Parliament: Committee of the Whole House - Homosexual Law Reform Bill (2 April 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 leggins.org.nz. [00:00:08] Already have not. You've already ignored a petition 135,000 signatures, and you've done that deliberately. You have now curtailed this debate curtailed my speaking time. I'm telling you now, I personally will go into the electorate of every member of this house who votes for this bill at 16 and campaign against the next election. I personally will do it. And the last thing I do if it's the only thing I do and accomplish in this house, in the 11 years I've been here that to me will be sufficient because I am telling you now, I'm not talking about the god people, the Christians, God save us from them. I'm talking about the average normal you Zealander the father of the families, the guys out there in the workshop, who signed that anti homosexual petition by the sales, and you've been come by these people by the news media. Bye, everybody. decide that there's 10% 20% the population, we know it's 2%. And I'm not going to talk about at all I'm going to say we're talking about 57,000 people in this country already, who could have the virus, 20% of them will get the full aids condition. And 20% 90% of those who get the full aids condition will die. And what you're doing, you're doing that to the people of this country's and the name of the [00:01:23] game, which stands [00:01:27] My name is set out and supplementary order paper number 70. And the essence of this is to change the those relative relevant passages and 434 and five of part one, [00:01:43] where the [00:01:44] expression 16 years appears to one of 18 years now. So, in moving this amendment, I readily recognize that there's no magic in any particular age, but I would suggest 18 in the circumstances of the environment in which this is being debated not only in this chamber but throughout the country, is I preferable age to 16. Those who would argue 20 and any at any [00:02:13] age, whatever it might be is an arbitrary age. [00:02:16] It is an arbitrary age. [00:02:19] Those who would argue in favor 20, [00:02:21] I would suggest [00:02:22] are arguing for an age that is pitched so high that it will not resolve the problem and it will come back to Parliament [00:02:28] next year, the Euro. [00:02:31] Those who argue in favor of 16 I believe once the whole life the whole life with the icing on it. And I do believe that if in fact the house would have a mind to [00:02:41] pass [00:02:42] a bill with the age of 16. That would inevitably be a counter reaction and we would have amendments or legislation pressing for change in the next year or two. What I am seeking Mr. Chairman in proposing 18 is quite honestly, a middle question. With all the imperfections that go with trying to find the middle course, I realized there are some some complications that this raises. And I realized that there is no there is no [00:03:14] a doctor. [00:03:18] shaman, there is a long established Convention on [00:03:20] the sense that members across speeches do not energy without a continual stream of injections during the speech from a member pepakura. And I would like [00:03:30] the honorable member on his feet to be given the chance to speak without us energy [00:03:36] is safe and it's a clear clearly understood convention that members on the left of the chair and the crossbenchers do not interject on each other they've been doing so they will refrain. [00:03:47] George gay, Mr. Chairman. [00:03:50] As I say there is no magic about 18 years and I make no pretense the threads I accept. I accept the fact that one is entitled to vote at the age of 18 years. One is in title to, in fact marry. Providing the parental consent applies before the age of 81 is not yet entitled A drink below the age of 20 years, there are a number of inconsistency is we have built into this age business in the law. But in the circumstances of this bill, I plead with the house, either not to reject the bill or to rejected it its totality because [00:04:27] I just as unreasonably define the reality that this bill, a famous many people, so what we should be doing, sir, [00:04:36] what we should be doing is trying to find an honest middle course. And I propose the age of 18 because I believe that house should have the choice of this age. I freely confess that there's no magic about the age of 18. But those who are 18 and times of general warfare have been presumed old enough to fight for their country. [00:05:00] Those who are 18 This house is determined by previous legislation are old enough to vote and decide [00:05:08] who should govern this country? And I believe, sir, I believe, sir, despite the problem, the technical problem that is raised and acknowledged in the explanatory note that this would mean that in the case of a Linda course in a heterosexual relationship, the present while there is no at the moment, there is no age, it would not. It would in fact, create an age of 18. And one could well say this is this produces an anomaly, I would humbly suggest that this anomaly is small compared with the anomalies that will be created if we choose another course [00:05:48] in the passage of this legislation. [00:05:50] And amendment stains in the name of the honorable Stan Roger [00:06:00] Mr. Banks [00:06:01] that the honorable Stan Roger doesn't want to speak in this debate, but he's got his amendment here. And I'll be opposing that as well, as all oppose every minute that before the house addressing clauses three, four and five of part one of this bill, and I'll be, I'll be opposing neck members there that name is amendment, whatever it is, if it supports in any shape or form, the ability for 16 year old boys to sodomized each other. Now, I just heard an incredible speech from my old friend, the member for North Georgia on his on his amendment, Mr. Chairman, and just give me the opportunity because this is very important in this Parliament after all, Mr. Chairman, and he suggests that his amendment is the right movement because he says society has been terribly divided over this issue. And that's correct. And 13,800 people and one more I sent me down here sent me down here to stand up in this chamber not outside in this chamber decided That I think is is wrong. 20 years is wrong 40 5099 if you lie, it's all wrong, because 15,800 people in the state of anger, I have said legalizing sodomy between miles is wrong. So go down there and tell them. So that's what I'm telling the member North Georgia night. That Yes, it has divided society he is 100%. Correct. divided it this way, the majority of the population, in particular in my electorate longer I do not want this bill to legalize sodomy at any age, at any age. That's what that Toby and I ensure that the vast majority of the members who support that, who support that would agree, they don't want it at any age. It's not a good science and society is divided on the issue. So let's give them a compromise and make it because they're old enough to go and fight was at 18. So they should be old enough to sodomized each other at it. What a nonsense. For heaven's sake, wake up in New Zealand really wants this bill, even given the polls, Mr. Chairman, that 2% of the population only indulge in homosexual activity. Who wants this? Why do you have seen high terrain through this amendment? The so called the anti defiance of reality amendment of 18 years. Who wants it? I haven't had anyone write to me in recent days and say it's so urgent it must be rammed through Parliament at every opportunity. I haven't had anyone says to me, that anyone who doesn't support the amendment to 18 or the amendment to 20 should be held out of Parliament. The They are not in line with the sponsor of the bill. No, I'm saying that. So I Mr. Chairman, I hundred and 35,000 New Zealanders have told me they don't want any part of this bill, not 20 years, not 18 years, and certainly not 16 years. And my fear is that next year, when this bill goes on to the statute boxes law, there will be an amendment probably probably will adhere by the member for Wellington Central, supporting 15 years. 14 years. What is the difference between a 15 year old boy and a 16 year old boy or an 18 year old boy or a 19 year old boy, I say that this is an evil bill. And this part of the bill is very filthy. [00:10:00] Live from Amazon live Amanda for Wellington central has sponsored this bill is in charge of it and the committee stages it is not a right to interject in a strident mid lane loud voice strident voice using the microphone before you by way of interjection upon the member for one right. You conveniently look the other way when I walked to my Wellington [00:10:29] in order to enjoy his seat, Mr. Banks. [00:10:36] This is a further point to Cameron, and I'm interest I'm here. [00:10:41] Well, I'm sure you are. I raised a legitimate point of order. When I was a minister for six years sitting in that chair during the committee stages of a [00:10:49] milarepa. [00:10:53] I ruled out of order here on [00:10:56] his seat you have not ruled Amanda will resume his would [00:10:59] you roll on The point of order, [00:11:01] if the middle will resume his seat, will you rule I will rule [00:11:03] right? The member has no point of order, Mr. Banks. [00:11:10] Is this a fresh point of order? Yesterday, I would I would caution as they will receive a seat from him. And then while I explained to him [00:11:21] order, I will explain a matter of order to the member to this effect, that he has already trifled with the chair by raising under the guise of Facebook voted the same point of order. If he does again, then he will be subject to the Standing Orders of this house and as well the Frank willing to bother me terribly, except to say, Mr. Chairman, that five minutes ago in this debate, the member for Hawke's Bay who was seated three away from me raised a point of water, which you heard with courtesy, which you ruled upon, and you asked me or divest from me with [00:11:59] a giant You have the advantage of withdraw and apologize is trifling with [00:12:06] Mr. Wellington [00:12:10] What do you require [00:12:11] the member will withdraw [00:12:12] an apology explained for what trifling with the change in what why [00:12:18] the member is typing with the chair further if he does not instantly withdraw and apologize. [00:12:24] Further harsh [00:12:27] on the condemnable, withdraw and apologize will be required to leave the chamber [00:12:31] or you haven't rolled on the point of what I write [00:12:33] I have rolled on the rise in what man he is trifling with the chairman rising I believe. [00:12:41] You are now I think with the committee [00:12:45] because you will leaving night on the members of the chamber you will not adjudicate on points of order right [00:12:51] invite him [00:12:53] to leave the chamber of [00:12:55] the member is called upon now to leave the change. [00:13:10] Members inviting more serious action I call the sergeant at arms [00:13:15] to support the men before pepakura. From the check. [00:13:22] I have already done, sir. [00:13:26] Mr. Mr. Chairman, a point of all of the Chairman, [00:13:31] I wasn't present in the chamber, I heard the exchange comments on the air. And I simply asks, whether in the circumstances or if this isn't a matter that has escalated to a point where as a result of the action that is about to be taken, so the second time in a week, a member is going to be excluded from the chamber on what is not a party by Bill and therefore a member is going to be denied the opportunity to vote. I met of considerable importance to all of our constituents. [00:14:05] As I realized that [00:14:09] the feelings in this chamber can inevitably, in certain circumstances reach a stage where incidents such as this arise and it behooves all of us. And I mean that as parliamentarians to try and avoid that situation if it is at all possible. And the circumstances Sarah, I wonder if this is one of these matters where we can retrace our steps just a little bit and see whether in fact the matter can in fact be dealt with satisfactorily. [00:14:35] Speaking to the point of water, the [00:14:37] runner who defeated unlike the leader of the opposition, I was in the house when these events occurred. [00:14:44] They can in my submission, be no excuse for the behavior of the member for pepakura in the occasion, not once but several times he deliberately flouting the authority of the chair but there is no No doubt at all that the leader the opposition is mistaken in one matter. As I understood, Mr. Chairman, your ruling you were inviting standing order 191 where the speaker or chairman of committees may or any member whose conduct is highly disorderly to withdraw me late from the house, you were not suggesting that the member be named and suspended, understanding all the 193. Now, obviously, that course was opened for you. But as I understood, it was standing order 191 that you were invoking. And that does not place any great difficulty in the face of the members of public voting on the media. [00:15:41] Well, I'm happy to confirm that point that maybe they have already which is no [00:15:44] no. So I really appreciate that the action you sought to take is understanding what a 191 rather than the procedure that was followed previously and I do not in any way challenge if that is finally your wish. So your challenge your right to do that. What I am seeking, sir, is Think because I believe as I said earlier that it behooves all of us in this chamber to ensure that if at all possible members have the right to exercise a vote, and particularly in the conscience about circumstances that we have running with us in those circumstances as why intervene before you actually had the sergeant of arms come to deal with the matter whether this isn't a matter that we might be able to retrace a few steps on and see whether in fact, we can get all of us back on the rails again, because I think that would be the wish of members on both sides. Now, we can stand on technicalities as to what happens. What is more important is that if we follow through the course of action that is foreshadowed at the end of the day, for whatever reason, a member will be denied the opportunity to vote on behalf of his constituents. Speaking to the vulnerable to the right of the speaker, the point that the Leader of the Opposition right and the second intervention was precisely the same as the one he made in the first he has not sought to Excuse the conduct, it was deliberate, clear and blatant defiance of the chair. And indeed it in the villa this character it's most important that ought to be preserved in this house. It cannot be preserved in the face of behavior [00:17:14] like that. I think I'm very happy and great [00:17:17] to hear anybody any further on this because the member will resume his seat. The main the member for pepakura. The member for pepakura will not be here on this point he will reserve a seat. [00:17:32] I had a point of order and has [00:17:34] been raised by the member for by the by the leader of the [00:17:37] opposition, I must deal with it. What he's asked for, and I'm happy to come to do other points of order once once this has been dealt with. [00:17:46] But the but the particular point that the Leader of the Opposition raised was whether or not we could retrace our steps [00:17:54] and [00:17:54] ensure they buy that [00:17:59] wow. Preserving [00:18:02] due order [00:18:04] that first of all, [00:18:05] some assurance be given about the members voting rights and I'm very happy indeed to give an assurance that the name will not be denied [00:18:12] the opportunity to live under the standing over the line in the process of invoke on the member. Hope that that does indeed satisfy the point that that the leader of the opposition has right now the now now I'm sorry, now on on the on the point that the member seeks to rise. The member for pepakura has been asked to withdraw and apologize. Carry on. With [00:18:50] first border border, I phrase point of order, Mr. Banks, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you can help me Give me some guidance. I've been looking through speakers rolling and standing orders and I can find Where, [00:19:00] where I can get some information, the chairman and the interests of fan of fairness and decorum and democracy in this very important debate. How do we go about having the chairman of committees replaced by the deputy chairman of the members out of all [00:19:19] the members? That simply is not a question of order and the member is not entitled to raise the question is that [00:19:28] I felt the point of order. Mr. [00:19:31] Chairman, my point of what it relates to in fact the speech timing in the house new form the house and D with john tangents of signal the barbell at the end of every five minutes page. So some speakers here I'm not sure as to the the time that they have had and I wonder if you could confirm that there will be a bell at every five minutes [00:19:54] as I can find that [00:19:57] Mr. Banks [00:20:00] How many minutes have I taken [00:20:01] this? banks has one minute, one minute of what? One minute to his bill? [00:20:06] What is it a five minute build a one? [00:20:09] One minute. [00:20:11] Mr. Chairman, Ian, I get very, very cross when I'm speaking to this. Very, very safe. [00:20:18] The member has one minute of speaking Time remaining. [00:20:21] But the first call is at the Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much, with very, very cross over a lot of medicine, this bill, in particular, the way the Labour Party is railroading, this private member's bill through this house, and the way minority members and opponents of this bill are being treated in this house and in this committee, but it's not going to stop us from speaking at every opportunity against the April provisions of this bill. And even if we are thrown out of this parliament, we'll come back by Fighting because the majority of New Zealanders don't want it. Don't want it. And I wonder members get frustrated at the championship and this committee with what is happening here. [00:21:11] The member will was doing apologize never fixed on the chair. [00:21:16] Mr. Banks [00:21:22] don't apologize. [00:21:27] I stand to move the supplementary order paper and the amendment and my name [00:21:35] is Kim and this is a relatively simple [00:21:38] amendment, [00:21:39] and it's one which I believe are [00:21:41] considered carefully by members of a house [00:21:44] will in fact get an animus support. Well, I think the members prefer to [00:21:48] we are still debating the [00:21:53] the questions that have been introduced in supplementary order papers relating to clause three, then we have to deal because we believe We have Syria and through then we have to deal with with those which are grouped under the heading of clause for when when when we come to the point of the path that we are dealing with that the middle wishes to move amendments to I will I will invite him to move that amendment. [00:22:20] Mr. [00:22:21] Chairman, is it your intention to try and move through paragraph by paragraph through the paper that you have circulated because [00:22:31] or our members [00:22:32] free when they take the call now that we're dealing with with it as one path [00:22:37] to to traverse [00:22:40] amendments that I've been suggested previously, or are on the border paper to come up at a later date? [00:22:46] No, the member [00:22:49] appreciate the name of raising the point because it gives an opportunity to clarify just where we are the the fight that we have reached as that having proposed the question that the Pack one stand pat Mista gear, the Honorable George gear has moved the amendment, which stands in his name to clause three. That is the amendment, which affects the age of consent and proposes 18 and substitution for 16. In clause three, that is the that is the question now before the committee [00:23:26] is not applied through all the clauses that were that were listed as we taking it part by Pat, [00:23:34] close three, four and five only affected by exactly the same proposal. [00:23:40] So, is this not? [00:23:42] Was I not [00:23:44] I thought I was under the impression that I was moving it in respect of all three clauses, and I actually mentioned that so that when each clause is formally put, the amendment is in fact before the Committee of the Whole [00:24:00] Speaking to the court of order, [00:24:03] Dr. counts, [00:24:05] I understood that you were suggesting to the committee, I don't think we ever if you like to leave the committee or the understanding of the committee, that the amendments will not to be actually moved at the time that the propose of the amendment still were to be foreshadowed, and then to be moved at the end, and this will enable all members of the House to speak to any amendment and to any part in any part of part one any clause or any sub clause in part one, otherwise, I think so. If we adopt what is the strict procedure of moving the amendments, and then speaking to the amendment, we are going to get ourselves in some difficulty in terms of the form of the debate. And I think it'll be much more helpful for the house if we followed the suggestion, which I think was on the original paper that simply foreshadow the amendments rather than move them and then members of the committee of free To speak across the whole of part one as they sleep. [00:25:03] Well, it's a it's in the hands of the committee. [00:25:08] The government senior this correct. This would make make it possible for the sequence of amendments to be placed Finally, in terms of the order of age, with the amendment move by the member Island Bay, to my amendment as being the first amendment to the flood, and giving the house the opportunity of addressing the question at the age of 20. And then, depending on whether or not that was, was carried or not, if it were not carried, my own amendment would then be addressed the question of it, and the event of that being defeated, it would be 16 and the house would have a [00:25:50] logical sequence in which to address the question of age, [00:25:53] and I believe that you never facility killed was perfectly correct in the way in which he [00:25:57] suggested that should be handled. [00:26:01] I'm sure that [00:26:05] my point throughout the evening, the metals were never clarified. The metals were not clear in the minds of members of the committee. We had a three page typewritten paper. We've had it sometime. And at the time that it was placed before us, I asked two questions, who put it together? And when was it put together? And even after all there, Mr. Chairman, committee is still in a stage of confusion. Hamilton, [00:26:35] Hamilton, which is the [00:26:35] name of the game is safe, and so [00:26:40] come on. [00:26:41] We can clarify this better very quickly. So maybe we'll receive Well, we've [00:26:44] been waiting two weeks at levy [00:26:48] terrify the metaphor the member. I understand that the member for some kilda, supported by the name of the North Shore has a suggestion for the committee. For for the committee to conduct its why through the various amendments. Now, the main the the proposal that he has, is a proposal which I understand was originally given circulation of the paper produced in my name. So that it's a question now of whether or not that is acceptable to the committee [00:27:23] for the procedure [00:27:25] that has been outlined by the name of President Kyoto and supported by the member of the Northshore for that procedure to be adopted as metaphor leave, and if there's any objection to it, that can be proceeded. So I will now call on members of the committee to indicate whether there is any dissent from that course of action is there any the same, there is the same in that case? We will not proceed in that way. [00:27:48] We we are we are now as as we were with the middle Amendment, which had been moved by the honorable George gay. [00:27:58] I fell upon his being seemed, can we have a clear does that mean that now a speech may only be to the amendment that has been moved? And I think that is going to cause considerable difficulty for members if they are only to have for, I'm not sure that all members of the House understood that by [00:28:20] the same thing. [00:28:21] They now if the Standing Orders are strictly applied, I would suspect are only able to speak to a particular amendment. And as there are more than four amendments, there may be some amendments that members wish to speak on, that they will not be able to speak on if they only have four speaking opportunities. And I just want to make sure that all members I think I'm correct. And that decision Am I Mr. Chamber committee, they will be able to speak even either any, even though there are many more than four members will be able to speak on the whole range of the amendments and won't be tied strictly to speak into minima desert smooth, because I would have thought that a strict interpretation would require them to do that, and that some of the members may lose the opportunity of speaking over the whole range of the first part of the bill cycle. [00:29:14] Speaking to the bond of water, the Armenia [00:29:16] Chairman, it's absolutely essential that you clarify proceedings that the house is following. The house has determined so that we will take the bill [00:29:27] path by path. [00:29:29] Now, it's been quite properly funded by my [00:29:32] colleagues remember for later, [00:29:34] if then we are required within that proceeding [00:29:38] to consider the [00:29:41] the bill amendment to that path by amendment to that path, then it will be really an untenable situation for members to want to [00:29:51] speak in a wide ranging manner, either the whole path [00:29:55] I would suggest to you is to speak the course [00:29:59] that we have Follow having decided to take a path [00:30:03] is to be able [00:30:04] to speak to amendments that are foreshadow. All of which we have known as our speaker, any [00:30:12] of them it is up to those members, whether or not they they speak to them themselves [00:30:16] at this stage or [00:30:18] when they move them formally at the end of proceedings when we're ready to deal with the whole bad frame. [00:30:28] Perhaps it would be helpful I've activated the house that all the people who had put all the members who had previously tabled si p or circulated this IPS did actually agree on a procedure which would have suited them and they were all the people from both sides of the house. Regardless of the point of view on this bill. There was there was some discussion which amounted to a general consensus that we should have a full debate on the part coverage Any of the subjects and campus by the the amendments or the what is in the bill now and the clauses, members foreshadowing near amendments so that other members could also speak about those particular proposals, but that the amendments would not be formally moved until the end when they would be done in the sequence as outlined on your paper. And that would make sense because the house would then be able to have the sort of debate which the member for North Shore and writer and cecotto suggested we have, and which I certainly think we need, and it would not be restrictive, but it would enable in the in the votes to take place in an orderly sequence. And that was in fact, the intention of the house. I suggest when the house moved, that we consider the bill part by part rather than clause BY clause, if we're going to consider it. [00:31:55] With the restrictions that you have now suggested, Mr. Chairman, I think we were back to applause. Bye bye. consideration, not a [00:32:01] consideration? Well, let me just make it clear before we proceed. I'm happy to hear that mean, but but it's not a it's not a procedure that I have suggested no [00:32:10] standing orders that we will proceed along. [00:32:15] Unless there's unless there's an agreement to do otherwise, among the members of the committee. That's that's really where we are. Winning. [00:32:28] Back we were two weeks ago, when the committee was considering the paper under the not signature, but under the name of the chairman of committee. And I questioned then, who were the members of Parliament's who are party to what the member for Wellington central now quarter consensus. That has been a little bit of clarification on that in in that the member of Wellington central have said well as those members who wish to move and amendment that are not many of those was to germinate and read one of the prime movers the Minister of labor is absent from the house tonight and I mentioned that only in passing as a private member, he is not here to move as amendment. Now the second point is to speakers of the course of action suggested and I appreciate it Sonia suggestion in the three page document is not of course incorporated in standing orders. Now, if that is the case, when there is objection to a suggestion procedure, standing orders take precedence. And therefore, we should, Mr. Chairman, in my view, we should consider the measures to measure before us close by close now just add a quickie is to all that. We have had tonight a very important document placed on our bill [00:33:46] by the Minister of Defense. Now, I would have thought that [00:33:51] of all at least recent documents, given what was stated within it, Tara one [00:33:59] actress Caution to this house of it deals with the security of the country. [00:34:04] And against all that I suggest that we deal with the major more [00:34:07] slowly, [00:34:09] clause BY clause and the standing orders of the house. [00:34:14] bind us all. I think [00:34:19] it is important to hear any member who who does have a contribution to make this because it will finally settle how we deal with this important measure and it's powered by pattern. [00:34:27] Stay tuned. Dr. Cohen, I want to suggest to the committee that the benefit pepakura and others who who are suggesting that we abide by the standing order to not take lead to adopt the procedure that I suggested earlier, will in fact, possibly be defeating their own ends in terms of the nature of the debate on thought Why? I wish we must have listened because this is not my purpose in this to do anything with anyone. constrains the debate. But the fact is, [00:35:05] I have a very mixed ancestry, but Greek is no part of [00:35:12] the series that if we stick to the standing order that the bike for now on will be on the amendment move by the member for North Shore. Now, members take multiple calls on that particular amendment, then the possibility arises at some stage after many hours of debate on net amendments, that I closure motion may be put and may be accepted. And if that motion is then passed, there will be no further debate on part one at all, apart from that single amendment, because all of the questions then before the House of part one will have to be put on suggesting through number pepakura and number Iraqi and others is that in order that the issues can be properly traversed, it is sensible that any amendments are foreshadowed and put at the end so that members are not constrained in what they're speaking to in part one, so they can cover the entire range of issues. The amendments within part one. I'm suggesting to them that they think very carefully before they proceed down the track they are going on because I don't think it will lead to what they actually wants to do. [00:36:33] Mr. walleston [00:36:36] has made [00:36:39] in the time with this particular discussions are going on have been looking through standing orders and speakers rulings and confined No, no explicit guidance in standing orders as to the procedure the committee should follow when it decides to consider a bill path by path. It seems to me that the best method would be for the committee to reflect first of all on what The situation would be if there were no amendments. Because then it seems to me quite clear that a member having the core code in one, five minute speech, or several five minute speeches, though granted, cover all the clauses in that path. So it seems to me therefore, that if those members who have foreshadowed by way of supplementary or the fiber amendments proposed not to move those amendments until late in the debate in there is no question of needing leave of the house in order to allow members to range over all the amendments. It seems to me that that is the proper course to follow that leave is in fact not required, and that the amendments be formally moved and put at the end of the debate on part one. [00:37:44] Mr. Lee [00:37:47] simply underlines the fact that the amendments to the house were correct, and that we have made a wrong decision and went out the expected situation because we are really in a vise grip. Now, sir The amendments that have been moved in a position, it would seem to me that therefore, whilst we were may move caused by cause and direction from the chair, that people speaking may have the right to speak wider than the immediate context that close because the members have been foreshadowed, they are in the position of each member. And correctly you should ask for any further members at this point of time, before we proceed, such that any further member of the House may then be taken to account by the house. So, by proceeding close by cold but allowing in the context of the limited debate, totally wrong, but within the context of the present limited debate that would allow people not only to address the clause in a chronological manner, but also to take into account the various amendments that we have in opposition. [00:38:56] Speaking to the front of order the right honorable [00:38:59] the speaker the house has decided to consider this bill by part [00:39:07] of the house is decided to do that it wasn't a decision of the chair. And whether the minority voted against that accepted or not. That is the fact of the matter at the moment. The no amount of interjection for the members of anger is going to change that. The government decided nothing to speak up, we are in the situation where people opposite actually appreciate the procedural consequences of what they have produced. Let it be on their own heads, because the result is going to be extremely serious and quite the opposite of the one that they wish to bring about. As long as they understand that, then the house can proceed on the course of the biting at length. The amendment moved by the member for North Shore and abiding nothing else. And that is what will happen and I don't believe that is what they want that That is the consequence of what they have produced. As [00:40:11] far as this area is concerned, the decision has been made, that it be taken path by path. It has normally been a practice, that all the person that has got the first amendment in the packet that gets the first call, after that has generally been the practice that any member can speak across the path and foreshadow the type of amendment that he would wish to talk to and take for calls and speak on any matter in that path that he wishes. Now, the chairman is the full Judge of what is relevant, and he is able to judge and after all we're talking about part and every amendment in that part has as part of the whole of that God and for that reason, it's been a class practice. detect the goals that are necessary for shadow further amendment, but you can deal with the amendment that's before the House. [00:41:06] If the [00:41:08] committee proceeds quickly, that amendment will be put away time for the next domain. If a closure is taken, of course, people have foreshadowed what has happened and it must be put three in a row for Robert Muldoon, [00:41:25] the chairman, seems to me that we're not really in the difficulty that's been foreshadowed by some of those who've spoken including the leader of the house, who seems to have the idea that this is somehow a party matter. Talking about the members opposite bringing something on their own heads. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that if the chair takes account of the fact that in considering this part, we haven't In front of us, I considerable number of important issues. And because of that does not readily accept the closure until all of those issues have been canvassed. We have no real difficulty. The only difficulty that arises is if it is not realize that we have a number of important issues in front of us, and the closure is accepted. If you like in the way it might normally be on a different measure that we would find that we haven't properly canvassed all the options that are going to come in the form of amendments. So what I'm really saying is, I think, Mr. Chairman, that if we proceed normally from where we are, and you act in that fashion, we won't have too much trouble Iran and our JV partners, the defect in the position footballer, I don't remember Tamariki is very substantial, and I think it'd be should be brought to your attention. It is in fact, if amendments are move, the only things that are relevant to that, on those five minute calls are the contents of the amendments, nothing else. And it is not possible, in fact, to have therefore wide ranging debate of the sort that is desired. I appreciate the desire for that wide ranging debate. It seems to me that that wide ranging debate is the desire. If members want to bring that about, they will foreshadow their amendments and not move them. It's as simple as that. And I think if if the answer is to that practice, they will be no trouble. [00:43:49] Right honorable [00:43:50] Robert Mauldin, a leader of the houses, comment on what I said, I see no difficulty arising from this members take the first amendment and in debating it say, I am opposed to this because I believe that such and such an amendment moved by someone else is preferable. That speaker is entirely within the rules of the house and quite capable of discussing the alternative merits of if you like two different ideas, there is no difficulty arising at that point at all, because essentially, those are the amendments at which we will be looking. And I believe that on the First Amendment, it is entirely possible to discuss alternative ages in saying that a member does not support the First Amendment because he or she supports a different age for the following reasons. And I just go that far because I think the leader of the house is wrong in saying what he has just said, and I see now no difficulty at all. Providing you do not readily accept a closure until all of those members who wish to participate in the debate and support different points of view have the opportunity of doing so. [00:45:17] Yes, Dr. Khan, [00:45:18] I think the problem with what the road, he says is that the amendment, which is before the house is a relatively narrow amendment deal simply with the age of consent. It is, for example, possible that a member would support the age of consent at 16 and support the new Brighton Bay's amendment relating to defense forces or support the amendment in the North Shore but oppose them in the frightened face amendment. There is nothing in the middle of the North Shore incident no service Amendment, which contains within it grounds for debate relating say to the member for Island bazerman all the members was a Western amendment relating to the mentally retarded, or indeed to another number of other amendments before the House. Indeed, the only other amendment that clearly relates to is that from the member for the need North relating to an age of consent at 20. So, the entire debate must become focused within that area of the age of consent. Now, what we are simply suggesting is that to avoid that, we simply have all amendments being foreshadowed including that from the moon from last shores. And then the entire debate him proceed on a broad basis across part one, and I reduced members to take a different view to myself the number of others on the contents of the bill, simply to consider that matter of convenience and the in terms of to play. [00:46:50] Yes, Mr. Norman James [00:46:53] is ready for [00:46:56] completed one of my four chances Nelson amendment for the house. If we stick strictly to the standing orders of the debate and I speak to that I've got to confine myself to that particular amendment I'm I'm inclined to accept the view of the leader of the house except there's only one thing about that if I if we for go out for five minutes [00:47:16] speaking to the part one as a whole and and and even though the amendments are only for shadow [00:47:22] when the amendments are finally the input, and every member has has passed from the mover, and if he's exceeded his four speeches, he won't be able to put it either. That means substantively, I cannot speak to the amendments and as I do so, in the foreshadowed right [00:47:40] now, that's the only floor and your argument [00:47:42] is the right honorable Jeffrey Dahmer. So I understand the position it would be this that every member in the house has four calls. Every member could divide those calls i'd either to the substance of the pack, or any of the amendments or all of them or Some of them, but they would only be a total of four calls. Then at the conclusion of the debate, all the amendments would be put prior to the path thing. They would be no debate at the time that they will put. That's my understanding of the position. [00:48:20] But to the point of water. [00:48:24] Yeah, the difficulty we have in following the course that now seems to be the common intention of members of the House, [00:48:31] is the fact that on your invitation that the member for North Shore moved as a member. [00:48:39] Now, if the member of the North Shore can be given leave, to withdraw [00:48:44] the moving of the amendment that does [00:48:47] leave it merely as notice that the amendment is to be moved, then we can proceed with a wide ranging of back to Nigeria to follow that course. Well, it's in the hands of the of the committee. I understand. there'll be two options before the committee. We adopt the procedure the body speaking, Mr. The member of millimeter has committed to us that's been adopted in the past where we consider the question that the the part one standard part that members then foreshadow they are amendments but not actually move them. This gives the opportunity then for debate across the whole of the range of issues that are canvassed and the path when, by contrast, we could adopt the other quiz The other option and that is a what has been described as I close by close consideration. The one that we are backed on fact because of the presence before the committee of the of the amendment to clause three that's that's been moved by the member for North Shore. Now the disadvantages of each course of action have been pointed out. If we if we were to adopt the member for meta meta is proceed I think it will be incumbent upon the chair not to accept the closure motion too quickly. And, and that's the most important point that the honorable vein young has raised as well, that it will be necessary for the men for North Shore to seek the leave of the committee to withdraw the amendment which is before it.
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.