was held, and the majority of New Zealanders wanted, I still couldn't support it. It was sort of like the debate on abortion and so on. I mean, you can't cut your conscience to fit the day. The era and what we are worried about also, Mr. Chairman is once this bill gets onto the statute books, and there's no doubt in our minds, that top one of the bill will reach the statute books without very much a part to get there for the reasons that the meaningful and central mention but once part one of the bill gets to the statute books that as the legitimization and legalization of sodomy between 16 year old boys will live be an amendment put forward to this principle act. By some members of this house or I future Parliament are too loud the age to 15 or 14 or 13 We find that quite obnoxious. At Mr. Chairman, I will allow the member for Southern marriage be [00:53:07] the honorable fit to the company Sullivan. [00:53:11] Chairman Allison with interest to the member for open Central and agree with the observations he made on part two of this bill. Esther his comments on the martyrdom of those who take the opposing view, I would say that ecclesiastical supporters of homosexuality have not and cannot produce any tapes, which present homosexuality as a legitimate sexual expression, such as the chairman do not exist. When I last spoke on this matter, I was referring to Maori opinion on the spill. But did not get very far when it was closing when I had to end my speech. So I want to tell this house that I have spoken with the leaders of significant Marian movements, I believe every significant Marian movement to consult with them on the spill. And even today, there was a possibility of this continuing. And it is important for me to bring before this house on the short title, the summon substance of the opinion that was given, I believe the motion of the who we are morally editor annual gathering in Oakland over the days 22nd to 24th March. This has summed up my viewpoint on [00:54:50] this bill. [00:54:52] And I read in fact, the resolution that this who we are Maharani that is of the Anglican Church of diaas the Diocese of Oakland, which is the most populous, [00:55:07] statistically [00:55:10] evident group of Mary's in this country. This way Mr. Romney expresses its strongest opposition to the homosexual law reform bill, which proposes legalizing homosexuality between consenting males. And the later was signed by the Archbishop of New Zealand. At that time, the bishop awoken the most Reverend Paul Reeves on behalf of that community. Chairman laters lobbying me to support this bill had referred to homosexuals as an oppressed minority, likening the oppressed minority minority to the bills proponents. Some married groups have accepted this premise, but the leaders to whom I have spoken wisdom for whose wisdom I have significant and considered respect, do not agree with that premise. And I want to mention that I will not refer to them by name, but throughout married them for this decade and previous ones. The group has been accepted as leaders throughout the four Mario electorates. I do not accept that premise. There is no sense in which the homosexual community can be compared with ethnic minorities. It has been made, as has been suggested, but ethnic minorities have traditionally been at the lowest end of the economic ladder. And that is certainly not true. The homosexual minority or the level of education is much higher than the national average rose a few homosexuals who have been part of the gay liberation group, have been characterized by university education and of course, are among the highest salary earners. In fact, in America, the homosexual community has considerable economic clout because it is in the affluent, higher educated echelons of society. It has an economic cloud, and perhaps the existence of travel agencies, one of which is said to have some 20,000 members who actively seek areas of the world where safe, homosexual sex may be pursued, is a particular concern to the Maori leaders with whom I have spoken for overseas experience and my own office of observation overseas suggests that the who suffer most? from proselytization and entitlement into promiscuity, the indigenous minorities, I will come back to that [00:58:12] before calling and explain because I just say that the last member speaking I didn't want to interrupt. My may or may not have been here when the ruling was originally given on the relevance of of debate under the short title, but can I just repeat that we shouldn't be discussing specific clauses in the bill, we are required to do that by previous biggest rulings on the subject. And it's therefore necessary if members that are to remain relevant for them to refer their speeches to specific clauses, I gather that the honorable member for Southern Valley wasn't picking up where she left off. In the second meeting, in fact, she admitted she was doing just that, and I didn't want on the spirit of a conscience debate to make too much of this but in fact, we're not entitled to extend the second reading debate. In the committee stages. We are here debating the bill clause by Close as well as an amendment which has been moved by the honorable member for nykeya. For those methods, that is the clauses of the bill plus the amendment now before the committee, now as it were up for grabs and members must in order to be relevant addressed themselves, specifically to a clause or to the amendment, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Chairman, having spoken on the second reading of the debate on the bill and expressed my support for all parts of the bill, in that debate, I don't propose to rain widely over the clauses of the bill, but instead want to address myself specifically to the main month which has been moved by the member for nykeya because I think it is something that the house needs to consider fairly closely. In moving that amendment, the member of an APA said that I think I quote him fairly accurately that he felt he moved him in because he felt that the 95 members of this house, we're not fit and proper people among themselves to decide on this matter. [00:59:59] And I want to say That may [01:00:00] well be true, it may well be true of many matters that come before this house. But nonetheless, when we offer ourselves for election to the house, we do take on ourselves that Judy, rightly or wrongly, whether we are said to do that make those judgments or not. And I think that the Crimes Act and the contents of the Crimes Act matters, which are very much within the control of this house. It is an April, we have to grasp and I don't think that we can put that responsibility from ourselves at a late stage. I want to say that the amendment as proposed on the supplementary order paper creates some real problems. It proposes a hybrid procedure, that is that we passed the bill or if we pass the bill, that we then move to establish a royal commission to examine the issues in the bill, and from there to a referendum. The ballot I read, of course, one supposed to I requires the Royal Commission has investigated and reported on all aspects of homosexuality in New Zealand and be that a reference be held. Now what I want to say about that is that a royal commission can in fact be a very useful [01:01:05] adjunct to legislation in matters of this kind. [01:01:08] But if Royal Commission is to be held, it must surely precede the introduction of legislation in the passage of legislation. Surely the purpose of a royal commission would be, in fact, to examine the issues which might properly be in the legislation. And I asked her house to consider what nurse would be the purpose of passing a bill, which was to then come into a fake when a royal commission has had examined the issues, which must In fact, inform the drafting of and debate on a bill. If we didn't have a royal commission, we should have had already I suggested the issues have been so widely Canvas, that one is, in fact, not needed. But I don't see how on earth we could pass the bill and then have a royal commission to see whether or not it is the right sort of Bill. But to have a referendum after that would, I think, make the situation even more complicated, and I don't think that we can seriously contemplate such a hybrid method, but there's one Another point that gives me even greater cause for concern, and that is that sub clause one three of the proposed new clause requires the Governor General to be involved in making a judgment on the bill, not just in giving the same as is required under our constitution now, but I'm making a judgment. It requires the Governor General to be satisfied that certain things have taken place before he can set a commencement date for the act. And I suggest that it would not be very easy to satisfy one. So that Royal Commission has investigated all aspects of homosexuality, and I doubt that the Commission itself would ever make the claim royal commission would ever make the claim that they had exhausted all aspects of a topic before. So it would seem to me that passing this amendment would have two results, which could be a very grave consequence. Physically, we could end up with a bill which is passed to all stages, presumably been granted the Royal Assent, but did not have a commencement date did not come into force hanging in limbo, perhaps indefinitely, an act that have been passed by the House That was perhaps never to come into force. And that is a constitutional nonsense, which should, I think concern the house considerably. But the second point is even more significant. There is a requirement that the Governor General of New Zealand become involved in more than a formal way, in legislation become involved, by the requirements that he makes a certain judgment of some sort of some substance become involved in a substantial and controversial method of legislation. And the thought of the people who have lobbied members of this house to act or not to act in a certain way, lobbying the Governor General of New Zealand to add or not to act in a certain White is one which I think would be repugnant to every member of this house because it would in fact, have a constitutional effect, which would be marked and would not be an inch to the country. For that reason. I find that the amendment moves in good faith and of a technical nature, I think is not possible of passage. If the house is not going to do considerable violence. There's some of the Constitution requirements under which we work. [01:04:03] Mr. Norman giants. [01:04:06] regard I'd like to spend five minutes my first five minutes on clause five of this bill, which reveals section one four to the principal act relating to sodomy and substitutes a new provision related to idle intercourse and it [01:04:19] goes into some description about [01:04:21] what effect I need your courses. Well, I don't think too many of us need to be arguing too much about [01:04:26] what's the difference between the sodomy nihilistic courses. [01:04:29] All I'm saying is if idle intercourse is legalized, to replace sodomy, which is, which is a crime. We will see New Zealand today, Mr. Chairman, pass [01:04:39] from [01:04:40] condemnation of sodomy, to legalization of sodomy, albeit by calling [01:04:46] a political Santa Claus five, [01:04:48] and then to sponsorship of sodomy. [01:04:51] And we can do all talk about the [01:04:53] gay bars they may well be able to put up [01:04:56] with the gay bars and the gay and the gay nightclubs and the restaurant. In the oaklands, and then the Wellington's Lehman, the Christchurch, but this is legalized at 16. And for 12 year olds with consent, providing like a 16 year old claim as a patient, he thought they were 12 years of age. Then we're going to find it down Linda kaggle. And then the chi carries the tide tires and in this timorous, I just want to read out to the to the Define, I know the Act, the bill goes into defines what a leader causes. I don't think we need to grow. I'm going to read up a submission, a letter from a specialist mineralogist who was prevented from making submissions I've got his name, he doesn't want to give his name because he treats mainly homosexuals and prepared the type of the lesbian gay me but he doesn't want his name. He treats homosexual. He's a friend of mine. He used to be in practice down in in South, but he's been an orphan for years. He's a specialist mineralogist, I'm a special spin, Roger, I want to tell this house what idol intercourses and I'm especially mineralogy works. The coalface Yay, the very tip of the pick and dealing with examining and treating male homosexuals and under professional setting treat them as I do all others you can solve the best of my professional ability, and I've had many comments of thanks and gratitude for this and the help given however, I would like all members of families who died on the bill to be able to look over my shoulder as i do i know and rectal proto scopic examinations swabbing for cultures and treatment available warts, herpes, syphilis, gonorrhea, etc. Meaning inflammations, passing diarrhea, which results from the infection spread by sodomy without talking about anal intercourse. Yes, nothing more or less than the unprotected penis in certain in many cases, and still, in spite of AIDS warnings frequently with many casual partners change the pattern of change in the short time into the rectums and faces of such partners as an individual specialist mineralogist. I am no fruit and I cannot conscientiously I prepared a table this letter consciously condoned Such practice campaign as it does with the pigs who eat their food from amongst their own faces, or a human walking through a sewer without gambits. I don't think there's any other way to regard this. And so not religious, I can understand the social sanity of the prescription of set practices since biblical and bygone times, apart from the noun known and fiction risks. In addition, it came as a surprise to have steadily brought to my attention as a recent seminar I attended on sexology attended by many male and female homosexuals, some of whom were speakers and spoke opening discussions. The fact that not only do these people have difficulty relating and feeling at ease with medical practitioners in matters pertaining to sex and associated problems, but unless the doctor is homosexual, and a date sama The truth is people that have the same difficulties over non sexual matters, thereby highlighting the problem will have maladjustment or vice versa bizarre in mature ation and social disease that they live in and seek to Saw by an amazing among their own time, I tried to withdraw from society to a sexual social apartheid which with the point mentioned previously I would hate to see extends as a normal feature of you see on social life of civil. What I am describing here is a an intercourse from a spacious mineralogist and this is what this government this is what this bill is now going to legalize to replace sort of your date on intercourse is no replacement, no change at all. It's half a does the one six of the other why the herring my own personal view is that enough is known as homosexuality now to label it as situational and developmental, almost predictable and understandable when it occurs in individuals, allowing that what occurs in the privacy of bedrooms among consenting adults, whatever I just read is their own private business as with heterosexuals, instead of the 90 or the MPs deciding what the country wants to do. Perhaps you could take the lead in fostering development of strongly family and hip to sexual health and norms. As Luther said, Here I stand, I can do no other. Now there's from a space the spinner ologists, who treats basically homosexuals that's idle intercourses. [01:09:13] I'm very life to interrupt members during five minutes speeches, but I've already made the point twice, that we are obliged in the short title of the bait to talk about the causes of the bill. And we've had quite a lot of material. It's strictly speaking, second reading material. If I can point members again to these biggest rulings on the subject, and specifically to speak as ruling number six on page 36. It says out there that when clause one is being considered, we must look at the drafting or the technical details of clause four closed 44 any other clause Meanwhile, my wish to speak to in order to tie up is consideration of the details of a number of clauses. Emphasis is given to the clauses and the ruling guys on the side the details of the drafting of the courtroom. Proper subject for consideration. Likewise details understood drafting of other clauses. So I'd like members to, to when they're addressing the short title, make sure that they're talking to a particular clause and and doing so to the drafting and technical details of that clause or to the amendment. I don't think it's too rigid requirement on members, I'm sure that can still say what they have to say, without, in fact, giving another second reading speech. I found a border. During the last speech the member from Chicago offered to table a document, I think it would be appropriate if it was put to [01:10:36] the half now rather than [01:10:38] rather than leave. I think there [01:10:39] is no objection to that table. [01:10:44] The member foreign McCargo did not affect the more than suggest that he might wish to tablet he didn't actually request for it to be titled it is free to do so if he wishes. He likes to indicate that he wishes the table I'll put that matter to the house is the wish of the house and the document the table. I gather there was no Objection. Therefore the lady of the house is granted. Mr. bridegroom. [01:11:05] Mr. Chairman, I just want to briefly take a second call to explain the reasons and solicit the the support of the house for the amendment moved in my name, the member for Nelson, put forward some reasons why it should not be supported. I want to point out to him, of course, that the reason is not that the bill should be passed and then have a royal commission of inquiry. It is that the bill should not be passed until such time as a Royal Commission of Inquiry has looked at all aspects of homosexuality. So I freely confess that if that is accepted, the bill should not continue. I agree with the member Nelson it would be farcical to pass the bill and then have a royal commission of inquiry. That is not the purpose. Mr. Chairman of my amendment, my amendment is that this bill should not proceed any further until such time as a Royal Commission of Inquiry has examined all aspects of human sexuality. I want to inform the house that I think that I have some very good support for that suggestion. One of the leading Christian theologists of this country, no matter which particular church you might belong to, is Cardinal Williams of the Roman Catholic Church. And this is what he said back in March when this bill was first presented to the house, and I believe it does support the need for greater research. He goes on cardno His Eminence says, homosexual persons will not be served by examining only legal aspects of orientation and behavior and ignoring social, medical, psychological and moral aspects. The proposed bill does not do justice to this complexity, there is need for a sustained systematic research. It would be tragic if the proposed legal change distracted attention from that lead. I couldn't agree with Cardinal Tom Williams more Because if this will just become law, as some people want it to be, then the chances of ever having an in depth investigation for the benefit of homosexuals and the rest of us, I believe will be lost forever. I will Commission of Inquiry can look into all those aspects mentioned by Cardinal Williams in his address. It can look mr. speaker at the social, medical, psychological and moral aspects, and we would all surely be the better for it. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this role commission of inquiry is an absolute necessity. If we ignore it, if we think that we know better if we are prepared to ignore public opinion, then I'm sad to say that this parliament will be the lesser forum. Public Opinion decides the fate of each and every member in this house and without a commission of inquiry. Let me tell you now if we go regardlessly on then also I believe that some members, and I believe I say this on both sides of the house will unfortunately pay the penalty because of public opinion, the public have the right to be informed of all the facts, not just one argument that I make here to put up, or my colleague, the member for Wellington, central nykeya. To put up, they should all know the facts, and they should decide. And I urge members not to be sidetracked by some smart talk on legal aspects of what could or could not be. Research is required. It is necessary. Cardinal Williams is correct. It's all members to vote for it. If you're frightened of a national referendum. As I said before, Mr. Chairman, I'm quite happy that when the vote is taken, that the first vote be on a roll commission inquiry, have a vote on that. And the second one to be on whether or not there should be a referendum and the people of New Zealand decide this very grave moral issue. I believe that we will Ignore it at our peril. Mr. Chairman, other aspects of the bill, which I'm going to relate on briefly, is that it is all too demanding, especially part two. And I will be introducing to counteract that thing, that part of the bill that if it is passed it not really related to members of the armed forces, the place for prison officers. I believe that it would be absolutely horrendous for the members of the armed forces to be to not have as a discipline reaction, the fact that they could commit legal sodomy. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, this bill puts a cloak of respectability on on I practice, which I believe the majority of New Zealanders detest and do not want, but research into this problem is needed. [01:15:48] The Honorable Peter Tapsell, [01:15:50] Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the bill can with any sense of logic be amended, [01:15:58] is part one is to succeed [01:16:01] And the legal sanction against sodomy between consenting adults be removed, [01:16:07] then it would seem to me no good reason why the age of consent for such acts as between two main should be different from that applying as between a man and woman. [01:16:21] No and equally, would I see any good reason why such an act between such persons shouldn't such a person should not enjoy the protection [01:16:32] of the human rights legislation [01:16:37] or alternate Alternatively, [01:16:39] if Part one is the file, then of course, other parts and the amendment for superfluous that is my own view. I will oppose all. Mr. [01:16:54] Norman James, I'd like [01:16:56] to spend some time on clause three page two of the path one [01:17:03] to new six right to DC with boys substituted and decent you would boy between 12 and 16. And the clause on page two of the bill. Everyone is liable to prison for terminal exceeding seven years been that this is soft, but the provision is it is it a fence to charge under this section to chat and the second is a person chat proves that the boy considered that he is younger than the boy what I'm talking about here, Mr. Chairman, is a legalized rights given to you young males under this clause. At 16 years of age. There is caples in the fifth and sixth forms of any high school, not taught for the men. And unfortunately, I can safely say that three and a half years and the services as a Keller youth at 17 wounded back home here 19 years of age wounded three times. I never struck a place of the apostles the case of homosexuality, not even the trip. It wasn't until I came Back to teach at five high schools that I found cases, there were cases of private security between masters and papers. And that's the worst part of this the worst speech rather, that if legalized rights are given to young males of 16 years of age, I'm we're talking about peoples in the fifth and sixth form, then I believe, Mr. Chairman, that as a society, we have totally abdicate their responsibility to protect their children. And when I look at this sort of thing, and I say in this day and age that try telling try telling your 12 year old in the third form with a six former former, and I'm a sexual act, I know Linda cause what is consent and somebody said, form boys 12 years of age and 30 years of age, and I've got a six foot five year old son and a six foot four son who was 16 when there is the third and fourth for my birthday, for the first 15 and the football And I can tell you that there's no way that the fifth or sixth form or fifth form can say that a third form report format under the age of six days, they're under the age of 12. What is consent? That's the thing. Now I'm saying that this is wrong. As far as I'm sure try telling your 12 year old son came home, all your daughters that marriage struggled, sun can shine, try telling him that idle intercourse is abnormal, unlawful sex between males, and it should is lawful. They're allowed to do it. We're allowed to do it by consent, but built in the fifth and sixth form said it's okay. He does know I'm not 16 and either the 16th the 2006 bombers get together, try telling them that is abnormal, that it's intercourse, it causes perversion. And what do you say about this now legalized, unnatural act when I say it's legal, and we're six days, and we're consenting adults at 16 under the SEC, and what are you going to do about it? [01:19:59] Stop This [01:20:00] at 16 I can well understand that consenting adults at 20 years of age and things like that what they're doing their own bedroom is writing business. But there's no agreeing for me or anybody else in this house to say that 16 year olds are able to distinguish with their with their with a proposition [01:20:19] Orangeville file table [01:20:20] for certainly 12 year old and anybody in this part of this village 16 year old is really building up some problems with a family unit. Now, as far as I'm concerned, the sort of the reason for bringing this in. The main reason to bring it in this clause is that they that they that the homosexuals this country say they're being victimized, persecuted and harassed and the existing law that is simply not true. As spokesman for police. I've done my homework on this. I've looked up the I've looked up the record, there hasn't been a prosecution cited by the police in this country against consenting adults for 14 years. The place have got more than two for goodness sake, they're out there on the front line. getting stabbed and beaten up got more to do than to follow a couple of books. I'm from a homosexual battle [01:21:07] that was going on the bed. So there's no harassment, no harassment. And because I saw what time is this Parliament satisfied at 20 years of age, the same as the military for very much without have been out campaigning against the bills besides today. And I believe frankly, that I have been sued really, when I bring it down to 16 years of age at a 12 year old that is not on and as I write hundred and 35,000 papers that are not on and I are not gonna go away. I will be here. And I can promise this house and every member that but for the 16 the 30 people will continue, continue the campaign and join the last eight years there's only 72 persons have been charged with an imprisonment. They're already 30 years in prison at the moment for practicing sodomy and inserting killer. [01:22:04] Three times I like taking the call again. I'm sorry, [01:22:14] my Java giants but [01:22:16] as it match the first Mr. Speaker 1935 only 13 persons. last batch I forgot the figures up this back were in prison for committing homosexual offenses, and they were in prison because they were contributing these offensive indecent acts against non consenting adults. And there is still going to be a crime under this cliche. So there's gonna be people in prison. So where's the sexual harassment of consenting adults in private police? Look, I've gone round with the police cars in the evenings. They're more concerned with crimes against the person then watching homosexual then I don't bother them. They don't arrest them at all and the home of sex guns will say that the persecution as far as I'm concerned, there's no prosecutions against consenting adults there has been and they're not likely to be. But the prosecutions are when these people are proposition and sodomizing non consenting adults or yours. And I want to go back to that clause. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chairman, I can't see where the induces you the boy and writing to bring this in. I know that homosexuals argue that it's the same for heterosexual and there are members in this parliament. Both sides is good enough for the girls it's good enough for the boy for goodness sake, it isn't good enough for the girls anyway. And no parent wants to have his daughter have panel knowledge with anybody four or five years older than yourself. Certainly not at 12 years of age unknown happens, but that doesn't mean to say that we have to legalize it and give young boys to a more open to the sort of thing more Amanda their peers and as far as I'm concerned, anyone from Telling you put yourself in the position of telling your 12 and 14 year old or your 15, your fifth and sixth former, that the association that he's got with his friend is Annette and not right. And what are we doing? We are normalizing it not legalizing it. We are legalizing it. We are normalizing. And what's more, it'll be commercialized. And what do I got? This is around I can tell and I wasn't joking when I said that the homosexuals throughout the world who know they can get their site sex because of age but I just had all the homosexuals will come to New Zealand in 1000. Looking further for the [01:24:40] weather get reasonably safe six prepare me for some time and we'll have surf sun and scenery and [01:24:49] Jeremy What? no laughing matter because I travel around these people. And that's why the ISIS is great. And I traveled from Sydney to Australia and when they can when they no longer Gonna have site sodomy, in Australia, Victoria and in America, they will come to this conference and die will survive call it only because there's no difference and were taken away suddenly, which is fine. I want to say nothing as as perfectly. If this act is put in a place I go to have absolutely horrendous dimension, like the top of the present load or thing of going around trying to find out [01:25:27] what's going on. They'll have [01:25:30] another degree of responsibility, looking after the boy instead of guilt Street, looking at the boys with other boys. Now, I wouldn't wish that on the police force. And I'm not going to go into the Human Rights path. I'll do that Monday school. I'm just going to say it's going to put something on to our police at the moment, which they don't need. Because we can't even cope with the crimes that we've got today without giving the place another dimension of having to look after 12 and 14 year old and now get complaints. All right There's no doubt about that. So big complaints coming. And we can talk about all the insects complain 400 on that night, but not in a place where we're getting confined to the place and I got enough to do. And as far as I'm concerned, I don't think when it comes to this panel, and I believe when it comes to the final day 16 or nothing, and remembering that 16 means 12 year olds, Satan consenting 12 year olds with they can sit on the fence. I'm not gonna say that they could get away with it. But this is a [01:26:32] title. [01:26:33] Die won't get any worse treatment than what a 16 year old gets with a 14 year old 13 year old girl. And we're talking here about talk me about not presidency because we're talking about $100 fine, and the cost the other day, that's why with boys of 67 years, the 14 and $30 bills, hundred dollar fines non infringement what they can say from talking about Mr. Speaker, I buy i would i would say that that core three, that's the crunch of the thing, [01:26:58] the under 60 eventually kind of have it Helen Clark take away being treated again to 15 minutes of the bizarre fantasies of the member for Invercargill, who appears to believe that this bill is somehow going to attract all six tourists to New Zealand. I wonder if he has considered with a Poland, Czechoslovakia or Italy or Holland or Norway or the United Kingdom, which have rational laws on homosexuality have attracted sex tourism of that sort because they have a decriminalized homosexuality. And I suggest that his argument is specious. As as the interjection of the member for longer, right. Unfortunately, sir, there are members here who are obsessed with the personal practices, sexual practices of the minority of the community who are homosexual. And a couple of weeks ago, when I interjected on the member for Invercargill, that he was obsessed He was only too happy to agree with me and said that he had a magnificent obsession, what I object to serve as the constant confusion of one's personal obsessions with what should be written into the statute books of this country. And you make bad law when you try to write the personal prejudices of individuals about this method into statute. If the police had better things to do, as the member fraud in the kaggle attempted to argue a few moments ago, why keep this law on the statute books? If the police had better things to do then enforce it? Why are we hearing so many arguments against passing the bill coming on to the member of the Napier's amendment? Mr. Chairman, I have some considerable constitutional objection to what he has moved. He has moved that the actual calendar force until the Governor General is satisfied that a rural Commission has investigated the subject of homosexuality, nor until a referendum has been held. I think it is highly undesirable, sir, that the Governor General should be brought into an issue of this sort in this way. It's a long standing convention in the Westminster system of government that the executive should not be closely involved in methods which are more properly those of Parliament and I consider this amendment runs contrary to all the constitutional conventions under which [01:29:33] we operate. [01:29:35] That, sir, if we were to take seriously the proposition that they should be a royal commission, I think it's probably fair to observe that no amount of sane evidence before a royal commission would convince some members that homosexuality ought to be decriminalized by members of this house voting. And I would submit that the only Royal Commission which some members are interested in would be a royal commission, which came up with evidence, which I agreed with. And that would be extremely unlikely because the weight of the evidence which was heard by the select committee, considering the bill was overwhelmingly in favor of the bill being passed, and I find it unlikely that any Royal Commission in this day and age would be so sick that it could come out with findings other than that the decriminalization of homosexuality was long overdue in this country. Can I deal just briefly so with the argument of the member for often central against part two of the bill, and he argued that it was right to have a met sexual discrimination and discrimination on the grounds of Kela covered by the Human Rights Commission, because he said individuals could not change the sex or the killer. I submit to that the weight of The evidence is that adults cannot change their sexual orientation either. And that that is an argument why sexual orientation should be covered by the Human Rights Commission. I would say that the reason that many members like the member often central are unable to cite many cases of discrimination and sexual sexual relations from that is an unhealthy social climate. And if we change the law to decriminalize, the next natural step to take is also to ensure that people cannot legally discriminate against that behind

This page features computer generated text of the source audio - it is not a transcript. The Artificial Intelligence Text is provided to help users when searching for keywords or phrases. The text has not been manually checked for accuracy against the original audio and will contain many errors.