Parliament: Committee of the Whole House - Homosexual Law Reform Bill (25 March 1986)

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 [00:00:04] For more information visit it [00:00:10] that I have [00:00:13] been aware of the very considerable number and the close similarity of a great number of the amendments that in before the committee, before that I had asked the clock in association with the law address to prepare a schedule of these in such an order as would around a rational consideration of the issues involved in each one. [00:00:46] If carried out from this order to be available, made available to members of the committee. It can the house may not instruct the committee in this way. But I have asked the class To have this prepared and distributed to members of the committee says that by each member of the committee will be aware that all the other members have this information in front of them. I declare the house in committee on the homosexual Lord formed. [00:01:29] Order the house in committee on the homosexual law reform [00:01:32] bill. The question is that part one stand pop when [00:01:35] this bed was last being discussed with Roger mcli was speaking he has [00:01:39] four and a half, [00:01:42] seven [00:01:43] and a half minutes that I had to say a few things considering these measures. I did say to the committee, that and to the member of the bill, [00:01:55] that I believe that [00:01:57] habit [00:02:00] resorting to what I see is some personal abuse of members who happened to be opposed to aim first point of view, did nothing to enhance her chances of this bill moving through the committee stages smoothly. Mr. Tim and I reminded the committee that they were after all, it hundred and 30,000 people, they took the trouble to put a signature to a piece of paper to say that they did not want a bar of the contents of this particular bill. Now, Mr. Speaker, there's been a lot Mr. Jim has been a lot of conjecture about how many of those signatures should have been permissible. I don't care whether the number is half Mr. Speaker, it is still a Mr. Jim and a very significant number of people who feel that they have not been given the hearing or the consideration that they should have been given. As far as I'm concerned, this measure has become a government measure because when you look at the way the rest Government irrational government members measure. [00:03:03] And this is, [00:03:05] I believe, that is symptomatic of how the government members in this house have refused to listen to the vast majority of [00:03:16] New Zealanders on all sorts of issues. And this just [00:03:19] is just another one. I had 30,000 people, Mr. Speaker, they should be listened to. These are people who asked why it is [00:03:28] that New Zealand must be the country [00:03:32] to have the most liberal homosexual [00:03:35] laws in a world. [00:03:38] Why is it that New Zealand has to have the most liberal laws in the world, I can accept wellmune dadgummit for some changes, but I cannot accept that New Zealand in this day and age is a country that is prepared or wants the most liberal laws in the Western world. [00:03:58] I want to say to the movie The bill [00:04:02] that no law change in New Zealand at this time is going to bring about a change of attitudes concerning these problems. It's a change of attitudes that is needed. And no law changes at this particular time. Bear to the age of 16 1820 or 90 is going to change the attitude of those it hundred 30,000 people and the people they represent. The member won't get rid of the attitudes that she doesn't like in other people. I want to adjust some remarks and questions to the member and ask why it is that we look at amendments concerning 1618 and 20. Why is it that we look at those particular ideas what is our magic about those ages? What is wrong with 17 or 19. I also want to say to the member is move this bill then There is much confusion and alarm and concern about the age of 12. And I refer to the bill, part one, section three concerning the two new sections, one for indecency with a boy under throughout one for AI in this city with a boy between 12 and 16. I want to know what the implications are, if this committee should decide that it will allow these homosexual acts between people at the age of 20. Will that make any difference to the ages as mentioned in these new sections, and the 12 in this will say between boys 12 and 16. And does it mean Mr. Chairman, and this regard in 148, to where it says it is a defense to a charge under the section of the person charge charged proves that the boy consented and there he is younger than the boy does this mean it will be quite legal. If the is a 13 year old and has performed these particular pursuits with a boy older and can prove it. I want to ask the member in the chair if you can address her not to that because many people are most concerned about that. Chairman Brian? Mr. Chairman, I rise to take part in this debate in the committee stages, possibly for the first time having been overseas. I was somewhat surprised when the member who was just resumed his seat said that this was I live apparently, Bill. I wonder if he's spoken to his own political colleagues at WIPA, North Shore, Ragland, etc. Mr. Speaker, this is not a government's bill. This is Parliament's bill and the member for Wellington Central, quite rightly acting within her rights as a member of parliament has introduced this bill for parliament to discuss and to either pass or reject it. has nothing to do with party politics. And it's a pity that that member who has just resumed You see, even here as tried to play party politics, it may be on his side of the house, but on this side of the house, we have complete freedom of conscience to vote as we will. And I jealously guard that right. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chairman, I am against this bill, as I think is well known. I want to speak briefly, if I may, to those effects. Were part five, and I wish to rise to support the ESOP put forward by my colleague, the Minister of Defense, I 100%. support that and I do it for the following reasons. [00:07:44] discipline in the armed forces is a fragile thing. But it is an absolute essential commodity to have no horse can carry out its job without discipline. And it has been shown that were husband and wives are serving In the armed forces, rarely are they allowed to serve in the same unit. It is because of the emotional attachments which naturally a husband and wife have for one another. If we permitted this bill not to be extended to the armed forces, then you would find that gay people who would obviously have a great deal of emotional affection for one another, could be that discipline where an order had to be given instantly and instantly obey that would be in jeopardy. Therefore, I think the Minister of Defense's amendment should be agreed to another thing why the armed forces must not allow anal intercourse. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chairman, is because in a battlefield situation, each and every soldier is virtually a walking dead bank, and the Falkland Islands has shown us that it would be disastrous for a soldier to be wounded and need a blood transfusion suddenly to find that he could be contaminated with the disease of AIDS and it Do not say that lightly. It is a blood borne disease, there is not the time in a battlefield condition to test each and every blood sample for AIDS, it would be impractical and impossible in a battle situation. And can you imagine the morale of our armed forces, if I soldier who was wounded even slightly, but needed a blood transfusion was to contact aids in that way, until such time as aids can be screened, and is eliminated by medical science, then it must not be in any way in danger, our armed forces, [00:09:33] Mr. Speaker, [00:09:35] another reason why I believe that it should not be entertained by the armed forces, I think, is because it would bring about a huge embarrassment and insult to our serving soldiers, sailors and airmen. I serve many, many years in the armed forces, gay people, rightly or wrongly, and I can understand activists in the gay movement, failing to understand that but guys People in the armed forces are universally detested. And I can tell you now that to make it suddenly legal for men to sleep with one another would cause grave acts of indiscipline. And I can tell you many a story could be told on what has happened to people who have tried to carry out gay practices in the armed forces. It is intolerable and it is unacceptable. This the speaker is, Mr. Chairman, rather, I have spoken to many of my former colleagues in the armed forces, they find the thought that if the civilian law is changed, it will also apply to those subjects are military law, utterly detestable. As one said to me, Mr. Chairman, kiss me Good night Sergeant Major could well become a reality that would make a mockery of the discipline of the armed forces. And I it is totally and utterly unacceptable, just to speak [00:10:53] up. [00:10:55] They have been some guy people who have forwarded all sorts of pamphlets for some people. People who apparently in the past nonliving, of course, who have apparently been well known in military circles who have been gay, and I note before, however, that they were all dead now, but let me say to you that for every person that you can produce like that I can produce at least 1000 who were not gay. There is no room in the armed forces for people who are not gay. [00:11:24] Mr. Mrs. MC T. [00:11:27] I rise to speak in the committee stages in opposition to a number of the causes in part one. But I'd [00:11:36] like to start off Mr. Mr. Chairman, by saying that I believe that for all of those parliamentarians, who are in this parliament and accept part and this conscience boat issue, that it is a time to be counted as a time to be counted because we're making a decision here, and we have to make the decision in the light of what's God's law and what's man's law. And if there is no place in this Parliament for God's law, Then why do we pray daily? And why do whenever we petition this Parliament? Do we make that in the form of a prayer? Because I believe that there is a real responsibility for this parliament to exercise its influence in setting a standard and a leadership for the moral code of the society as well. And I believe quite strongly, Mr. Chairman, that there is no way that the act of sodomy on somebody between the age of 12 years and 16 years even though it be penalized by the court can be accepted or encouraged or even allowed to happen and have the condone moment of this parliament is even more. It is just as unacceptable to me justice unacceptable to me, if that particular practices to be advocated beyond the age of 16 years, and there is no upper limit as far as I'm concerned. It is a matter of making a decision according to my value judgments. whether it is right or wrong, if I'm going to make a judgment on whether it's right or wrong, I have to go back to the history that developed my standards and my values. And in developing those values and standards, I have to be thankful that the people who developed my character, we're not gay people. Because I believe that my values and standards would be very substantially different if I had been developed by people who were gay. The fact that this Parliament May, and I probably won't, for the fact that this Parliament may sanction this particular bill. Will, I believe change for all time, the course of our society, and it's a change from what you will be very difficult to pull back, if not impossible. It will have a damaging effect, particularly on heterosexual relationships in our community and on the family unit, as a whole I'm asked how I believe that the family unit as a whole only functions adequately, because there is a special relationship that there is between husband and wife. And that special relationship has been developed, but with the encouragement of the fight of our great religions, to be able to bring up the children in a protected and loving environment, which will produce for them the values that they will require, and need to be able to fulfill the role that they play in the pro generation of the next generation. [00:14:34] Mr. Chairman, [00:14:37] close four, deals with indecent assault on a man or a boy. [00:14:43] And that indecent assault is unacceptable to me at any time, in any price, or under any conditions. And I would just like to say to this house, that in many instances, I know young people of the age of 16 years who are still considered to be boys, and who, and even like the age 1718 and 19 years of age as two boys, I believe that we have in our society developed a system, which has very much developed the intellectual capabilities of our young people. But we have to recognize that a growing up process is not a matter of growing up and developing all of the talents at the same time. And at the age of 16 years, I believe that we have very substantially underdeveloped emotional talent and emotional values, and the fact that at that age, we could be subjected to this kind of sexual provocation. And maybe in some situations, sexual harassment will have an will have, in my opinion, a long lasting detrimental effect on those individuals concerned. It is totally unacceptable. And I believe that the responsibility lies with us to recognize There is a thinking people here inside. I think empowerment. I would urge the members of this house that they first consideration has to be not what the most of society may be saying to them at the moment, not what the liberal element within our society may be saying to us that it is time for a change, that there is a need for some liberalisation. [00:16:24] They need to see [00:16:25] why the people of Tim aroo chose that member to represent their views. And it's the same reason that he will be here as a member of parliament for tomorrow for as long as he chooses. Because he's representing the views of the vast majority of not only his electorate, about of New Zealand, I think it's time that this Parliament stopped and listened and looked at where we are going on issues of this nature. It is not the way New Zealand is one day a nation to go. New Zealand is want to hear parliamentarians expressing their concern about the Other issues of the day that this governor and record [00:17:02] get on a plane but but the time's right for me to leave the chair and I was in the chair at 730. In fact, pose some questions to [00:17:10] the Minister of Defense who, who has an amendment concerning this part of the bill. But I want to pose a question to all members of this committee when considering these measures, part of the most liberal homosexual measures in the world. Why is it New Zealand, of all countries has to accept those most liberal habits actual [00:17:35] laws. [00:17:37] In this day and age, I'm not sure that New Zealand is the country that should be accepting the element shows. I want to know why it is. There. If we look at the reasoning of the Minister of Defense, based on the chiefs of staff, who made a detailed examination of the basis for their services, attitudes to pricing, having sexual serving in the forces, they came Minister told us they came to the conclusion that this would adversely affect the coherence, the discipline, the command, and ultimately the operational capacity of the armed forces. What's wrong with that reasoning for the whole nation? Why is it the just the Armed Forces need to add here to these considerations? I want to ask the member, I want to ask the member interjecting he always interjects very loudly, just at the tea break every the strange that you should concentrate on the food war. I want to ask the member What about this these criterion pertaining to other groups? What about teachers? What about the discipline and command and the moral fiber as pertaining to schools and teachers? What about lawyers and and their dealings with people? What about those who are involved with youth groups, the scout masters and so on? And what about parliamentarians? Why is it The Armed Forces is such a special case. And I can accept the submissions of the minister of defense on behalf of his amendments. But I do ask other members of the committee, why is it that that one special group applies? I hope that the committee will adjust itself to that, because the minister did talk about the need in the armed forces of effectiveness, discipline, the health questions is if it applies to the Army, Navy and Air Force, what about the health questions that apply to the whole nation and the whole community, particularly our young people between 12 and 16? For goodness sake, why we are leading this nation? We are parliamentarians. This is a free vote. Why don't we listen to 830,000 people who have told us on behalf of many other people as well. This is not the measure that New Zealand wants, and I believe the parliamentarians have got an opportunity to show a bit of moral fiber. This is not the way New Zealanders want to take this nation. And I hope that the the member in a chair will address the specific questions I've asked of her particularly pertaining to the proposed law changes pertaining to 12 to 16 year olds, what the implications are if in fact the amendments allowing homosexual activities between 20 year olds in terms of the ages that she has in her bill, will the 20 year age group make any significant need for changes to 12 to 16? Surely 16 to it and in that case, for example, I would like to know the significance of the ages [00:20:37] of 1618 or 20. [00:20:40] Why have those I just been chosen, as my colleagues and [00:20:45] I really demonstrated earlier in the debate this afternoon, these matters. For time to attitude these measures pertain to the moral fiber of people of this nation, the attitudes of this nation I'm not going to change. I want to hear from the member in the chair. Today's specific request which I like on behalf of many people have written to me and I know other members who are most concerned. [00:21:15] This the [00:21:17] gym and listen to Chairman. I think the truth of the matter is that people are not made [00:21:24] either good or bad [00:21:26] by laws or by x of Parliament, but by the ethics that they acquire from their own moral formation which is gained on a personal basis and [00:21:36] not through legislation. This homosexual law [00:21:40] reform bill is intended to foster equality before the law for all New Zealanders regardless of in this case, their sexual orientation. [00:21:48] But of course, it could be in other instances [00:21:50] and other legislations their religion or their political belief or anything else and approving this legislation, Mr. Chairman, bring about equality or equal treatment in a legal sense does not necessarily imply support or otherwise for the behavior of individual people. And it is my belief that you cannot legislate for goodness and that all we can do as political representatives is ensure that there is a legal framework within which the common good is protected as well as providing for individual rights to be exercised. Now, I want to say to the members who have spoken on this debate previously today, that the time for equality before the law, in my view is now other nations have taken this step years ago. And I've heard mentioned night by members during this debate about Christian values and homosexuality. But nowhere in Christian teaching can I find any suggestion that one's Christian values should be determined by public pressure, by referenda or by the white of numbers on a petition Remind members of the House, that conscious pilot held a referendum. He held a referendum. He knew his prisoner to be innocent. But he believed that as the recognized law maker of his time and place, that he could wash his hands off the decision of the mob and stand aside and allow those with the weight of numbers on their side to have their say. And I would remind members who want to quote Christianity and the defense of that thing, the house this house and the main dissolver cannot, in my view, wash their hands and that way they must decide for themselves. And there's my view that the possibility of objective well informed that under emotional consideration of this matter, has been shown to be well known possible. My myeloma suggests the mail of all members is evidence of that fact. And some of the contributions to this debate reinforce that point. I want to refer Mr. Chan Particular clauses four and five. It has barely been noted that the terms of imprisonment, foreigners for indecent assault or no Linda course on a boy under the age of 16 years is the subject to imprisonment of between seven and 14 years. Now, Mr. Chan, and that is the same range of Satan's usually reserved for murder. And I want to know what punishment to those who oppose this bill, what do they want more punishment than for the crime of murder? And if I do, what are the implications of that? Does it in fact in suggest that you might as well kill a victim as well as performing the other indecency on that victim? Because those who want more punishment for the crime of murder are inviting that comparison. And I want to say an answer to the main burden because we spoke earlier in this debate, that it seems to me that the police have got a lot better things to do with their time, then do Just with homosexuals and and chase them around the place, dealing with heterosexual right, the famous for one would be an important job of the police. And I suggest that we give them plenty of opportunity to do that work. We like to remind the honorable member in the cargo of the words of that London Bobby who writes to me again because I want to ask this question of that member. Will it be you for the member for longer Ray, or a religious group or a vigilante squad or the police who seek out these homosexuals that you want to persecute? Before the English law change? He said to me, I was a young policeman ordered into the dark streets in the private recesses of London, two hands and arrays time of sexuals my actions were the immoral act, their crime, their sexuality, my shame that I had no brief to crush the sensibilities of a fellow human being. to criminalize private morality turns us off the steep path. A civilization. Now that's what he wrote to me a London policeman who was responsible before the change in the homosexual law in that country for policing the bill that you want to oppose. Now, seems to me that that is not right. [00:26:20] Listen carefully to my colleague and friend from signum. I want to tell him that I used to be a London policeman, and I walked the streets of London, and I have in my time arrested homosexuals who have molested young people. And I did it then, and I would do it again. Because I think that homosexuality is I social evil should not and must not be condoned by this country. I oppose the bill, Mr. Spit and Mr. Chairman, because it is not in the best interest of the homosexual persons or our society. What we are telling the nation of this, this people have this nation is that if it is legal, then people and especially young, immature people will think that it is socially and permissibly correct to be a homosexual, I do not accept that. I do not accept it there in my youth and I do not accept it now. My colleague and friend also said that other nations have changed the law. And it's about time that we did to he is quite correct when he says that other nations have changed the law. But I have correspondence here, which I am quite happy to table for the benefit of members of the House, which shows that some of those nations now bitterly regret that they have liberalized and change the law in the state of New York at the moment where the disease of AIDS is running [00:27:43] rampant [00:27:45] through that state where it is almost out of control. legislation is this week, I understand being introduced to stop the spread of eight through homosexual context. So I want to close the gay bars, the gay churches The guy, the guy restaurants, etc. Because I have said, and in a legislation where I gave almost almost legal license to do what they want, including marrying one another, but I have found that the society has rejected it. And I've got an appalling health problem. Mr. Chairman, in my constituents of Nigeria, since this bill was introduced so long ago, I have spoken to many of my constituents. I have spoken, they know my view, I have listened to their Believe me. In the city of Nigeria, there are a few people who support the bill. But there are many an overwhelming majority who do not support the bill. And I shall vote against it accordingly, because I believe I'm doing what my constituents expect me to do. Can I just briefly touch finish off talking about the armed forces which was what I was speaking just before The end of the day. [00:29:01] It doesn't matter if this Parliament [00:29:04] makes it legal for soldiers, sailors and airmen to engage in homosexual activities. The members of the armed forces and those of us who've served in the armed forces know this for a fact, will find that those members will find this practice repugnant. I will be disgusted by it. And any guy that thinks that they can carry out those practices legally in the armed forces will get a very short sharp shift. Indeed, as I said before, it has already been spoken round wire over. Well, I should have known There was an old sailor here pick up that for [00:29:45] us was that my colleagues at all except anything? [00:29:51] Mr. Chairman, [00:29:53] is now becoming [00:29:54] the fat of many jokes at wire camp, the largest military camp in New Zealand. As I said before, Kiss me Goodnight, Sergeant Major will become reality instead of the illegal, Mr. Chairman, what this parliament has forgotten. And what many of my own colleagues have forgotten is that the actions of the so called activists and the gay community are not the same values held by members of the armed forces for many, many people in our society. Even if the law does this, even if we pass it for the armed forces, as I said before, there will be many breaches of it. And I feel sorry for any guy that thinks he can go into the armed forces and practice their way there. Mr. Vega, one of the things that's been ridiculed by the supporters of the bill, time and time again, has been that they have ridiculed the petition which was presented to this panel. I supported that petition. I was very proud to be associated with that petition. One thing though, that has struck me as rather strange is that though the people who oppose this bill organize a petition, and I'm not saying That was 100%. Correct? because who knows, but I know that it was overwhelmingly correct as far as I was concerned, is that I'm surprised that the gay community themselves, if they are so certain of the case, like themselves have never organized a petition in support of [00:31:15] this bill. [00:31:16] Brand while [00:31:18] children I think it's important to correct a misapprehension, under which the name of will Napier's suffering. And that is regarding the New York situation. Yes, New York, is a city with probably the largest aids problem in the world. And in fact, just this week in New York, they have passed anti discriminatory anti discrimination legislation along the same lines as the bill we're actually discussing at the moment. [00:31:45] And the reason why they have done that [00:31:47] is because they know that unless the gay population and the at risk population are in fact, able to live ordinary lives, and not kove carry out sexual active activities covertly, they will not be able to assist with the public education and a public health program. And the member for Nike might be that in mind that in fact the legislation was actually passed this week. Mr. Chairman, I want to come in on a question asked by the member for y Karim Ana, who appear to have some difficulty with the age of consent, and he didn't ask me [00:32:27] why [00:32:29] 16 and why 18 and why 20? Well, I can't answer for the members of the amendments while I've put on ages, why they have decided arbitrary ages such as 18 or 20 should be the age of consent, but I will tell him why there is an age of 16 in the bill. And it was quite simple just because the age of 16 already exists in the Crimes Act. And I'm sure I've told this to the house before but it wasn't listening at the time. The member for phone or a CDs heard it all before but perhaps he should listen to he might learn something. There is an effect. Currently in the Crimes Act and age of consent of 16. And the whole rationale behind this bill is to actually make the law non discriminatory so that males and females are treated equally under it. And I think it's very important that those who are saying that it's going to legalize sodomy between 12 year old cedar cedar and then has been sued by them this house and out of it, and those who have said as to the Salvation Army and the war cry on the 27th of April 1985, that the bill will effectively legalize sodomy with all males aged between 12 and 16. And it will be almost impossible to convict for sodomizing even 12 year old people who make those claims are actually wrong, and they should read the bill and they should read the current Crimes Act, section 134 on which this bill is modeled. It's actually a gross distortion of the legislature of the bill to save that to make those points. names, and it's simply designed to make people fearful of their children's safety if the bill [00:34:05] is passed, [00:34:06] in fact, the bill contains a provision which is already there in the Crimes Act under Section 134. [00:34:13] And which has operated [00:34:14] successfully for many years. And nobody as far as I know, the police, the social welfare department or the social workers, churches, anyone who has anything to add anything to do with this legislation has has called for the repeal of this that request has never been made. The provision which is there as is commonly known as the carnal knowledge clause. [00:34:37] It is [00:34:38] cattle knowledge is when a male has consenting sex with a girl age between 12 and 15 years it provides for to defeat says and the men before why can a minor and finger I should listen to this because they might learn something, there are two defeats as possible to carnal knowledge. The first is if the male can prove he is younger than the girl. The second defense which is Here in this bill on identical basis, has to has three elements, all of which must be proved to the court. Firstly, the accused must show he was under 21 at the time of the offense. Secondly, he must prove that he actually believed the girl or the other party was age 16 years or older. And thirdly, the judge in the jury must all be satisfied that they could reasonably believe that the other party was 16 years or or, or either, Mr. Chairman, these are very stringent criteria, they are very difficult to fulfill. It is not very often that they're even brought forward as a defense because the people who are involved in the court proceedings know how difficult [00:35:43] they are. And I think that it is quite fatuous [00:35:45] to believe that it could be used successfully and that the client and and that is going to prove the claims made by people who oppose the bill. The homosexual law reform bill simply picks up identically provisions that are already there and the Crimes Act applying to hetero sexual intercourse. And people who are opposing it on those grounds [00:36:09] have [00:36:10] should examine their own attitudes towards the young females in our community. [00:36:15] The the people [00:36:16] who use those arguments are either ignorant of or suppressing the facts about section 134 of the Crimes Act. [00:36:25] Chairman, of course, [00:36:28] they are only they are endeavoring to sensationalize rather than and form because they always use it in conjunction with discussion about anal intercourse, not about in decency or about heterosexual intercourse. And the other thing is, of course, that those who condemn this cause are actually saying that boys are so much more important than girls that they have to be given extra protection. [00:36:52] Mr. Chairman, first clause is already in the law. [00:36:56] This Bell is simply bringing the law into line so that it treats me Males and females heterosexual and homosexual equally. [00:37:08] Mr. Chairman, I have given notice, I think, the same thing a an amendment, I intend to move to the bill, which of course challenges the statements have just been made by the member for Washington central la come on to that in a moment. United say that with that amendment, there are now 16 amendments on the floor [00:37:28] to this bill, [00:37:30] a bill which contains about three pages, a little over three pages. And from this arena said there are 16 amendments, expressing the differences that members of parliament have various parts of this bill that emphasizes to me sir, the thing that really this parliament is not in a position really to process this bill. I am still concerned that there will was insufficient study done by the committee that was given this bill in the first flight? And I'm not going to to criticize that committee. Sir. I know the pressure the committee's are under. But I believe that before we do processes bill, we should have add a thorough investigation into all that is involved with it. And I think Sir, if that had been done, it would have been easier to find a common mind among the members of parliament, rather than the rights of least a host of other amendments, which are coming for. And I believe that this is an important social piece of legislation, which needs completely different treatment. So the way in which parliament is treating it, and I don't, in my mind, sir, we are really not in a position to produce this. This bill. The way in which it should be. Now, sir, I have moved an amendment tonight to omit force rate on the bill. And in doing so, sir, that would reinstate, I say if this was carried by the house, it would may not late Crimes Act it section 140 word in effect be reinstated that that the Crimes Act that presidents are handling the situation of indecency between man and boy provides for a penalty of 10 years. For any person who indigent eso, any boy under 16 years of i ordaz, any indecent act and so on with a person under 16 years away the legislation before us now the bill before us now provides the 10 year penalty for exactly the same conditions except that is to apply Not to a person of 60 back to a person of 12. Now, the main central has has correctly pointed out that this is at variance with earlier sections in life crimes relating to hetero sexual practices. That is correct and I don't and I accept that. But I want to say sir, that we are not there is a night with the situation under this legislation of young girl and I would suggest to the member for what a central ending date to the house. If we are to look at this thing, do I really then we should look at it in the context of amendments to the coins. And when we come down with some data, I hope we will and do got to look to the to the penalties under the Crimes Act and various other provisions on the crimes. That is the time when we should make any alterations. You know, like Main member for what it is central just now said, well, we're going to break her intention is to bring it in line with indecent assault on girl. All right, and why not live? The situation the protection of girls today, which is April under 644 boys under 16 rather than reverse the other way? Yes, sir, is the answer is what we're dealing with homosexuals instead of heterosexuals under this bill. And that's not a not a sufficient answer for me at all. Now, so I think it was at our peril, that we moved to endorse the provisions of the bill at both three at the present time. I think we should, we should remove it, and that they should be no approval by this house for any recognition of indecent assaults and decent acts on any person, any boy, under 16 years of I we could reasonably leave it there. We could look at this manner again, sir, when the crimes that [00:42:05] Mr. Chairman very young when the Crimes Act, sir, again comes up for [00:42:09] review. [00:42:10] I asked her that that be done by the house. I think that the fair way to proceed and the the best way to proceed in handling this matters I said Sir, you could go either way. Let me the Maven central says she'd bring it lightly this clause in line with the with the indecency provisions on young girls by reducing the standards down to what is here in the crimes at young girls. I personally I'd rather see the the move by the other way and why sir, because associated with a lot of this secular and carnal knowledge and things are going on is bombs in our community at the present time. I want to say sir, there's many members in this house or on a committee with me were women and Young women are coming to us concern, really concerned, sir about the conditions existing in our society at the present time, which is putting them at terrific risk of violence. And I believe, sir, that we are in a vastly different situation. environment, it was an environment that's affected by New Age such as TV and so on. Where, and, and the video age where there is violence proceeding sexually, mainly upon young, young girls, but not wholly that way. I believe that we need to have the law as strong as possible in this connection on the crime Zach, and I will be it's undesirable so far as I'm concerned to see us reduce the penalties and reduce the conditions To which the penalties provide in the wind puts the main before Washington central revival this bill is advocating, I asked her that, that they help give serious consideration in that way to the amendment that I have bought bought. Again, sir, I emphasize the house, I don't think that we are to live inside no to the processing of the whole of this bill to allow the madam to be properly investigated by if you like a world commission or whatever. But certainly, sir, there's been insufficient study given to this matter. That's why we've got so many amendments before the House of the present time. And I I think that the house would be well advised. If we had if we [00:44:49] did proceed on that line. [00:44:52] Just for calling the next neighbor to speak. I couldn't put out the members have a sheet of paper on which is contained the procedure prize by the [00:45:01] That, of course, will accommodated. [00:45:05] Chairman Dr. Morris Marshall, [00:45:07] when I first in the first instance want to address my remarks to the amendment move by my colleague, the Minister of Defense to clause seven a. And I've circulated the paper to members about the effect of that because I asked the officers of the education department to comment on the second and third proposals which the Minister of Defense has proposed. But before I am back on my comments on those aspects, I simply want to say in passing that I do not agree with nor do I intend to support the Minister of Defense's proposals. I think that [00:45:44] I don't I don't believe that that is necessary to take that step. I think there's been a considerable amount of exaggerated fear raised in this respect as many others. And I'm sure that although I've not been here for the whole of the debate, other members have canvassed adequately the reasons why No script, no arrangement should be made for any occupational group. And I think I heard the member for why carry marijuana saying words to that effect of the radio earlier this evening. But, Mr. Chairman, I simply want to observe at this point, that if the house decides to make the amendment which the minister of defense is proposed to clause tier two clause 10. I want to point out the contents of my memorandum which would suggest that there are quite serious implications if we go on to attempt to pass clauses 11 and 12. And the legal offices of the Education Department have suggested that we run the risk of being in a rather his title with the words hypocritical but city a double standard situation where people and other vocational training bodies would be required to adopt a different would be allowed to adopt a different attitude towards people who are training for the Armed Forces than they would be for all other trainees. And that would be a very invidious position to put those organizations And they stopping, and it would open up a temptation, which I think is quite unnecessary. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, if I hope it doesn't eventually I just closed the news fast, then my the legal advice given to me is that the consider the minister defense is more than adequately covered by clause team, but nmt go on and pass clauses 11 and 12. And close 12. Frankly, legal advice I have is quite superfluous. It's a it's a built in two sets of braces, which seems to me to be quite unnecessary, and I urge members if they must pass the first two Amendments of the Minister of Defense, do not pass clause 11 and don't waste time passing cause 12 as well, Mr. Chairman, the other thing I want to say is that I have come to the view not likely or easily, because I suspect that I am a typical middle aged male who has the minute the attitudes of my generation with me, but I have come to the conclusion that we must [00:48:00] passed the law [00:48:00] at 16. And, Mr. Chairman, there is no objective evidence anywhere produced in this house to suggest that six your preferences determined as late in life is that now, Mr. Chairman, I know there are a whole lot of other things. Well, Mr. Chairman, I must say I was ashamed as a member of this house to listen to the mindless emotional diatribe, which we listened to last week from the member finger I miss dismiss the chairman. The member had his turn, he can get more to it, [00:48:38] that it is true, that there will be as there are now people who will seek to corrupt minors. It is [00:48:47] just [00:48:48] as illegal under this legislation, as it as it is now. And some of the righteous emotional rubbish put out by the middle finger and others. It just doesn't I think he, at least as a member of this house owes it to his constituents and to the people of this country to study what this bill is about, not what it's not about. There are many of the things which he ranted on about last week, which are illegal now. And which will be illegal if this bill is passed in his prison form. And I think they have ought to concentrate on what's in the bill, and what's proposed and not a whole lot of emotional claptrap. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear to me and I haven't come to this point of view likely. It is quite clear to me that individual sexual preference is determined long before people reach the age of 16. Nor am I convinced by those who would argue that it's possible to change a person's sexuality by by whatever form after that age, those preferences a sit and long since determined by the time that people get to this point, Ms to Speaker I urge people therefore to vote On the basis of what is objective we know and under an order, Mr. Chairman, [00:50:12] cannot listen very carefully to the Minister education's contribution to the speech. I want to correct him on one or two methods, which I think he may not be aware of, and I do it for the best will in the world. He mentioned the fact that the armed forces are sometimes regarded, I'm required to go to educational institutes. That is true. He said that it would be wrong for them to be treated differently from anybody else. Well, let me inform the minister of education that when one joins the armed forces, one accepts that you lose some of the liberties and the free and easy ways of civilian life and you become subject to military law or naval or air force law. For instance, when you go to a university or a technical institute as a soldier, you are still Southern To military law, you have to shave every day. You have to have a haircut, and so on, because they are the requirements amongst many others of military law. Are we to suggest now that in some mysterious way that they are human rights are being denied them because all of a sudden, they can suddenly go and commit sodomy if they're attending a Polytechnic, I'm afraid it is not true. When a New Zealander, male or female joins the armed forces, they willingly give away many of the liberties which they are used to in civilian life and accept the disciplines of service line. Mr. Speaker, I've listened carefully to what some of the other members supporting this bill have said. I want to tell you that in my opinion, this bill provides if we take it right down and I listened to the member for Eastern hat very carefully, and I agree with what he said. This bill provides a defense for homosexual acts upon boys under 12 Where a homosexual under 21 complete consent or mistake as to the age, [00:52:05] I find that [00:52:07] totally unacceptable. The legislation, in my view would make it very difficult for a for guilt to be found. And I caught for the simple reason, that young person, the 12, or 13, or whatever, that young person and their parents would be loath to have that child exposed to the trauma of a courts cross questioning. And I don't think that that is a good law to put a young child through that. I depend much to fight about the age. I don't care if it's 1618 or 20. Because I think that 99 is not even an age. Although I am tempted to think that by the time you reach 100, you should be permitted to do what you want. [00:52:51] Mr. Speaker, the president law [00:52:53] is against [00:52:54] anal intercourse or what is commonly known as sodomy. That is what the press Law attempts to prevent the changing of the law to discriminate homosexual acts. The I don't believe is the real aim of the gay community of New Zealand. I believe firmly that the real aim is to change society's attitudes towards homosexuality and in gain total acceptance of homosexual behaviors in all areas. Overseas experience has shown that were legislators of various countries have heated to them and given in and liberalize the law. [00:53:35] What has happened, [00:53:36] I'll explain and many people have seen what has happened in the United States, especially Chicago and New York, in Amsterdam and other parts of Holland and in London, etc. The first thing that is to happen is that the gay bars appear bars for gays, gay dance halls, gay restaurants, and so on. The next piece of legislation undoubtedly to come in will be to opposed to allow gay men to marry as they can in some states of the United States. That is the next logical step. Many of my colleagues will [00:54:08] pursue it. And it's not in the bill. [00:54:11] But let me just tell you the bill introduced by the previous National Party member a few years ago, had the age of 21. I've read the hand sat [00:54:20] in those hands as members on this side [00:54:21] of the house, I believe it was Henry may [00:54:24] said the next time this bill comes in, [00:54:26] it will be at the age of 16. And you know, he was right. And I'm telling you that if this bill comes legal, within a few years, the next one will be that says sexual orientation and male should be allowed to marry that male should be allowed. Male should be allowed to adopt children. [00:54:44] That is exactly the experience [00:54:46] of what has happened overseas. It is the thin end of the way. It is the first step along the way. This is bigger. I don't want to Mr. Chairman, rather, I don't want to inflict that upon New Zealand because nobody can give a guarantee. What will happen if this bill is passed and what effect it will have on our society, we can only judge what has happened overseas. [00:55:14] Listen to the Amanda Mayfield with quite some interesting as I have the [00:55:18] other [00:55:20] members who have contributed to this divide. You mentioned the member of the opposition myself who introduced the bill 12 years ago. I want to say that as far as that major was concerned that the human is quite different from the present major. And I certainly would not support the provisions and may present major [00:55:42] but I want to say very clearly that [00:55:45] when I was asked to [00:55:47] introduce that Bill [00:55:50] 12 years ago, I said to the person who asked me Yes, I'm I'm prepared to introduce a bill because I hear the I was one way Another and I'm convinced that it is right that we should decriminalize homosexual act between consenting adults in private. [00:56:14] That's the view I took them having heard all the arguments, and that's the view I held to that I hold today. And that is precisely the stance I will take today. This bill guys, five of them that have all the amendments that we had before, the one that comes the closest to the recommendations how that Select Committee of Parliament for money or another report back to the house in 1975 is the amendment that was proposed by my colleague the member for Hamilton and I want to entire fire as the house will listen to my advice, advise the house Consider that amendment. I think it is a appropriate one. It is a complicated piece of legislation. We know we know very well that it is fraud. This piece of legislation is fraught with difficulty for the promoter. I'm not telling the member when it comes into anything she doesn't know. And I believe we should, we should step forward. But step forward cautiously. We cannot get too far ahead of public opinion. And that has to do with what they see as the morals of the country. Hello, Mrs. Vega. We are talking about a criminal law. [00:57:43] And we've got to [00:57:44] ask ourselves, do we expect the criminal law to intervene where there is no victim in other words, I victimless crime where there are consenting adults in the Private, however their actions may offend us personally offend our own morality? Is that the place for the criminal law? And I'd say that it is not. It is not. What takes place in public is how miners may be affected. And I'm not persuaded by the arguments put forward by the member for wanting him Central. Who says that because we have a certain age of consent for heterosexual acts, the same age of consent should apply to homosexuality. If you look through the jurisdictions of country after country overseas, that argument is not sustainable. So I decided to examine very closely and I'm certainly going to support the amendment the foot forward by my colleague, the member for Pendleton because I believe it may the maids of guys sake reform of the legislation as it presently stand and avoid offending lies who are concerned at the impact of changes on the law on one society, and secondly, the young. Mr. Speaker. I believe that we should take a modest step forward in homosexual Lori for this bill [00:59:28] or this path. The path that we [00:59:30] are considering now goes far [00:59:33] too bad for this hours, I believe, and for this country, I suggest to the house examine [00:59:41] the amendment from a member for 10 [00:59:43] for Pendleton and supported a [00:59:48] frank Flynn. Chairman, I think I should seek your guidance by way of point of order. I listened to his interest I was not in the chamber [00:59:57] to the speech a little while [00:59:58] ago by the Minister Education new [01:00:02] notify for I think, but at any rate was making distributed some material [01:00:07] making comments [01:00:08] on some of the contents of the order paper that stands in my name. Now, Mr. Chairman, [01:00:14] those parts of that order paper all relate to part two of the bill. [01:00:19] I have said nothing about them so far. [01:00:22] I gave him made a brief contribution in respect of that part of my order paper that deals with part one. [01:00:29] And I'm now just a little bit lost I. [01:00:35] I'm sure they have [01:00:36] to give a speech again, and I'm sure it doesn't want me to give my speech twice. [01:00:40] I am just [01:00:42] inquiring with the chairman whether [01:00:44] members might like to take some interest [01:00:45] in it whether rightly be more convenient. If I see George me what [01:00:49] I want to say about that [01:00:51] part of my autobiography deals with part two now rather than later. Now, I think the [01:00:57] fact the matter was that the member for Long ago he was talking to comments that he circulated which included the amendment with the member for by proposes to part one. So but he but he made his remarks all of a piece or at least I understood that that's what he was doing. [01:01:14] So it will be better. I think [01:01:16] that that those parts of the member formula is remarks that were relevant having been [01:01:21] having been allowed [01:01:23] that but but in order for a stop just trying to fill up federal relevance that that the member for Ireland by [01:01:31] restrain his comments until we kind of have to but if he presses the point, I think I have to allow him the opportunity to come in now if he presses. No. [01:01:43] Bill Sutton. [01:01:45] Chairman, we are [01:01:46] discussing fat one of this bill, and it's clear that we are finally approaching the stage. We will have some votes on matters of substance relating to this bill and I hear applause from some of the members in the house. that prospect. [01:02:02] If we consider [01:02:05] what was said about Pat, one of the bill, in the report of the Department of Justice, [01:02:11] I stated quite clearly [01:02:12] that the key policy issue in the bill is the age of consent. They stated that it was their impression that there is a very strongly held conviction amongst large sections of the community, at an age of consent of 16 years behind the sexual relations is simply too Yeah, there's a good deal of sin if I were to support that view, [01:02:34] including the survey that I carried out in the hoax by electro. [01:02:39] When we consider the amendments that have been suggested, by way of supplementary order paper in the speeches that were made in the second reading debate, it is clear that there are two laddish camps amongst members. They are allies centered around the aim for hierarchy to take a strong opposing stance the The entire contents of this bill and I have supported themselves in the debate in the scene that around the name of Wellington Central, it was strongly in favor of [01:03:09] all of the provisions in this bill. [01:03:10] There are in addition, a group of MPs there my numbering from the speakers in this house come to it in plus a few hours, you haven't chosen to speak in the debate. Here you have adopted a position of qualified support, by all support some aspects of proposed reform, but not the whole bill, and I am of that number. Mr. Chairman. [01:03:35] They were [01:03:36] more precisely nine members who spoke you indicated that I will not happy with the age of consent of 16 for part one of this bill, but would consider some higher age but not declaring themselves strongly for the highest age suggested which has been aged 20 and I address my arguments particularly to that smallest group. Which may conceivably hold the balance in the spider. I argue [01:04:06] that of the supplementary order fibers and the amendment suggested [01:04:11] that the major ones are those that stand in the name of the member for the meeting North for lighting doing is suggesting an age of 24 the provisions in part one and support that you because I've heard no convincing argument for the age of 20. It's not an age which is widely used to confirm an age for decision making in society. I believe that the lower age of ideas is now more commonly accepted as an appropriate age for maturity, in regard for example, to voting in parliamentary elections. Mr. Chairman, the member for North Shore has proposed that the age of 18 should apply to clauses three, four and five that is, through various kinds of situations. activities involving miles. [01:05:03] That stance I think, [01:05:06] seeks to find that strain and public opinion which believes that the age of 16 is to too young to allow conceding sexual acts between miles is prepared to accept a somewhat higher age. I don't support that stance either. Because Because it seems to me to distinguish between males and females performing very similar sexual activities, rather than distinguishing between a, and it's my view, that the public, by and large, is concerned, in particular about the act of sodomy, or analyticals. There is, in fact, what most members have spoken to in this house when I've been opposing part one of this bill. There's been virtually no consideration, at least in the committee of the whole of the fact that this ain't deals with the money wider range of sexual activities, then simply sodomy or intercourse, [01:06:06] I take the view [01:06:08] and I put that forward in supplementary order paper number 72 [01:06:12] which is however, subsumed under the supplementary order paper number 70 foot forward by the moon for not sure [01:06:21] I related, I suggested an amendment which would apply purely and simply to clause five. In other words, I would support clauses three and four as they stand because they appear to me to be consistent with the existing Crimes Act provisions relating to hater a sexual activities. And because the activities which are described as in decencies are of a similar nature, whether they carried out by female female capitals or by male female capitals or by male male capitals. They have a similar nature they are in fact, commonly considered as exploratory sexual activities and there's a good deal The show, but they are mainly practice by younger, aged people engaged in sexual exploration. Now, I believe that, that the law should recognize that such activities are of a similar nature, whether they involve only males or whether they involve males and females when it comes to annalynne. Because I think that that is widely accepted as being a dangerous practice, [01:07:28] particularly with respect because the game [01:07:30] was three and mccline. [01:07:34] The bikes of this kind of thing to bring out the best and the [01:07:36] worst in the house. [01:07:37] Sometimes we get some of the best pictures that are ever heard here. And occasionally as in this debate, we get some of the worst speeches. But one of this bill, which was introduced by the member for Wellington Central, looks to have some clear political purposes and she's looking for political meriton and introducing the bill. The speeches in response by a panel At times, have been extraordinary speeches. And they've been some people in the house who seem to have taken an unusual interest in certain rather less familiar sexual practices. And I've got quite a few kicks from it. And but this bill, Mr. Speaker has been debated long time. And this part has been debated a long time. I doubt if we've had a new argument in the last four hours. There are some people who are moving amendments, and no doubt the house will want to hear them explaining what the amendments are. But I've been listening intently this evening, waiting to hear when some new argument may be, might be advanced. And, Mr. Chairman, there have been any this evening. And it looks as though most members of this house are at the stage where they've made their minds up almost all of them, some of them a long time ago. And I suggest you Mr. Chairman, And that's shown by the speaking list by the number of people who in the committee have been able to take a second or third call, indicating that most members of the House have, in fact made their minds up. Mr. Chairman. [01:09:18] The evidence I have for that is the speaking list where the members have not been actively seeking the goal that I've been willing to leave, willing to leave the proponents and the opponents of the bill to carry the holder by advancing the same old arguments, ad nauseum. But [01:09:43] well be that the member for Nelson has not made his mind up but he has no doubt the debate could continue for his benefit. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we're getting to the stage with this the by way aware, holding back the committee and the health Now I'm not making the class I'm not entitled to. I'm speaking to part one. I'm speaking to part one. But it is there are other bills before the house, I'm not going to refer to them, that it's time we got on with the business of the country, including other private member's bills. Mr. Speaker, I would sell them ever, if ever, I speaker or chairman of committees able to move the closure. But I would suggest to you that our most particular occasion, you should assess whether any new arguments are being advanced, whether the committee has made its minds up and the doctor those who are moving amendments have been able to explain them that the health should then decide to go and back on this. This bill. Mr. Speaker, there's only one provider I'd add and that is providing the government would give an assurance that on any closure motion, the web would not apply. [01:11:01] geography teacher Courtney Sullivan, [01:11:05] sheets of amendments to this bill of fluttering on our desks like confetti. Nine s at a week ago when we laugh debated this bill and 18 by tonight. And what does that prove? We have never had another bill in this house. In my experience that has had so many amendments put by such a wide variety of members in this house, clearly where they are dissatisfied and unhappy about the principal bill. And I make that case as evidence of that. And as Mr. Chairman, supporters of this bill claim that 10% of our population are homosexual. Taking the 1991 census, that would mean that there are about 317,000, homosexual New Zealanders. It is therefore suggested that this bill is for these 317,000 individuals in this country. If this bill is passed any New Zealander I 16 years, and I could indulge in any aspect of homosexual behavior with any other New Zealand the age 16 years and other and also with any other person from any other part of the world. I did 16 years I know that providing both partners consent and that they are homosexual behavior is in private and within this country. [01:12:58] What a rare, distinct For this little nation [01:13:03] that it will provide this bill passes that legal protection. [01:13:10] If this bill is passed, it would provide a blanket provision concealing such homosexual behavior from criminal sanctions. [01:13:22] Any person visiting New Zealand would also the other be covered by the law while in New Zealand. [01:13:32] I have referred in earlier debates on this bill to an excellent international jet setting group with their own travel agencies who already have special visits to this country, providing this bill passes on their agenda. I speak and in particular of American travel agents for homosexuals. poised to come to this mecca of the Pacific, where they can indulge in whatever they wish to in homosexual behavior was completed equanimity nine, the law in New Zealand will set the seal of approval. [01:14:23] There is the promise of new territory and other non spoil Polynesian land. [01:14:30] I come back to another observation I made during my inquiries in San Francisco last year, where the young homosexual prostitutes in that city were from the ethnic minorities. And I learned of the phrase, young and black is beautiful, but Brown is better in respect to this specific activity and with respect to prostitutes, homosexual, young homosexual prostitutes. So this bill is not actually limited only to the 317,000 New Zealand homosexuals, the way is opened for the International homosexual [01:15:18] terrorists. [01:15:21] Young New Zealand boys would be more interesting to such tourists than all domain. And if the person recorded in America is replicated, and I must say, Mr. Chairman, that it has been in an extraordinary number of aspects replicated here in New Zealand, but a few years later, then the program and America then young Polynesian boys would be a specially [01:15:52] choice. [01:15:53] Any further research on the subject will also reveal the validity [01:16:02] That kid [01:16:04] Chairman I live in the question being asked what [01:16:08] a point of order. [01:16:11] Let's delete consider the precipitous nature of that motion. I think to say that there are a number of speakers [01:16:20] Well, I think is the member [01:16:22] if I can if I can just explain the situation a member for Mara called and [01:16:29] move that the motion v foot. That's not debatable but [01:16:35] I'm afraid to accept it. [01:16:38] Speaker Yeah, but I thought the neighbor was talking to the to the pleasure which of course is not [01:16:44] is not a question for the house. Mr. [01:16:54] Max, thank you for the call. I hundred and 35,000 New Zealanders average decent people presented this Parliament with a petition signed I don't want to [01:17:09] I don't want to legalize sodomy for 16 year old, [01:17:12] 17 year old [01:17:14] 18 year old or 20 year old. They don't want to have sodomy legalize and servicemen. They don't want to have sodomy legalized for any sector of our society because I say that legalizing sodomy is the thin edge of the wedge. And it's going to destabilize the family unit. destroy this nation and democracy. So I stand here again tonight taking my fourth goal and not apologizing and saying this bill is evil. [01:17:46] And while Rome burns, [01:17:48] we are back here in the house tonight, trying to decide whether boys should be able to sodomize each other at 14 1516 or some other right and what a disgraceful speech Mr. Smith Yes, we heard from the member for one gunnery, the former Minister of religion. Now the Minister of Education, [01:18:07] who supports [01:18:08] 14 1516 year old school boys be able to summarize each other, if I wish. And when I wish, one of the striker situation, we have the Minister of Defense who's going to support this bill legalizing suddenly for 16 year old boys. [01:18:24] And he has the temerity, the cheek to bring in an amendment sign that the answer is this should be exactly what we say on the side of the house is if it's good enough to exist, [01:18:36] in the name of the Lord. Everyone, we don't want. [01:18:41] We don't want any sodomy in our society. We think it's evil. And we think it's evil that this Parliament sponsored by the Labour Party member for Wellington central should have this evil bill here on this house. Mr. Chairman, what keeps me going is people that come to this Parliament every Wednesday night [01:19:00] Some of those things are on the states. [01:19:02] Some of them are dealing on the states. Some of them are prime and the members in the telegrams of support that me and my friends, the main before nykeya, the military, the cargo pepakura, and how Iraqi, we get messages of support every Wednesday say, keep up the fight. You've got to stop [01:19:18] this bill, you've got to do your best. And that's [01:19:21] what we're doing. And youth with a mission here tonight in Parliament, [01:19:26] youth with a mission out there time, that common sense will prevail. And this parliament will say no to every provision of this bill. That's what I'm saying no to every provision of this bill, the vast majority of the population 98% of the population and not interested in homosexual activity, don't indulge in it and don't want this bill. We are pandering to 2% of the population that are perverted. And as far as I'm concerned, the suggestion that we import a few camels for these people might be the answer instead of wasting Parliament's time. Mr. Chairman, this is a disgraceful bill. It's affiliative the wage. Next we'll probably have from a Labour Party member, a bill legalizing euthanasia, or a bill legalizing sexual activity with animals. All next year. We'll probably see from the main before Wellington central amendment loving the the 14 or 13 or 12 way on the side of the house, because this bill side is evil. The member for Wellington central knows it's evil. She's [01:20:32] only doing it for some [01:20:33] sort of cheap political game to try and resurrect her electoral majority. [01:20:39] She knows 135,000 New Zealanders upset [01:20:43] it's bad. My People don't want her eyesight bad. And every week they send me down here with a message to tell this pilot that it's bad. Mr. Chairman, I have common sense will prevail. And as I said, I finished as I started while Rome burns. Why This country is an economic crisis. [01:21:03] This country is the [01:21:04] faceless Mr. Chairman. And here we are discussing this nonsense of with a 16 year old boys are organized to sodomized each other or whether it should be higher or whether it should be loud. We the opponents of this bill science not needed, not wanted and quite evil. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for the opportunity to speak for the fourth time, we make no apologies the opponents of this bill because we're going to speak again and again on this bill, because we think it is thoroughly bad. We heard a shameful speech from the former Minister of religion, the Minister of Education, and who is supposed to be out there looking after the interests of young boys and young girls in schools, and here he is in the house [01:21:49] supporting legalization of sodomy. [01:21:53] Dr. [01:21:54] Khan was the chairman I don't intend to respond in the same style as his speech. militar suggest to him as I suggested before, that this is a matter which should be regarded with some degree of rationality, rather than simply bigotry and prejudice. And I say that because I don't think in approaching this part of this bill, it is appropriate for members to base their voting their approach to legislation on a series of prejudices, rather than on the legislation in front of them. I'm quite sure that the great majority of the members of this house share those prejudices which they have had imbued within them through a long process of acculturation and education. But that is irrelevant. That is irrelevant to the state of the law. And the question before the house on this path is really very simple. The question is, whether people who commit analyticals whether indeed heterosexual or homosexual, no intercourse should be subject to criminal is if I are of sufficient age to have made up their minds about that, and whether they have given consent to that act taking place. And indeed we've had problems in the members, like people in the public at large, have consistently misrepresented parts of this bill. To take one simple example the memory for how Iraqi state of this bill legalizes male brothels, because it repealed section 146 of the Crimes Act. He forgot to note that it also men section 147 on Bravo keeping to change the word woman to person, and he may be so overwhelmed by the mess of feminists literature, that he is not aware that men are still people in this society. And therefore Sir, if brothels are banned for people, they are banned for both men and women, and the bill Benz brothels for men as it does for Winning. And if only some members would, would bother to read the bill, bother to get some proper advice. They would not make some of the stupid statements in this house. But they have done but I come back to the sexual matter. What is the purpose? What is the purpose in subjecting to subjecting people who are homosexual, [01:24:24] to the [01:24:25] threats of criminal incarceration for their activities? [01:24:30] Is it going to stop people being homosexual? Is it going to stop people committing homosexual acts? Is it going to cut is it going to contribute in one small part or another to the moral or the mental or the physical health of this community? And the answer to that is so clearly know that it is very hard to understand how people who adopt a rational attitude can oppose this Part of the bill. I know part two, because there are separate issues there, even though I support the real issue, therefore, is what the age of consent should be. And that is a difficult issue. Because any age of consent is arbitrary. Any age of consent does not apply to every individual in equal circumstances. Some people are indeed mature by physically and mentally at 16. Others are not. Others are mature before 16 as my daughters get older, and I've had people ask me whether I'm worried about my children, if this bill passes, and since my children are both daughters, I have no worries at all. I'm much more worried about some of the Mad heterosexuals out there in the community. As my daughters get older, I begin to think that 16 is too young for heterosexual consent. But that is not the issue. The issue is that we have to arrive at an age with anybody who is rational admit is arbitrary, because it cannot apply to each individual equally. And therefore, why should the age for homosexual consent be different from the A for heterosexual consent, apart from the legal problems that that create, because I know intercourse is not a solely homosexual act as the main for pepakura should know, it is not a solid homosexual act. It creates difficulties because one simply cannot say that young [01:26:33] men or boys, I do not care what you call them, [01:26:37] unnecessarily less mature, necessarily less mature than young women or girls at the age of 16. And that is the issue in front of the house. [01:26:52] Mr. Lee, children Thank you. The last speaker commitment to liberalism was well established in his house First of all said that [01:27:04] in the establishment of brothels that I was allegedly spoken about, he was first of all totally incorrect. I said the house and the earlier stage of this debate, that in fact, young people down in fact below the age of 16, in actual fact, could be prostitutes, boy prostitutes, and I did not need to infect a half I place a prostitution or a brothel, they could, in fact, by being sodomized and therefore being prostitute, the being the person sodomized, they can affect become prostitutes, by virtue of the law change. That's important point. They can even solicit the natural thing they can use was not a new law, where the present time of course that's an offense under the current law. [01:27:52] They [01:27:53] cannot keep a bottle that's recognized a misnomer that he's also well, Australia. The second point when he talks about the He's been incarcerated. Sir, this house has heard repeatedly that there has not been one homosexual incarcerated over 14 years for consent in private by the police. And we get this same sphere from the members of the government, sir, who are completely trying to confound what we about now. I want to repeat also, comments about the law that was effective today in the New York State to do with sexual orientation. I believe the move of the bill made first comment about this. What I want to inform the house sir is this. That was that was accepted. Roman Catholic Archbishop of New York Cardinal JOHN O'CONNOR has said this today also that he will fight the new law by every legal means not to accept. [01:28:54] He says if he has no redress through those measures, he will close down the Catholic hospitals and schools in the state of New York. [01:29:04] For them, he says to operate under this law, they would not be Catholic sir, that is response of the Archbishop in New York State today in response that law becoming effective. Now. So that's the major of the people response in that state and I put to you is that the sort of thing that New Zealanders have to also undertake to somehow bring back sanity to the population this country after these issues have taken place. There's another small side here and that load the law change today. It said the way more than four families are in one group of buildings. One of the additional commendation units must then be rated to homosexuals. So I just asked the house to ponder the enormity of that particular appendage to the law change today. In the Sir, that is extensively based on the victorious argument that homosexuals will be able to come out, declare the situations and get treatment. Now, sir, that argument is totally fallacious. It assumes in fact that these people are not going to come out whilst at law just and in that state particularly, there is already a form of decriminalization. [01:30:27] So, [01:30:28] we indeed know what was good, what is going to happen, there will be those who will come forward seeking medical assistance, because there will be an increase in eight suffers and homosexuals resulting from the degree of liberalism that the law will introduce. It runs hand in mouth together now, sir. There's an interesting little side in the crime cycle I asked the government to ponder in contact Section 201 it says that there was a there was a penalty of 14 years [01:31:05] for anybody who willfully [01:31:07] or knowingly inflicts, in other words a disease. And I asked him and I asked the move without bill and deed, is it their intention now because it's so, so ready to quote other member other sections of the project? Are they in the light of that knowledge? Anybody who willingly and only can fix another, which covers a homosexual situation, innocent it those people then subject to a 40 game

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.