Parliament: Petition report back debate - Homosexual Law Reform Bill (5 November 1985)

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

[00:00:00] This audio comes from the collections of the lesbian and gay archives of New Zealand. For more information visit leggins.org.nz. Did they [00:00:10] get on directed to report a justice and Law Reform Committee is carefully considered three petitions praying the parliament, voice of the homosexual law reform bill does not proceed and 31 petition praying that the house rejects the homosexual law reform. The committee had no recommendation to make Mr. Speaker I move that this report lie upon the table. Speak. Mr. Speaker, the collection of signatures for and the presentation of this petition have been controversial. I mean, the format is said that the rally outside resembled a rally at Nuremberg, and there's probably not much need for the debate on that subject. This house had no One boxes that were covered in slogan. What we weren't told was that more that none was more than 50% full, and many were under 25% for the overstatement, involved in the presentation of the boxes, and the overstatement of numbers, to which I will refer later, during no critic to the petitioner dice advice for the label of unbelievable propaganda, the strongly held views of many thousands of people. committee hearing itself was relatively exciting. It went from the morning through until after 7pm the petitioners had seven witnesses, including a lab technician presenting the medical argument. All witnesses were subjected to extensive questioning except the witness Soon as the petition collation, who shot through before all members could question him. Apart from that all questions were answered, including those to apply to the member for how Ricky by his question writer, Barry re the Public Relations Officer for Mr. High. The main the firm kaggle. [00:02:27] Mr. Peters [00:02:28] was the chairman it will ever occur to you as as occurred to the rest of the house that they report back thus far [00:02:34] is purely up righteous. [00:02:37] The member who is required to report back accurately what went on before the select committee is reporting back now, sir on pure esa supposition and gets back on his path. So I asked that you bring him back to the purpose of this debate, which is an accurate report back [00:02:54] to the point of order. [00:02:57] I was referring to a sheet of [00:02:58] question which was was given to me instead of to the member by [00:03:08] the honorable Mr. [00:03:09] McClain, Mr. Chairman, whichever side of the house, whichever side of the argument members of the House are on, they would expect that a report on a petition from a large number of citizens, whatever arguments there may be about the actual number will be treated seriously and with some dignity by the house at the moment, so we have not heard much about the we've not heard much about the petition hearing itself. We've heard some derogatory comments about those people who assembled outside Parliament for the presentation of the petition. We've heard derogatory comments about some of the people who appeared before the committee, and we've heard derogatory comments about some of the members of parliament who served on the committee. Now, so at a certain stage, I believe the dignity of this house demands that you draw the member to the attention of standing orders. Particularly the narrow purposes of this particular debate. [00:04:04] Speaking to the [00:04:07] chamber, where members have the right to free speech within the confines of standing orders, this petition is being reported back with no recommendation, which I would suggest to you as this method, right the way through as a conscious method is one where all members have the rights of free speech are not constrained in any way. And if the member, though he the chairman, wishes to make comments on the nature of the petition, the evidence presented by the petitioners the attitudes which they adopt, then that's his choice. And all members of this house on either side as this is a conscience issue, have the right to respond in the way that they see fit. I think we've got two points you and I think that they both have equal weight and importance. I [00:04:57] think that the point that was raised considerable This isn't important one it's referred to as big as rulings on page 27. Number five, only those matters that were dealt with in a select committee and were in the bill may be discussed on a report of a select committee an appropriate time for a wider discussion of the principles [00:05:13] of the bill, [00:05:15] and which is contained in the bill is during the second reading. Now, I think so far as he's gone, the member for Hamilton [00:05:20] West [00:05:22] has fitted those requirements. [00:05:26] allow him to continue but I drew mins attention to the fact that we must remain narrow [00:05:30] in our consideration [00:05:32] of the petition. That's what went on [00:05:34] in a consideration of this petition and the select committee that we are debating. And I think it's worth considering that the chief got a whip is correct all say that. [00:05:46] Other members if they wish to reflect upon the proceedings of the select committee of free to take part in the debate [00:05:52] trivium Allah speaker the member from the Caligula also played a prominent part in the committee, as well as telling us his experiences Cairo. He titled a long list of practices adopted by some people promoting the petition which leads to a questioning of the validity of some of the signature. by carefully examine the petition as it related to Miley. The petition has claimed 17,000 lictors had signed an actual fact their coding showed that only 12,000 would claimed against Campbell who wished of which only 3198 around the lake for role. There are over 100 cases and Hamilton have multiple signatures, and many cases of the same handwriting being used for more than one name. The petition is witnesses stated that it was thought acceptable for one person to sign for the family. They were my or persons To a nice abbreviated to sign in our hotel. Mr. Speaker, it is the role of the house to deal with a homosexual law reform bill and dealing with it, they should carefully consider the actions of the petitioner. It would be inappropriate to refer to the government as it as a private member's bill, and therefore, the committee made no recommendation. [00:07:30] Norman John's, Mr. Speaker, [00:07:32] I wish to move by way of an amendment that the motion be amended, firing the following words and be referred to the government for most favorable consideration. And I do so Mr. Speaker, because this petition, [00:07:49] presented of 817,000 signatures for this [00:07:55] is the largest ever petition presented to this country. unfair exceeds the safe manner for a petition of 260,000 things, which I was responsible and starting. And I've also far exceeds the mirror side, the beach bars, petition all 341,000 signatures [00:08:13] and to have this [00:08:15] received a petition at the time of 817,000 signatures. And this petition started only seven months ago. And in those seven months, right up to the time of presentations has held it under the 70,000 signatures. And since then, I've been coming into the right of the day and I have another 18,000 signatures. And I cannot present to this house because this petition is being presented but I put produce them here and that makes the title 35,000 signatures now irrespective of the middle of a Hamilton West, they have always says he was chairing this committee are my side was the speaker that during the for the committee sizes During the committee stages on this bill and before this major petition was presented this house that Chairman acting Chairman man presented to all members of the government's all government employees government research Law Reform petition may merge all government employees government searching it from Trevor Miller empty for Hamilton waste it to September, the father's petition was even presented and their Chairman who supposed to be impartial, I would have expected that from the from the base of overly consensual but [00:09:34] but to have the acting director and chairman of the committee present to the to his own members of parliament or on the committee, we have raised at the touch of the fingers of the Keith is the homosexual Law Reform petition should be judged before it was even presented to the south. The father. [00:09:52] We have written the first letter is the following in the name of the chairman of the committee. And he goes on as he said today that there was Scott Boys, sorry the Fed signed at 2227 times. Well, any school boy that lied about 20 to 27 times by believing on the 28th time when he told that his own Member of Parliament that he had signed the 27th time he lied for the seventh time. Why should the middle of Hamilton with the lead among the 28 fine, we presented this petition to Parliament in good faith? And we put into we put it into a lift reform mightily, not because it was necessary because quite frankly, because quite frankly, it is irrelevant. This petition now have 835 signatures speaks for itself. It needs no explanation, Mr. Chairman, the many hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders Yes, I it's been probably 12 to two upwards because the [00:10:54] Euro, not city Well, we couldn't put it our way quite prepared to concede The third probably below sign the petition, but certainly not the numbers of children. And I will prove quite conclusively because it because we can produce another petition if this is free, and indeed intend to do so. But it's based on the computerized electoral roll. So whatever the fight of this petition, this issue is not going to go away. It will remain [00:11:24] active election year. [00:11:26] And I tell you now, from the chief petitioners of 835,000 petitions, that we will computerize the electoral and we will put 500 people each way every electric and will give the member for Hamilton with [00:11:43] a computerized electro [00:11:45] petition to repeal [00:11:49] this house and we'll get them [00:11:52] to petition [00:11:53] on what's the role numbers of every every voter The address is printed provision for their signature. We'll get each of those four to 500 people [00:12:04] within the next 12 months, and then I will kneel at the appropriate time a homosexual Law Reform repeal bill, which time we will get him. We will make this election issue and he doesn't believe. And he doesn't believe that we can do that. I can tell them we can produce 35 signatures in seven months. We have the support, we have the finance and we have the money, and that's the sort of petition so [00:12:33] to speak up the honorable [00:12:36] before I call an external member the question [00:12:40] before the house is that the report the lie upon the table since when it's been moved, by [00:12:47] way of amendment in the following two is that the motion be amended by adding the following words, quote and be referred to the government for most favorable consideration [00:12:59] the Honorable and hackus [00:13:02] Speaker I must challenge the figures of a petition in relation to evidence for my only little speaker when I was given through my office, a report of a petition divided into electric sign actually looked up the electorate of Littleton. And there was a claim that 5139 people had signed the petition identified as coming from within the boundaries of the little speaker, I chose to take a very large team of workers over a period of several days to that room in this building where that petition was launched. Every single sheet in every one of the 92 boxes, containing the petition of shapes was searched and eat sheet that contained a little tunnel address. was put aside and Xerox. Those Xerox sheets were taken back to my electress were second team of workers examined each one of the signatures in relation to each one of the addresses. SPEAKER I was first of all extremely puzzled to find not 5139 signatures, but 1500 signatures, [00:14:32] a very small proportion [00:14:34] of the larger number claim. [00:14:37] I went through every single sheet in the whole 92 boxes not not myself alone, but myself with a team of helpers over three days. 1500 signatures and addresses only mr. speaker that related to address is in the little tunnel Lake trust, not 5139 my team of helpers in the little tunnel electorate then shake each one of those one and a half thousand names. And I have to report to the house, Mr. Speaker, that the vast majority of those 1500 names appeared to be genuine. They were signatures while which an eligible were able to be checked against the habitation index and judge to be appropriately the signatures of those persons. The vast majority of the addresses were correctly in the little troublemaker. But Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that there is I think substantial evidence from the Littleton electorate that the Hey petition has somehow totally over represented overrepresented and misrepresented the number of signals They claim on the petition, which come from the Littleton electric. There is a double check on this data, which I find fascinating. As the hospital know, I recently held a referendum in the little tunnel with valid papers delivered to every single household. There is [00:16:22] a point of order. Mr. [00:16:24] Mr. Speaker, nothing that we have heard so far in any way, [00:16:29] shape or form relates [00:16:30] to the report back from a select committee. [00:16:35] Speaking while I respect what the member is saying, regarding how she feels about the petition, we are talking about the petitions course at the select committee. NASA I'd ask you to ask her to address your comments to the meta report back on the select committee or the amendment. [00:16:56] Speaking to the point of order friend, [00:16:57] whilst [00:16:58] teaming The member on his feet is indeed speaking to the evidence given to the select committee, the witnesses that appeared before the committee presenting the petition, were examined a link as to the [00:17:14] methods I had used to ascertain the eligibility of the signatures in the whether or not the signatures were genuine and how they had been collected. And that is exactly what the main before Littleton is addressing and whose speech not suggest you're sticking very closely to the discussion of the select committee that was hearing the petition. is [00:17:38] I think that [00:17:40] if one looks at the [00:17:41] speaker's ruling on the subject, found on page 27, [00:17:45] it's clear enough that [00:17:46] only those matters that were dealt with in the select committee, [00:17:50] and we're in the bill, it's not a petition [00:17:53] may be discussed on the report. I'll basically go I don't understand that. That the material That is being presented by the member for Littleton was infected in the select committee. [00:18:07] At the same time, [00:18:08] what I understand to be doing is to be introducing a critique of the material that was [00:18:14] here [00:18:16] before the select committee in a form, which was pursued at the time that the select committee said. [00:18:27] And for [00:18:28] those reasons, I would have to allow what the what the member is proceeding to do all I have to caution her that, that she must, in her remarks continue to refer to the proceedings of the select committee and make him material relevant to their consideration. [00:18:46] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I am sir doing exactly that, because my understanding of the report of what happened at the committee stages was that the petition indicated that they, in terms of overall counting and checking, had insisted that at least six different people had minimized discrepancy. And I'm giving even evidence of my independent cheeping which contradicts that particular suggestion. As the speaker, I was saying that there is a double check on what I myself am producing for the house. I was saying that I recently held a referendum in the Littleton electorate. And the return from that referendum of those who oppose the bill was 1736. a remarkably close figure, if I may suggest to the 1500 who in fact, said they signed the petition and even more remarkably close figures to when you take into account that a couple of hundred of those are who said they signed the petition. The 1500s, in fact has to be disallowed. Because they were, for instance, names of people who were not found on the role names of people who in fact, was signing phony names. And so, Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest that was ever the Hey petition represents, it does not represent over 5000 people signing the petition in my liquid. [00:20:28] At the most it represents a little over 1000 feet of big [00:20:32] they roughly they will be people in this country. They would have heard that speech was some amusement as I do. I know all about the constitutional purity of certain members and the member for Littleton when she what the witness the greatest constitutional outrageous country's ever seen, remain silent, dead people voting. people vote voting into this country from the Edmond California. People who didn't live within curiae my electric voting and she runs remain silent but the day Jesus pure as the driven snow on whether or not somebody can sign something as innocent as a petition, NASA, she she finds a night to have a referendum. Does she not know what the word means? Well, she still claimed that she had a referendum and her electorate. Of course he did not. So why falsely get up in the south tonight [00:21:26] and climate she did. [00:21:28] Now, sir, the petition speaks for itself. 817,000 plus people. It doesn't matter about the righteous there are traces Oh, what they are. What matters is that they are following a century of tradition for the right to petition their parliament. That's the nub of the matter. [00:21:52] I hundred and something thousand people [00:21:56] petitioning their parliament, that they do something about them. And it doesn't matter which way or what's our issue we're on to try and deny it and the spirit of it is palpably false. Because if they were wrong for 50 500,000 it would still be the biggest petition. And now amount of electoral gerrymandering in the mind of that member there is gonna change that matter. Now so I speak in favor the minimum and against the report back the chairmanship, sir, on this committee was frankly not within the fruition of this parliament. abysmal. Chairman sir, declare his position. He was [00:22:35] impartial breakfast, [00:22:38] any food to his colleagues attempting to damn the petition before came [00:22:43] before him? [00:22:44] And I believe Sir, one thing we must do was standing orders is to rule out that sort of behavior on the part of a chairman. [00:22:52] breach of privilege. You name it, sir. He was involved in [00:22:56] the member for Hamilton with and he's got the audacity Sir to get up and try and their members to hold a different point of view, he says that some schoolchildren signed 27 times [00:23:07] naman [00:23:10] is a fair challenge name one school boy who signed that petition [00:23:14] 27 times. [00:23:16] Now the fair analysis they have planned to done on this petition. we're unable to step up right now and say, Yes, I know who that boy is. Because many boys [00:23:25] can a man of course I can. [00:23:28] cost me one. [00:23:30] And I want and the reason why the West will go, because you cannot get up in this house on a meta sensor to so many people and get away with that patently false conscience federal not when the truth is not a matter of conscience. We can have a different conscience, but we're talking about truth now. And that's what separates the middle for him in the West, from those who want to have some veracity regarding their argument in this debate. Now, sir, the fact of the matter is, if This year [00:24:01] this petition, which was signed via 800,000 New Zealanders got bought a few hours before the select committee and those [00:24:12] few hours for lie everything [00:24:14] the Deputy Prime Minister has ever said about how he was going to hold select committee hearings. If ever we have seen just how shallow that man is, it's there with this petition and he [00:24:28] has in all these debates [00:24:29] said absolutely nothing [00:24:32] his title record before the rotary clubs and all that dollars [00:24:37] speeching getting [00:24:39] speaking engagements he has about open Kappa [00:24:42] abanda foaminess recommend lies before the truth of this committee to order order order. Or [00:24:51] Firstly, I'm going to ask the the honorable Genworth, he would withdraw that remark that reference to the you know the words I'm referring to Just before [00:25:04] I go on mode, I again, come back to you on remember, I've just taken over the chair, but I am having difficulty in relating what the honorable gentlemen is saying to the report on the of the committee before. So on this petition. Before you, sir, [00:25:21] they gave this committee, they gave the select committee hearing of a petition, which is two times bigger than anything else in this country, parliament, but a few hours. That's how right very simply, demonstrably, it was traded, sir, and I'm a cursory and Cavalier and arrogant fashion. And the Deputy Prime Minister should get to speak tonight and explain what he meant when he talked about give real control. This is back on two to 484 [00:25:51] second of a play for before the election. [00:25:54] And then we talked about [00:25:56] giving slick commodities at quality of democracy. [00:25:58] What is he talking about? [00:26:01] Tommy got up and explain themselves, [00:26:02] because frankly, sir, [00:26:04] I don't care what service you people around. These people were paid in a very Cavalier, Mr. Bray Brooke. [00:26:11] Mr. Speaker, the right to petition parliament is an ancient rights throughout the English speaking world. It is a means by which citizens can bring to their members. [00:26:23] Even the queen or the king [00:26:25] was in all times the fact that they thought something was wrong and they demanded justice. Mr. Speaker when this bill was introduced, there was an almost instantaneous reaction to it throughout New Zealand, it came as a surprise to many. It came as a surprise, I might add too many politicians as well, because none of us neither members or parties had a mandate for this bill. So this petition was a reaction to the introduction of that bill. [00:26:55] It was also a reaction [00:26:57] and a genuine concern of fear. went through many of our citizens of that I am absolutely sure to speak out, it was fairly obvious that when the petition was launched, that those who promoted the bill in favor of homosexual law reform would have to pull out all the stops to try and degrade by whatever means the petition, true or false. Everything would have to be done, because they knew that a petition of this magnitude would have a huge punching power in this chamber. And so we have heard today about people who cannot be named signing 27 times and other people on the tombstones in graveyards and what have you, Mr. Speaker, [00:27:43] even if only [00:27:45] the petitions are genuine, [00:27:48] grossly concern, even if only half [00:27:50] a genuine, it still remains a huge petition. It still remains a very, very strong concern the unexpressed for the citizen of this nation against the introduction of this bill. I'm quite aware that the bill will be debated tomorrow night, and will go to a vote and committee stages and what have you. But this is the citizens way of telling Members of Parliament to go no further, it is their right to do so. And I respect that right. This is bigger. I was very disappointed to hear my colleague on the report back in an insulting manner. Describe what happened on Parliament steps when this petition was presented. I was there together with some other colleagues from my own caucus. Mr. Speaker, I did not think of Nuremberg. How on earth could anybody except when I walked mind, say that? How could anybody [00:28:47] when people get up [00:28:49] and sing their country's national anthem? Surely that is not an insult, and then say the Lord's Prayer. We even pray in this chamber. does that remind anybody of new Amber, and the girl for guy or the the church group where they are in the girls and boys brigade uniforms carrying the flag of their country is that Nuremberg? Let me tell you that that is an insult to even suggested I defend the rights of any citizen to present a petition to their parliament. It is there. Right. And we should respect it. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of human rights concerning this petition. I just wonder if the same concern for human rights will come later in this session when a bill is presented for the human rights of the unborn? I bet we hear a different story then. I support the amendment move by the member for Invercargill. It is Cavalier to say the least, to reject this petition and have no recommendation whatsoever for a largest petition in our country's history. I am rather said that those who have objected To the petition, and I've actually promoted the bill. And I have every right to do that should have sat in judgment on it. I think, Mr. Speaker that that was wrong, Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. And I believe that that is an important consideration, which was lacking when this petition was presented. And I regret that sincerely, [00:30:23] Mr. Speaker, [00:30:25] can I just close by saying that this issue will not die, this issue will not go away, even when the bill to which this petition refers to is voted upon. And even if the physician petition itself is committed to the archive in the hearts and minds of citizens of this country, there is an overwhelming desire, I believe that it should not proceed. And that petition actually echoes those thoughts. The only way to Central it is a referendum. I am absolutely convinced of that. And let the people of New Zealand decide what presenting this petition, they have already spoken. And if they belittle us all here to Jia, sneer or degrade or try and belittle [00:31:10] an honest petition for 20,000 sign in good faith [00:31:17] in some quandary excuse me, stop the clock. [00:31:22] I normally take go from one side to the other. And I think that that would be the better way of handling this debate that I moved from one side of the chamber to the other, although I realize that there are [00:31:35] people [00:31:36] in the chamber who irrespective of party have different views. Now I'm getting a call at this point. I can think I know the views the various people powers to call a person with the country point of view to the one the members just spoken. I've got a cold a member of his own, Addy, if I look to the other side, and so I should be giving the call To someone from the opposition party, I know that we're going to have somebody with the who's expressing a similar view to this petition, as the speaker has just spoken. Now I'm in the hands of the of the chamber President, I am inclined to go from side to side. I think that would be fair, that in one way, but it does, it could mean that there could be a preponderance of speakers on one side of this issue. And for that reason, I feel that the the justification for recording on Mr. walleston of the stage, but if there's no real objection to that and the child [00:32:38] porn [00:32:42] iraq arise to support your, your ruling, so of course, I just want to make this point that the member for Nelson who was going to take the call before the meeting tonight you will have an opportunity because I understand so that you use your intention on this matter to take as many members as wish to [00:33:02] Well, under that [00:33:04] under those circumstances, Susan, I think that that is the the point I [00:33:07] make what exactly is that it's only fair that you take it from one side of the house to the other, and that only strengthens your decision. So I think you've made a very good decision, sir. And I concur with what you said. I think you are in a country and this is I count from five on both sides of the house. There are no party lines in calling the member for navia. The speaker in the chair before you in fact call two members in a row. on the same side will you know the call the member for hierarchy, that would mean three members in a row on the same side of this issue? And on this issue, the sides are not sides Mark by and Nick line down the middle of the chamber. They are science in terms of how one views both the bill and the petition the amendment and I want to suggest you they're very strong arguments for opposing the amendment. Even If one oppose the bill, it is not quite as simple perhaps as some people have made up because it comes to the very heart of a conscience vote. This particular amendment suggest to you, sir, that there is good reason for suggesting that the member for Nelson should have the next call. Indeed, there was a reason for suggesting that two members opposed to the amendment should be called in a row since two members in support of the amendment record in a row previously. However, I think it will be quite unfair in terms of the balance within a one hour time limit debate to call three members in a row from one side of the house where I think all members recognize the house is fairly evenly poised between two sides of this issue which runs across party line. I have a [00:34:49] Mr. Late yes was too late. [00:34:53] It was appropriate in the second reading that the ruling was given that it should favor those against and those four in Also for that was a debate without limit. This debates is a one hour debate. And it's appropriate. I believe that your ruling before the house now should be endorsed. There be alternate from the government to the opposition, sir, with a limited time debate. That would be the only reasonable and fair ruling in this moment [00:35:23] that I'm concerned about and replying to the honor of the members asked on the stages that really there is no government opposition [00:35:31] operating at the present time on this meta, and I draw attention of the members to speakers Rowling's on this metric page 51 number two on page 51, where the speakers dealing with a situation where the books are not operating. He has a number of criteria and calling for members and the list is over for the choice of a speaker. Firstly, he finished let's look at here he tends to call on senior members of the House first At this stage will automate between sides of the house although not knowing which side of the argument individuals are on. And thirdly, he must know the length of time a member has been seeking the call that is relevant. But the degree of a members involvement with a subject is also relevant. And that's number a number four in this matter. Now, those are the matters that are guiding me and God speakers in the past on that ground knowing the involvement and this matter of the member who spoke last and the member who would now seek the call from the cross it say the names to Patty sort of the health Robin the opposition side, I feel constrained this I feel that I should at this time in row view that the ruling of Mr. Speaker call on Mr. walleston. Speaker, it has properly been said that a Presentation of petitions to Parliament is an ancient animal 14 right of the people, and it has a central place in our democracy. And that places I solemn duty on members of the House to seriously consider petitions presented to the house, but it also presents an equally solemn duty on those seeking to have petitions presented to the house to ensure that what they say about those petitions is correct. And to, as far as is it within their power, to make sure that the petitions accurately represent the names on them and the views of the people who have signed them. And in that context, I want to comment on a few aspects of this petition, and the evidence which was given to the Select Committee on it. And one of the the two principal petitioners Mr. High and separated type in presenting a submission quite said that the fact that the petition will broken down into electorates demonstrated the burn of fireese or good fight of the person is promoting and administering a petition and they went on to say I quite if the petitioners had felt they had anything to hide. The petition could have been presented in any order, which would have made it almost impossible to criticize the logistics, statistics and in France grown from it. And certainly it did appear when the position petition was presented to members of parliament on the steps and brought into this chamber shortly thereafter, that it was sorted into electronics for 92 boxes, they were brought to this house with the names of electrodes on them. I went to the strong revolutes the petition was expecting to find the box which contained signatures from my electrode. In order to view those signatures. I got there and found not only with the boxes, about seven eight empty because there were large boxes, but also found that the impression which had been given to the TV watching public, or the petition presented by electorates was not correct. And the claim made by the Chief petitioners before the Select Committee, which I said represented for indicated the good fight of the petitioners was in fact Totally void plane because they were not sorted into electrics. Mr. Speaker, I was not able with the resources and the time available to me to check fully to find just how many signatures from my electorate there were, I did go through 50% of the boxes and from them found a sample of forms bearing a code on them, which was the parliamentary electoral code for my electorate. And which presumably means that those names have been entered onto the onto a computer to turn out the number which purported to be for Nelson. And I want to look at some of those, Mr. Speaker, I was seen a document by the petitioners, which claim that 12,142 people residing in the Nelson electric had signed and that was compared with a number of electors in the electorate, and with the suggestion that there was a majority of electors, who, in fact, were opposed to the passage of this bill in my electorate. In fact, [00:39:54] at least a third of the names to 14 to come from my lecture, according to my sample are not correct. I have here Copies of some sheets, which I'm happy to table here is one which has 23 names all attributed to Nelson. None of the people on that sheet gave addresses in the Nelson electric. Here's another one, which had some 36 names of which 25 are attributed to Nelson 16 of them. Those ones came from other electorates, and two others were not on the road. only seven correct. Another sheet with six people from another electric, all encode of Nelson, three people on this one, all encoded Nelson, sorry for all from another only one of them is from from the Nelson electric. And perhaps the most interesting of all, Mr. Speaker, here is one which contains a number of names. It has 25 names on it. 21 or attributed to Nelson of those, I think some two were actually on the electoral roll in Nelson. The others gave Nelson addresses they appear to be in the handwriting of children, many of them appear to be in the same handwriting. One of those people was contacted on my behalf by one of our champions who was known to that person. She is a college people in Nelson, she stated that she had never seen the petition and certainly had not signed it. I'm not saying mr. speaker that that means none of the signatures purporting to come from Nelson are in fact valid. What it does mean is that certainly a significant proportion of those signatures claimed to be from the Nelson electric, in fact, either from other experts wrongly attributed to my electorate, or in some way, or others of miners or possibly people who were not who did not sign up. I also had a number of people complain to me about coercion brought on them to sign the petition at the workplace, where they were subject to the century of their workmates, if they decline. I have also had an instance of a child of approximately 10 years old, being harassed, what would be the was the word was used to me into signing a petition on the main street, and Mr. Speaker that I think that's going to fight [00:41:56] the good face of the petitioners speak. I want to who adores? film, the movement of my colleague that this petition the given most favorable consideration, it's an insult [00:42:10] to the intention and integrity of 817 plus views thousand New Zealanders that they petitions should have come back with a no recommendation before the House. Sir, from the outset, let the house be reminded that the acting chairman of day is a member of a Hamilton waste shop to restrict the opportunities of the petitioners to give their evidence, give their evidence, there was all sorts of unprincipled behavior, partial behavior in the chair, to restrict the opportunities that the petitioners should have had proceeding as they were the largest data partition in the history of the nation and others power. It was for the reason The backlit ensue that I felt necessary to move a vote of no confidence in the chest. [00:43:07] And it's only because of the predominance of the government members. And the boys. I thought that that motion was lost, and also was carried on the public of museums. [00:43:17] And the submission that was made at a by the petitioners was an art form, sir, a very professional submission. A compilation of a number of people who gave birth, I believe was in fact evidence of unequal quality. Sir, in the reference was the key spoke about the family breakdown that would result if this bill became law. So Peter commented about the necessity of keeping the prince of law as a buffer law. And in fact, every everything had been done to ensure that the petition was handled Berkeley in the public place. I, Mr. Ellen Anderson, a senior laboratory scientist, refer to the fact that he believed that I would indeed escalate with the decriminalization should this bill go through? And we would see, in fact, a worsening situation. Mr. Peter van Ryan solicita referred to the fact that this legislation was in fact, I said, it was the most progressive of its type in the world. And we were, in fact, pawns in a will gay scene and insofar that as parliament was being asked to pass legislation that had not been passed anywhere else in the world, I Reverend Philips tie further evidence that the Bible was clear in his teaching, and it spoke very clearly against homosexuality practice. Mr. James bacon from Professor in the university also gave very clear evidence about the implications in the classroom. And the way that this would Dan, the children of our nation if this bill became law. So the evidence was clearly that this petition was the largest ever presented to this parliament. Indeed, and I don't know 17 plus thousand, it would have achieved it's a million targets hit by the petitioners if they would had time. It was Kevin Hello, otherwise in just over six months time, I remarkably short period, sir, that everything was done, called the petitioners to ensure that the petition was in fact, carried through with integrity with care with caution, and that's why it headed the bottom for the first time in partition history. I know to say that only people are both Secondary age should sign a petition. [00:46:04] And sir, it was also noted that this petition per capita [00:46:09] would be the largest petition on a basis ever presented to any Western parliament in the history of the world. Now, sir, of course, they were allegations and of course, he was tempted to deny and discredit the petition, because that is the only way that in fact, proponents the bill. And opponents of the petition couldn't fake make their case valid, sir, that was not achieved. In spite of the comments we made to the house tonight. The comments made first by the men for little tin, all hinged on the fact that people went through all those boxes. I challenge her to in fact give evidence [00:46:49] that the petition was presented to Parliament, not individuals. [00:46:56] Mr. Speaker, I want to comment [00:46:57] on some of the activities that took place [00:46:59] at committee because I think it's important that the public [00:47:01] know what the petitioners told us when we asked them in particular about the integrity of the petition, which the previous speaker has just mentioned, they brought to the committee and Mr. Wilding, who had apparently been there scrutineer an orchestra for the petition. He told us that he had gone been gone over carefully, probably about six times that the names on them had been encoded for electorates. And that finally the results were all written down. They had been allocated out and of course, the result was this gold covered book which will seek to all members of parliament. We asked that man and the other witnesses How did they come by the figures in this book, which purported to show the percentage of the electoral population who had signed the petition and each electorate? It was very interesting. I particularly asked today use hesitation hesitation index for each electric to chip The names and the streets of the people. Mr. wildlings answer to my question was was that he did not know what a habitation index was. Did you use electro Rose was my next question, I presume then you use the electoral roll? No, we didn't use electoral rolls. We don't have access to that sort of equipment like Members of Parliament have, how they and I asked, Did you know which electric people lived in where he said our people who are chicking just put them into the electric that they thought they lived in. For example, He said, I wasted if they wrote, then the name of the streets and simply Hamilton, how did you allocate them into into electress? Mr. Wilding said, Is it important? Well, I suggest it was important because the committee was presented with evidence by the petitioners to tell us the proportion and the number of Lake doors and each electorate that had signed the petition, the integrity The petition is clearly in question. Mr. Chair, Mr. Speaker, what we were told was that the names were allocated according to what the sources thought they [00:49:10] were in those leftover were put into a pole [00:49:13] and allocated out on a pro rata basis. In the case of Hamilton city between two only Hamilton city electorates, [00:49:22] not the four anecdotes, [00:49:24] which cover Hamilton. Unfortunately for the petitioners, some academic demographers at [00:49:30] work at a university went to the trouble [00:49:32] of examining the Hamilton sample, which was gained by pulling out all Hamilton sheets from the petition, which took a number of hours to do in a number of helpers. They found 22.4% were validly on the role and the electrics claimed by the petitioners. Mr. Speaker, we were assured that the signatures were thoroughly checked and they were all valid. I was concerned after hearing that evidence So how better they work and I produce some photocopy sheets of some pages from the petition. This is a page which has a number from my new yamata. Mr. Speaker, here they are on the bottom line six signatures all in the same handwriting. How did that come about? I asked one of the petitioners Mr. Ross, how come all in the same handwriting? Well, he said often we had Murray families and one person would sign for the whole lot. Very interesting Murray household this Caitlyn Pettersen, Thompson, Campbell, all these people with different surnames all living together in one house [00:50:38] in winery on a martyr. All with the same [00:50:40] handwriting. I suggest that it was a pretty racist statement for Mr. Rice to make and clearly indicated that the the the petition does not have much integrity. Mr. Speaker, the main before hierarchy has claimed that they presented professional witnesses many Anderson he quoted. Well, I received a letter [00:51:03] from the University of Auckland after the committee hearing from Dr. Paul Goldwater Senior [00:51:08] Lecturer in virology, [00:51:10] claiming, saying that he was important that he made comments about the validity of Mr. Anderson submission. Mr. Anderson was not correct and calling yourself a miracle about your scientist or an veenai. hematology. He said he was a medical Barkley technologist. And in fact, although he has very good knowledge of hepatitis viruses, he has evidently not kept up with the current knowledge about a professional qualifications. Were certainly and as was the evidence, factual evidence he gave to the committee was wrong. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Anderson told us that the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of psychiatrists were wrong and he was right. He told us the American Psychological Association were wrong and he was right and that the long list of doctors from [00:52:00] Sign the petition. We're all [00:52:05] speaking, I rise to support the amendment that this house should give a favorable, considerable, most favorable consideration to this bill. Mr. Chairman, I have got to say as an observer and understood observer and the happening and following the this bill over the last few months, that these matters have been handled with obscene height by committee of this parliament. [00:52:32] I believe [00:52:33] that the principles petitioners and others feel cheated by the way, this committee of Parliament has treated them. [00:52:44] And I want to report back that having read most of the submissions to this Select Committee, although not being a member of the same, that the thrust of the petition petition is opposing this bill was simply that this bill was designed to distract The fundamental building blocks of this nation, the family unit, and, of course, ultimately, democracy itself. This bill, according to the principal petitioners, in simple terms, is [00:53:16] just another exhausted [00:53:18] accurately aimed at the crumbling House of Christianity. [00:53:24] The petition is opposing the bill, another so called [00:53:27] social reform. [00:53:30] The petitioners [00:53:31] opposing the bill, believe that this bill, and other so called social reform, will have a devastating medical, social and moral impact on the future of this country. I happen to believe [00:53:49] that what those 800,000 people [00:53:51] have to say, is that simple method and I'm staying here tonight, telling us how that simple message I can see that come to the highest court in the land. And I have been cheated by this committee of Parliament, of which at one time the member for Hamilton West was the chairman, at which time I have no confidence was moved in his chairmanship. And the day I called on this committee, his colleague, the member for Hamilton east, was the chairman of the committee. And I have never seen such [00:54:27] a sick of [00:54:28] sycophantic performance by [00:54:33] Mr. Speaker, this petition was heard on one day, the member for Hungary was never a member of that committee. [00:54:41] That is irrelevant. That was not a valid point of order. Any men but make our comment on the procedures for the committee? [00:54:54] Chairman, the member is actually correct about the petition itself. Why Iris referring to was submissions to the bill, which I believe the 800,000 people listening tonight on the wireless will want to establish, sir. And it's part of this general fast that I am concerned about the Cavalier way in which that Chairman, the member for Hamilton West, treated the people that turned up [00:55:21] to give submissions at their expense because of their concern [00:55:26] to this committee of Parliament. And I was treated thoroughly badly. [00:55:32] And 11,052 people in one array say, Mr. Banks, we do not want you to support this bill, or this petition, this petition, and that's what I'm going to do. I support the 800,000 New Zealanders that came [00:55:47] to Parliament, [00:55:48] to show that they were outraged [00:55:51] at this initiative [00:55:53] and wanted to stop dead in their tracks. [00:55:55] And that's why I rise to speak to the amendment that my colleague move 11,000 people in longer I signed there. But even if it was [00:56:03] only 10,500 it is still an F. And in a recent radio poll conducted in my [00:56:11] electorate by radio users [00:56:14] that can be checked by the member for Wellington Central, the architect [00:56:18] of the Golden question. [00:56:20] I think the state of Wonder right people said [00:56:23] no, I think the sake [00:56:26] of longer I think people said, No, we don't want this homosexual law reform, because they do believe that the family unit is Sony. [00:56:37] So they have asked me to come down here [00:56:40] and state to this house very clearly, [00:56:42] their opposition to this legislative initiative and decide that they want me to support the amendment, my colleague move to make this a most favorable report to Parliament. It is absolutely outrageous. The goblin [00:56:58] member for Wellington central [00:57:00] should have been a principal participant on this die of this petition. [00:57:06] Because I saw her performance on the day on the one day [00:57:11] that I sat in on the submission [00:57:14] to the principal bill. [00:57:16] And the way she manipulated the sycophantic member for Hamilton as the chairman on that day. What has to be seen to be believed? It was sickening. It was a conspiracy by members of a committee of this Parliament [00:57:31] that I have never seen before. I have never seen before. This parliament [00:57:37] has gone [00:57:38] down in the eyes of the public of New Zealand [00:57:42] as a result of the way of the concerns of 800,000 New Zealanders have expressed [00:57:48] to this parliament and have been treated [00:57:51] and I noticed obscene Why is the speaker [00:57:55] like one point about the hearing of the petition before the select committee and that is at all Is the opposition to a present given a full opportunity to ask the questions. And the date the sponsor of the bill, the memory for Wellington central only asked her questions when other members of the committee had finished. And I think that answers many of the points raised by the moon for phone. Right. So take a line and raise an issue, which I think has not been raised properly with the bike so far, which I think is crucial for members of parliament to understand because I think the amendment move by lympha. Mechanical is in fact a very dangerous amendment. And even members who oppose the bill should think very carefully before they support this amendment. Because what the amendment does is refer the petition to the government for most favorable consideration to the government for most favorable consideration and welcome the amendment does it move from Macaca would do me the honor of hearing me in silence I heard him then he would learn, he would learn with the government know the opposition. Neither has I policy on this bill is absolutely inappropriate not come to that. I will come to that matter in a minute. It is absolutely inappropriate for an amendment to be moved in this house, which undermines the very basics of conscience voting. And I want to say to my colleagues, a member for Nithya that he may recall at least two occasions, I have stood up before the Labour Party conference and supported his right to a conscience vote on issues where the majority the overwhelming majority of that conference, was opposed to the view that he takes. And indeed, by and large, I was in sympathy with the majority of that conference. casa, I believe that the members of this house do have a right to a conscience vote on certain moral issues. And the amendments move by the member frame for cargo undermines the basis of that conscious vote because it is saying it is say if it is tough, the government should have a physician in opposition to this bill. And that is it. The government should not have a position either for or against this bill. I want to say further, sir, but I'm not here to question the integrity of the 7700 people claim to sign the petition in my lecture. I know that some of them have some very strange connections, but I've been to that elsewhere in this house. But I know that most of those are honorable, decent voters, many of them belong to my own Labour Party branches. All yes indeed in my lecture, which is a rather conservative a lecture, but that is not the point. The point is, the consensus of members of this house should not be open to pasa. This is the kind of issue on which members of this house have to look inside themselves without the aid of government [01:01:25] or opposition and decide [01:01:29] what they think is right. And when they have decided what they think is right, then they have the responsibility to vote according to that action. [01:01:42] And the only thing that can tremmel that freedom [01:01:45] because it is a very precious freedom is if I have made a prior commitment to their electric to abide by a pole within their electric on a specific issue, and I have come to resent So, as Many members of this house have come to resent the quite improper pressure which has been brought to bear from both extremes. In this argument, the attempt to blackmail members in terms of votes at the next election, the attempt to blackmail in terms of certain connections or whatever, the attempt to turn members of this house into puppets. Now, what I'm saying to the member cargo is I accept he opposes the bill. I respect his right. But all he is indeed in my lecture, which is a rather conservative a lecture, but that is not the point. The point is that the consensus of members of this house should not be open to barter. This is the kind of issue of which members of this house has to look inside themselves without the aid of government whips [01:02:59] or opposition and decide [01:03:02] what they think is right. And when they have decided what they think is right, then they have the responsibility to vote according to that action. And the only thing that can tremmel that freedom because it is very precious freedom is if I have made a prior commitment to their electric [01:03:26] to abide by a pole within their electric [01:03:29] on a specific issue, and I have come to resent so I think many members of this house have come to resent the quite improper pressure which has been brought to bear from both extremes. In this argument, the attempt to blackmail members in terms of votes of the next election, the attempts of blackmail in terms of certain connections, or whatever the attempted to members of this house into puppets. Now what I'm saying to them in front of a car Is I accept the opposes the bill. I respect his right to do so. I do not agree with him. But I accept he's absolutely sincere in opposing this bill. But he should not come to this house and say that a matter relating to that bill should receive favorable consideration from the government. [01:04:24] That is utterly wrong, [01:04:27] because he's undermining his very own case. The case by which the members for Napier and the member for Southern Murray and [01:04:35] other members on this side will oppose the bill. [01:04:41] Mr. Willing [01:04:42] to Wellington to speak of the government with the chief government with like the proponents of the major and the pilot of the petition tonight, simply for kiss to Mac Simple as that. I have not heard the member for St Kilda [01:05:04] so much on the defensive [01:05:06] as he has been in the last five minutes. His only defense was to say that the government does not have a policy on this particular major. So I might I asked him, Why does his junior with bringing the bill in? He knows very well, the long established conventions of this place, which by and large, not prohibit in a technical sense, but do by custom and Paul, certainly frown upon a measure of such a divisive nature being introduced by a whip with a senior or junior, and for him to get up and say, Well, of course the member for nature as opposed to this and therefore the government. The Labour Party does not have a formal position on the matter. Is I repeat to 14? [01:06:04] He referred to his Electra. He says, well, it's a conservative one, the base of bad members, [01:06:11] political support and the electorate of some killers, [01:06:13] the castle street branch. That's [01:06:16] that's the university. As simple [01:06:21] as simple as I know, I repeat. [01:06:28] And it and if Mr. Speaker, and if Mr. Speaker, he is right, why is it? Why is it that so many of his colleagues, [01:06:38] particularly, [01:06:40] particularly the Wellington based members, have poles and they are electric and having had their polls say but of course by electric Mr. Speaker, thank you. My electorate, Mr. Speaker, they say supports me understand, supports the bill for sexual activity. He's amongst young people of 16. Whereas their evidence of the polls they conducted in their electorate, have they been tabled in this house. The electorate survey from the member for Harry, the electorate survey from the member for Miramar, the electorate survey by the member for East Cape which had a meeting that way and then another way and coming back again, how genuine are those surveys? They are not answered I would not hold a candle to a petition of the people of this country who are common sense and practical [01:07:34] and who hold [01:07:36] strong views on a matter of this time. And just say that I Patricia, of unprecedented numbers and magnitude, nearly a million, nearly a million does not count in the council's of this country is manifest nonsense and that's why the member for St Kilda, simply Proteus three match and for the Deputy Prime Minister sit there and listen to it all and say, Well, of course, I'm going to pay for this thing and the petition means nothing but great apostle of constitutional purity, [01:08:08] Wi Fi [01:08:10] to I have a government [01:08:12] that says petitioning parliament on this particular issue is not in fact, is not an effective exercise this house to listen to is is an outstanding example of the member for Christchurch. Central's double standards and matters of this time, because we haven't had consensus in that country since his government came to pass and to ignore the voice of the people as expressed in this manner. And I believe genuinely, I haven't counted the people in my intellect. I haven't had to, I know [01:08:50] what I think. [01:08:55] time allotted for this debate has expired. And the Question was that the report the agreed to that that had since been amended and the question now is that the petition be referred to the government for most favorable consideration. The question is that that amendments be agreed to those who are left opinion will say I have a contrary opinion will say no. The eyes have a division called for ringabel. The eyes will go to the right and those will go to the left to tell us how they eyes will tell us for the eyes, Jones and Mr. Bray book and not tell us for the nose, Mr. Maillard and Miss entrain while [01:09:52] lock the doors [01:10:00] Question is, the amendment be free to the is 34 bullnose 39 amendments will not be free to unlock the door. But question now is that the emotion we agree that opinion will say I have the country then you will say no the eyes ever

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.