Parliament: second reading debate - Homosexual Law Reform Bill (6 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 need [00:00:09] an independent body? And I certainly believe the member for Napier made a very reasonable suggestion when he suggested that I Royal Commission should in fact, look into the issue of homosexuality and breaking down a report, such as the wall from the new report came before the British Parliament. And I refer to the new dimension and society today that was not apparent in those days, when the wolf of them report was introduced to the British Parliament. And that new dimension was is of course, that of whatever course of action was taken, I would have preferred the the house to have such an authoritative document to debate so that the public could refer to it and members of Parliament could certainly debate it. In those circumstances. Mr. Speaker, although I support a degree of reform, and I will support an amendment to the bill replacing the age of 16 with 20 if it hasn't been removed from the committee stages, I cannot support this bill. The second reading of a bill as it is the bill I'm afraid at this stage is far too extreme. [00:01:33] Neil Austin, [00:01:36] I want to say at the outset, sir, that I oppose this bill in all its its all its forms and whatever amendments may [00:01:45] come before the House. Sure, I [00:01:48] cannot find it in my makeup, to support any aspect of it. I want to tell the house there that I reached this conclusion [00:02:02] that day of the introduction of this bill, [00:02:07] I did not allow I appreciate it the levels of support from within my own electorate and from many areas of New Zealand, when the public learn by way of the news media, that I oppose the introduction of this homosexual law reform bill, in other words, was the speaker. It has not taken public comment, private letters to me or any other form of conversation, spoken, written or whatever, to persuade me that there is any point in my mind, or any good will come in my mind If this bill is passed, in whatever form it might take, [00:03:06] Sir, [00:03:08] I am my own best friend. And I am also my worst enemy. [00:03:15] Sir, I have to look at my image in the mirror every morning when I shine. [00:03:23] Sometimes sir, that image I see of myself [00:03:28] is a bit clouded. But never sir. Have I been afraid to look at myself and say, Well, I believe you haven't done so badly the day before in Mustang and you take on more every issue. And in particularly, sir on this moral issue. I can quite truthfully and honestly say that that mirror I look into each morning is as clear as I would topic today. It is tomorrow regret Mr. sprager that I cannot quote the scriptures at length there I cannot quote chapter and verse to support the reasons why I oppose this legislation. There has been much talk in this China well intentioned, sincere well meeting from both sides of the argument. It sir, am sincere and well meaning when I say as I said at the introduction for the opening of my few words, that I will not support this legislation in any form. It is comforting to me to know, having made that decision so without The pressures, without the advice, if I can put it that way of any person in my electorate, although I acknowledge, [00:05:13] subsequently to be making to my making that decision [00:05:18] that I have had dozens of letters [00:05:22] from people [00:05:25] throughout the country, the ones I value particularly others from my own electorate, supporting my stand in opposition to this legislation, [00:05:41] public meetings I have attended [00:05:44] not only [00:05:46] and spoken at not only in my own electorate, but in other areas of New Zealand on topics that don't have any relationship at all to this legislation. Inevitably sir, the question has cropped up [00:06:05] as to [00:06:07] what the public attitude is, what the nation's attitude is, to, in my view, lowering the moral standards of our nation. [00:06:21] Sir, I am not prepared to be party to [00:06:26] this imaginary code line of conduct, moral conduct, we need which I believe as a nation, we do not get Wanda. None of us have exactly the same argument. None of us have exactly the same discussions in data opinions as to what that imaginary line of conduct we lie which we as a nation We as an individual, they are not [00:07:05] they are not fall under organda. [00:07:09] Sir, I have, as I say, had public meetings on many topics in my life not refer now to my electric. I am proud advisor, that not once did I get threats [00:07:29] or any adverse comment as to my particular judgment on this issue. [00:07:37] For me any person [00:07:40] attending the public meetings, whatever that public meeting was, [00:07:45] but I am rather distressed to report to this house that I have received one or two letters, only one or two levels, from people who have suggested that if I live my support Foolish legislation, then possibly my political future, in this chamber, could be in jeopardy. Sir, I say to those one or two people, for half a dozen at the mouth, the road to me in that vine, I value my integrity for what it is worth, beyond the question of whether I support this issue, that issue or any other issue, whether I should remain a member of this chamber from a certain [00:08:38] to subjugate my own [00:08:43] moral standards [00:08:46] and also my own sir, imposed on me by no one for me to subjugate those standards, those ideals of mine to the demands and the suggestions Those who suggest I would be at a public office unless I supported their particular point of view. Mr. Neil [00:09:10] and I side of this house, sir. [00:09:12] I would force him to be out of public office, then to [00:09:18] do that, [00:09:19] which I know very well, sir. I could no longer look myself in the mirror each morning, as I mentioned a few moments ago. To me, sir, and individuals [00:09:33] stand [00:09:36] and we're discussing this issue with the President on an individual stand on a moral issue is their decision and theirs alone. Some members have assisted themselves or assisted in formulating that opinion, by having or taking your opinion pounds by testing the water I might not criticism of them for taking that attitude or that line, none whatsoever. But I make it quite clear that I did not have to or did not think it necessary for me to do just that. And as I say, sir, I have been supported in that stand, which I took, and I reiterated that stand of mine was taken before the pressure built up, by way of patricians to this house. Well, by the progression of this bill through this Gemma, my decision was made. [00:10:50] Without that, [00:10:53] advice in inverted commas, which was tended to me [00:11:00] I'm pleased to say, sir that [00:11:03] I have had many letters of support from within my unelected on I want to refer particularly to those many letters of support in the attitude in the opinion in the decision that I have made. There's one particular letter of support I have here, which I value as much as letters of support I have had from individuals. And this one that I have here happens to come from my own hometown of chi chi, chi chi union parish church ricer conducted a survey amongst their members. And I quote from the letter of a session, Clark to me, response to our circular requesting opinions, we consider what's significant and also the resulting from response is very interesting and indicates that many people and congregations have given a lot have given a lot of consideration to this subject. Can I say this house sir, that I am not a particularly good churchgoer? I say that, sir with a degree of sorrow. If I wished I could make all sorts of excuses as to why I don't pin a church regularly. I don't propose to do that sir. But I do say that I am not what might be called a good church. You're [00:12:40] my prime sir, that [00:12:43] in my estimation, and as I say, I have to live with myself. in my estimation, I do not have to 10 church and prayers to now in my estimation, That I am doing or conducting myself as I would wish as my my wife and family [00:13:11] except [00:13:12] that that is my [00:13:15] moral standard of conduct. [00:13:19] Sir, I have also received [00:13:23] letters from almost every locality within my electorate supporting me in that decision that I made that decision I made literally in isolation, as I said, from the pressures from the advice of good and well meaning people answer. [00:13:50] Having made that decision, [00:13:52] I was [00:13:55] encouraged by the number of people who signed a petition circulating through my electorate opposing this homosexual law reform bill. [00:14:07] it out. And 742 [00:14:10] not one of those people who signed that petition Mr. Speaker, [00:14:15] have written to me Sorry, one person who signed that petition wrote to me and told me that they [00:14:26] had not [00:14:29] supported their signature or met petition and asked that I have it removed from the record of this petition. I wrote back to that person, sir. And advise them that I would more than happy to advise the organizers of this petition to have that name removed. So that means that there were 8741 not 48,741 [00:15:01] Citizens of my electric [00:15:04] sign that petition in opposition to [00:15:09] this homosexual law reform bill. Sir, I am also particularly pleased [00:15:19] to have perhaps hambo would be a better word to use to receive letters [00:15:27] from the Maori people [00:15:30] from within my electorate, I might add sir. [00:15:34] Maori people who are not on my electoral row. [00:15:40] Maori people who are on the road for Northern America, supporting me in that decision that I made, as I say, before any pressures build up and I wanted for or would like to quote, sir, from just one of those many letters that are received From my good friends, the Maori people uptight hug around. And it says, addressed to me. So many of our married folk and party feel about this homosexual law reform bill, which we believe if past could spell disaster to this small country of ours, New Zealand, nurse Mary folk, for you that this bill if passed, [00:16:30] and most Mary a pass [00:16:33] would negate much of the teachings and many of the teachings that we have learned [00:16:41] in this last 150 years [00:16:45] from a Christian fight. [00:16:49] It also goes on to say [00:16:52] that if our Maori ancestors who signed the Treaty of Wight county [00:16:58] had realized That they would be legislation [00:17:04] before this house, [00:17:06] lowering the moral standards and the moral teachings that they were taught [00:17:15] by the Christian by [00:17:18] many if not most of those, Mallory's would not have signed the Treaty of white any bets is how so many of my Valerie people, my married friends [00:17:31] regrab regard the [00:17:34] prospects of the lowering our moral standards, if this bill is passed, sir, in conclusion [00:17:45] by side and I repeat [00:17:49] to any who may wish to take note of what I say. [00:17:55] I would far rather sir be out of public life [00:17:59] then In my view, my moral standards, [00:18:04] whatever others might think of them, if I have to lower my moral standards to support the lowering of the morality of this country, if this bill will pass, sir, I oppose the introduction of the bill. I propose opposing this legislation every step of the way. [00:18:33] The least, Mr. Speaker, I've listened with interest to the speeches that have been made and the second reading of this legislation. And I have to say that it is on these fixed conscience issues that this palace, here's some of the best speeches from the members. And I died death for one moment, the sincerity with which the speeches on both sides of the argument have been delivered to this chamber. Mr. Speaker, I voted, and I'm not going to speak for any great length, but I feel that members should explain to the chamber and to their constituents why they have reached certain conclusions with respect to this legislation. I've added the introduction of this bill, because I believed and I still believe that the decriminalization of homosexual acts as I subject which this Parliament should properly consider, should properly study, and that we should all inquire at this time, whether these acts should be legalized. I sat on the committee, the justice and Law Reform Committee, formally the statutes revision committee, month after month, listening to the submissions that was were made on this bill. In fact, I was during the whole This legislation was referred to the committee, the senior opposition member prison. And having heard all the evidence, I believe there are grounds for the decriminalization of homosexual acts. Well, then we were getting the immediate reaction, one would expect from the more of a sephorus proponents of the legislation. And I would like to clearly set out my views irrespective of their behavior, which now that I have raised it is a method that I feel I must deal with. Now, Mr. Speaker, I will at the appropriate time, seriously consider supporting the amendment that my colleague the member for Pendleton proposes that homosexual acts between persons of 20 years of A baby criminalized. It's my own personal view that homosexual acts should not be punished by the law. But I must say that the legislation that the select committee has study, and that was brought before the house, guys by the net that and the areas in which I disagree strongly with the legislation turn on two points. First. In my view, the age limit of 16 years is far too young. Boys of 16 years are still struggling with maturity. [00:21:44] They, in my view, not an age where I can properly consider whether they should indulge in homosexual behavior. And I disagree strongly with the provisions in the bill. That Would and I would that would enable us of 16 years of age to engage in homosexual practices. Mr. Speaker, I also strongly disagree with the Human Rights provisions contained in this legislation. In my view, those provisions imply total acceptance of homosexuality by the public. And I for 1am unconvinced that New Zealand is totally accept homosexuality. And I don't think this Parliament should, by legislation, force that acceptance on a society that is not ready for and does not want. Society is simply the New Zealand society is simply not in the position at this stage to accept such a dramatic change to our law. We are not just seeking the criminalization in this legislation. That we are seeking acceptance by society. And in that respect, this legislation goes to bat. And I may say it goes back to when one looks at other human rights legislation and realizes that with respect to age, race and religion, and six, there are discriminations, the police, the armed forces, the prison cells, and churches, and not required to comply with human rights legislation in certain areas. But there are no exceptions in this legislation. So what that means is that our police force our services, and our prison service will be required by law to accept an Employment Act visible, practicing homosexuals. It also means that organizations such as the Boy Scouts will be required to accept into full time employment, actor visible practicing homosexuals. It also means that church schools, churches that may have very strong fundamental beliefs about homosexuality will be required by this legislation to accept into employment, active, visible and practicing homosexuals, when that would obviously cause considerable problems for those organizations. There are not the normal human rights exceptions that that we are aware of as I relate to race, religion, creed, and six. Now, Mr. Speaker, this debate has seen extreme points of view on both sides of the argument. And that has not helped this Parliament reach a conclusion on the legislation. On the one hand, we have had extremists statements made in the name of religion. And on the other, we have had the activities of the homosexual community, we have witnessed on TV, members of the Salvation Army being abused and molested on their way to churches. And I simply say that with respect to both sides who have acted in that manner, they have done their cause, and this parliament, a grave disservice. And they should know that their actions have not convinced any member of parliament to support their cause, that in many cases have driven reasonable sensible Members of Parliament to think again, about the legislation. Mr. Speaker, for those reasons, when we have one when we have a whole bill, and a member finds himself in agreement with peps, 25% of it, and 75% of it is something that the member can support a nice views and Neck and neck way, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the members should vote against the second reading of the bill. And for that reason, I will. And I'm particularly reinforced, in my view, by the manner in which the select committee has handled this legislation. And I take the strongest exception to the manner in which the government members of the justice and Law Reform Committee dealt with this legislation. And I refer particularly to the select committee hearing on Wednesday, the second of October, which must be recorded as a [00:26:38] black tie in the history of this panel with respect to a select committee, hearing submissions from concerned members of the public, because it was on that day that the two opposition members of the justice and Law Reform Committee came to Parliament came to that select committee hearing peace Hear evidence from the considerable number of people who still wished to make their point of view known to this parliament on this very important legislation. [00:27:13] But I have to report, Mr. Speaker, [00:27:14] that I was obvious to the two opposition members prison. Remember for WIPA and myself that the government members had already met, and had already decided as to how this legislation would be disposed off, and [00:27:30] member for Rotorua [00:27:31] that the committee deliberate immediately on the legislation, despite the fact that there were some 70 or [00:27:39] 80 groups, [00:27:40] organizations and individuals who had taken the time to present submissions to this parliament, and who still wished to make their point of view known to that Select Committee. Mr. Speaker, that was an affront to our democracy. And we denied the government by exercising the government members by exercising the majority, and overruling the two opposition members, we denied those citizens groups and organizations, their democratic rights to come to this parliament and present their views to a select committee. And not only did we do that, that the government members again by white of number, again over the vigorous protest of my colleague, the member for WIPA and myself, move that [00:28:34] I large number of parliamentary petitions on the issue of homosexual, [00:28:40] Laura all. In fact, I have the list in front of me now, some 20 petitions, at least, they reported back without even hearing any evidence whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, I'm told that there were 34 petitions that dealt with in that Cavalier fashion. And that is one of the most ancient rights of the citizen in New Zealand to petition this parliament and to present to this parliament, they have us. [00:29:13] I don't [00:29:14] mind what side of the argument those petitioners should be on. The simple fact is that it is there, right the site petition, this parliament, and they have been denied that right, Mr. Speaker, the submissions were dealt with and I disgraceful way and as I parliamentarian, I was a shame. [00:29:39] It's a matter of convenience to the committee [00:29:42] by could not produce one valid reason as to why the committee should stop hearing evidence and report back. The only reason they could produce was a matter of convenience to the committee that has read been sitting for five months. That was long enough. We might as well Pack up the hearings and report back [00:30:02] irrespective [00:30:04] of the people who are taking the trouble to prepare submissions and still wish to be heard, simply a matter of convenience to committee members, and then to make the matter even with this move to deliberate act only here in part of the evidence, and I must say that the committee did not discharge its duty to this parliament, because when a bill is sent to a select committee, it is sent to a select committee [00:30:33] to hear all the evidence, [00:30:35] not just the evidence that I gang who jack the committee up and wish to steamroll their views over other members, you are supposed to you supposed to consider all the evidence. And the fact of the matter is that we were given the job by this parliament, and we did not fulfill it, because we didn't consider all the evidence [00:30:59] and even With [00:31:01] the committee then move straight into deliberation without even going through a period of consideration. And what is wrong with that, Mr. Speakers? Not only did we deny many worthwhile organizations and groups, and I think the National Council of Women was one whose views I particularly would have liked to have heard and who were denied the opportunity of being heard on this matter. Not only did we do that, we also denied Deepak mental advisors from the Justice Department, who had been sitting through committee hearings for five months, where we denied them the opportunity of discussing these matters with a select committee. [00:31:42] There were two Justice Department reports prepared, we received one on the first half [00:31:49] of the bill, at the time that we moved straight into deliberation and had no opportunity to consider that. [00:31:55] The second Justice Department report [00:31:57] on the bill came to me was of the committee after the committee had already been forced to deliberate. and report back to this panel. And I say what you said is that having government officials sit there for five months, and be denied the opportunity of discussing these matters with committee members. And not only that, we then had an advisor advisory officer to the committee prepare a massive report, which again, the committee members had no opportunity of considering before we deliberated. And I for one, would also have liked to have had the opportunity of seeking the advice of the Human Rights Commission and asking the commission to come before the committee to explore with the commission. They have us with respect to the second part of the Act, dealing with human rights. But now, we were denied that opportunity as a committee. And to make the situation even worse, halfway through this Sharad, the government members realize the damage they were doing their cause. So do you know what they did in the interests of open government, they ordered the press from the room and took a vote to exclude the news media from the consideration of the homosexual law reform bill before the justice and Law Reform Committee. [00:33:25] Consideration was effectively held behind a shroud of secrecy because the government members insisted over the wishes of myself and the member for WIPA that [00:33:39] the press not be able to remain. And as a result, it is only now that we have the opportunity of advising this Parliament of the disgraceful manner in which the justice and Law Reform Committee was forced to deal with this matter by white of numbers of government members. And obviously come to that committee with some predetermined course of action on Wednesday the second of October, pulling it as a member for, for this Parliament for the bill to proceed further in those circumstances. And I would hope that we will vote on this measure by saying to the sponsors of the bill, to have a considerable measure of public support, that I should go I start again and do the job properly, enough proper, traditional democratic method, not endeavor to force the measure through the house and the way that they are doing. Having said that, as the speaker, I think I have outlined to this house and to my constituents why I'm taking the stand that I am on the second reading of this legislation [00:34:53] was the speaker during the election campaign before the last election, I was asked On several occasions, what my reaction would be to a homosexual law reform bill. And my reaction to that question was that I would vote for reform, but that I did not consider it a pressing issues besides such matters as the economy and justice and so on. But I missed the speakers since that time. There has been some water going under the bridge, a bill has been introduced. We have all received a lot of mail. And I have done quite a lot of study on this issue. I end up with no question on how I wish to vote. But the question is, why would I speak to the matter and not just vote to the matter why Mr. Speaker. The reason that I am speaking is because I now see the issues as more important than I did at the time of the election. I see the issues as being Those of tolerance versus a morally judgmental view, I see the issue as one of the role of the law of this land, I see the issue of rationality versus fear. And indeed, I see the issue of sexual equality. So I will argue with as much rationality as I can manage, but I have acquired stronger feelings on this issue. Since the time of the election, was to speak of those feelings came to a head when the petition was presented the petition against this bill, I watched the presentation of that petition. And I must say that I was offended by others taking over God family and country and the national anthem to their cause, because I feel some affinity for those issues as well as they do. And I do not believe that those those those items God family, the country in the national anthem belong to one side of this issue. The service In the face of overwhelming evidence that those people's view was not only right, but had that moral force on its own and should be enforced on others, I frankly found offensive. I accept and respect the fact that many people in my electorate, and all the other religions, of course, are posted this bill, and that they have that they are genuine in their feelings, and that they have very real fears about this bill. But there are not more than 9150 in my electorate. There are not more than 9150 and miles difference because of those issues that have already been canvassed about the method of counting event petition. However, sir, that is not the real reason. That is not the real meta issue. Was the Speaker I was surprised by the manner of presentation of this petition on the on the steps of Parliament, and one of the issues was that the boxes was brought up the steps they were for. [00:38:03] Now why? [00:38:04] Why would the presenters of the petition, bring a whole lot of empty boxes up the steps and list they were trying to impress people about how many signatures the word that is, the simplest thing to do, it is surely unnecessary. If the petition has has [00:38:22] none of the boxes were even half full. [00:38:24] And listeners might be interested to know that fact and many of them have only an inch or two pages in the bottom and any member can go and have a look at them in any member of the press can go and have a look at them and verify that fact. Now what what is the reason to be deceptive in that way, if the petition has the force of reason behind it, then it does not need to be it not does not need to be made the secret in that way. Because the speaker, one of the one of the issues that has arisen is that with regard to that petition, of course is that that the Present is the that petition have threatens those who vote for this bill with electoral defeat. And I resent the idea that I am here just because I want to stay here. I am here and I must take notice of my constituents. But in the end, I must vote for what I think is right. And I resist the threat that is implied by pushing numbers at me that I will vote against what I believe for electoral advantage, because I want sometimes, in fact, I believe that a law should not be should not be there. Certainly because there is no consensus on that law. I think it is bad law. If only about let's say 50% of the people agreed such a law as needed. Because if only 50% of the people agree that the law is needed, then it clearly does not have the respect of the majority of the people of New Zealand which I believe laws leave the head. We are agree that we should have a law against murder. But we certainly do not all agree that we should have a law against homosexual activity. And I believe that the standard that is required for us to have a law, especially on moral matters such as this requires a great deal more than 50%. And certainly that is not the case. I believe that somewhat more than 50% of the people of this country believe that the law should not be there, the law against time sexual activity. That's my belief. But I believe that if the law should be there, then it should be certainly a great deal more than that. No, Mr. Speaker, do I believe that we should have a law just because we have it already, we should start from scratch and decide whether we need a law which is on the box. And really that's what this is about. It's whether we should keep a law that is there, or whether we don't need it anymore, or in fact, whether we should do away with it, which is the same thing with the speaker. Really, though my principal concern about the role of the criminal law is simply that it is not the role of the Lord. Tell adults what they should do in private with consent, where no one else is involved, let alone hurt no one else apart from those consenting adults. And in that respect, I would like to quote from the Department of Justice report, which the previous speaker mentioned, could not be considered by the committee. Well, of course, it could be considered by the committee member, [00:41:21] Matthew, some readers, [00:41:23] and even West, the fact that they could not proceed it orally does not really alter the fact that the report is there. And here it is. And I would like to quote from the report about the role of criminal law. This is the report of the Justice Department. And I think it is quite an important quite that I make this a speaker this is what it says by and large, the criminal law of countries such as New Zealand does not intervene in the private lives of citizens to enforce any particular Moral viewpoint in a democratic and pluralistic society. It is generally accepted that the law to recognize individual freedom of choice in manners of private morality Except where it is necessary to prohibit behavior which occasions identifiable harm to others. Broadly speaking, New Zealand's criminal code is concerned with restraining conduct which causes harm to others, protecting public decency and maintaining public order. There are very few offenses contained in the Crimes Act of which could be said that the principal purpose of the prohibition is to enforce a moral standard. This approach is not really surprising. There are few moral issues on which society at large would be capable of reaching substantial agreement to the argument that the criminal law has an appropriate instrument for enforcing one particular code of behavior. The question then becomes, which or whose morality should prevail, it would be quite inappropriate to expect the state to make such a choice. If public debate on the bill illustrates nothing else. It illustrates that there is no consensus in the community about the morality of homosexual conduct and the prescription of sex conduct by criminal means in these circumstances. would be normal for the criminal law to stand aside. To that extent the continued prohibition of consensual homosexual acts, there's an exception to traditional concepts about the proper scope of the criminal law. [00:43:13] Let's dispel [00:43:14] there is a clear statement of the criminal law. [00:43:19] And, and I believe that an understanding of that is necessary for MPs who must examine the arguments for and against this law. With the speaker, we do not have the luxury of having a view, which can be held against the evidence, we must examine the arguments for and against this bill, and examine them in the light of the evidence and I would like to quickly run through the arguments which have been advised against this bill. The first one is that it's against Christian values. Well, Mr. Speaker, we've already canvassed where the one morality should be enshrined in the law, not better Also there is the question of what is the Christian view. And I like other members, I'm sure have had many leaders and communications from Christian people who are in favor of repeal of the law as it stands, and when I look at both sides of the issue, I see logic from a Christian viewpoint, because of the tolerance expressed on the side of repeal. Mr. Speaker, one of the other arguments against this bill, is that homosexual homosexuality is quite curable, even if it was that shouldn't matter. But the evidence says that it is not sad that homosexuality is fixed as a sexual orientation and people before they reach the age of 16. Well, before they reach the age of 16, or purity, there is the overwhelming weight of evidence, and that is what we should listen to, and to say otherwise ignores that evidence. Mr. Speaker, the third one is the third eye communicates the belief that homosexuality will cause breakup. of the family. And I find that I had to follow. [00:45:06] Because the first, the first element of that argument is that a change in the law will create more homosexuality and more homosexual activity. And that is not the evidence from countries overseas which have changed the rule. But the second is that I cannot see the mechanism for the breakup of the family and passing this bill. This is bigger homosexuals are born into families, and the criminalization of homosexuality will surely not cause them to lose their mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters. I cannot see that that that that is the case. And Mr. Speaker, or if they're not going to lose their mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters because of this bill, then perhaps it is because homosexuals Jr. generally don't have children. But surely that could not be a reason to write them as criminals. Because celibacy is accepted as a as a valid lifestyle if it's chosen, and celebrates don't have children when we die, therefore decide to make it criminal speaker so that it cannot be The one perhaps the idea is that husbands will suddenly rush off and become homosexuals and Mr. Speaker that simply does not accord with, with the with the sexual orientation of the heterosexual who, who will suddenly will not suddenly decide to be homosexual when the bill is passed unless the speaker, the rationality of their argument is not there. And we must we must try and examine the thing rationally. And I do not see any argument which says that the passing of this bill will break up families, it's simply not certainly not logical, this is bigger. The most reason against violence against the bill is that homosexuals and don't indulge in child abuse and homosexual rights and so on. And I have had later telling me that, that there will be hordes of homosexual gang sodomized and innocent citizens that this bill is passed almost the speaker simply the answer to that is the countries which have already had the criminalization of homosexual behavior, have simply not seen the sort of behavior described in that manner. I would like to read for the for the evidence of the house, just some of the countries which have decriminalized homosexual behavior because that has been the idea guys that we should have an inquiry where we're not exactly trying something new and radical, Mr. Speaker, the United Kingdom is being mentioned. And, and we know, it was decriminalized there many years ago was the speaker in Western Europe. Let's run through a few of the countries in Sweden the age of consent as 15 the same as for heterosexuals. In Norway 16 deciders for heterosexuals in France, the age of consent, the scientists for heterosexuals in Denmark considers 15 the same as me heterosexuals unite in Australia as you can see there's 90 in the Federal Republic of Germany age of consent as 18 in Italy, the age of consent is the same as for heterosexuals in Italy. They've never had a criminal law against homosexuality. In Switzerland, the Commission has been set up which recommends the liberalisation of the law and the Netherlands the age of consent of 16, the highest Cyrus for heterosexuals in Belgium, the age of consent for homosexuals is for 18 and intersexual 60 inspiring the it considers the same as heterosexuals. If this is not new. And you know this, then why does the member performer I seem to indicate that we're doing something strange and unusual by having such a built because I'm reading out and I intend to continue to read them out to emphasize the fact that we are not doing something new, strange and radical compared with other countries in the world. This is speak of the Council of year in 1981. Committee on social health questions, adopted a draft recommendation on the elimination of discrimination against homosexuals, and in particular, women recommended the criminal liability for homosexuals between Arabs should be abolished. Mr. Speaker in the United States, over half the states have decriminalized private homosexual conduct. Australia New South Wales has has done so. And the Australian Capital Territory South Australia has done so since 1976. And interestingly Mr. Speaker, South Australia at least the God had not had a single case of AIDS reported and nine have had decriminalization of homosexual activity since 1976. And haven't had a case of AIDS reported whereas [00:49:11] Florida [00:49:12] whereas Florida, which in which it remains criminal is the third highest level of AIDS in the world, and those [00:49:22] are contained in the Department of Justice report. So that so that they are feeling really well, really well documented fit, because the speaker, we are not doing something, we're not doing something, something very strange. The fifth argument advanced against the bill is the question of AIDS. I don't expect that any member in this house would would argue against the need to contain it, of course, but once you look at the evidence about whether it will increase with decriminalization, or indeed decrease with the criminalization and I've already noted the cases of Florida and South Australia and the director general of Health in New Zealand says there is no reasonable correlation between the the incidence of AIDS and and the law. And I take that to be an authoritative opinion. I am not sure [00:50:11] I've Matthew some might donate and [00:50:14] provides list. But my view is that it will certainly not make the situation worse because of the threat of AIDS itself will not cause people to refrain from Ireland, of course, then the existence of an EC, which is hardly enforced will surely not. And that's that's a logical argument, which is to try and answer Mr. Speaker, the question of age, the question of age. the only the only question really that we have to decide, I believe is what should the age be accepting, they're accepting that consenting adult behaviors should be decriminalized. It is it is logical to have the same age as the heterosexuality otherwise there's discrimination both between homosexual heterosexual behavior between male and female, and 16 is the age old guy from Mr. Speaker pack too. I understand the reasoning behind those who support the first part, but not the second, I understand their idea that personal freedom is the motivator, the freedom to hire who one likes, etc. But, but personal freedom must sometimes be curtailed. For example, we do not have the freedom to drive on the right hand side of the road for very obvious reasons, and personal freedom must sometimes be curtailed. And in this case, I must say that I regard discrimination against homosexuality is not different from discrimination on the grounds of race or six people who apply for a job have a right to be treated on the characteristics relevant to the job and not on a prejudice against what they do privately and I'll be voting for the second part of the bill with the speaker morality has been mentioned tonight and other nights quite a lot. And I regard a more moral values such as honesty, justice and caring for others, including intellectual honesty as moral values. And I indicate to me that the moral position to take on this bill is to support it. And I do not regard my view as being less moral than the bills opponents, they are entitled to their view, they are more moral than me, but I do not accept there was a speaker this law will pass, I think, and I hope it will, it will lift away from maybe 10% of our male population, but perhaps even more importantly, that will signal maturity and tolerance in our society. I feel pleased to be able to endorse this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to do sir [00:52:45] Mr. Norman Jones, [00:52:46] is to speak [00:52:50] with heard this story about the homosexuality and [00:52:54] is being prevalent in Florida, where it's non decriminalized where it's still illegal. In Florida, Florida, the reason being, of course, the fatal test drive, got rid of 207,000 of his criminals and these prisoners, including including 70. [00:53:19] of Florida, and that's why [00:53:31] I want [00:53:33] I want to give notice of an amendment reading stage understanding or the 213. I intend to move the question be amended by a particular word now, and adding at the end of the question the words this day, 12 months which opens up the second reading for anyone that wants They have a second guy. And that would get the members fully think this was a good idea. [00:54:07] The reasons [00:54:08] why I think this bill should lie on the table for another 12 months, before we do anything further before they before we do anything further with it. And I can assure you that will have plenty of members to get up and keep going. They'll the homosexual community of this country received one hell of a shot. In match when I brought this villain, they thought this bill was going to come into this parliament. And they passed as indeed it did in the first meeting by 51. Back to 24 was 20. Absolutely. And I had planned that as I rolled in with the connivance of the lighter party caucuses no question about that. There was a funny voice by [00:54:51] a guys bringing this homosexual bill in [00:54:53] by the member for Wellington said now I [00:55:02] thought I would get through this health [00:55:08] man slider [00:55:14] slider and we're still not through the second rating. And guys, people that are that are missing out on something outside this house but I'm here the last three ways. [00:55:26] Three ways I better get back to work because they're [00:55:29] not gonna make any here. All right, I didn't anticipate the massive opposition that will degenerate it to this film. I thought of passwords introduction stages as indeed a dead 51 to 24. That was the only match well here we are way back in now in November. They are very overjoyed about that today. I'm very happy about that today. Now they'll be even less overjoyed because I can assure that the time there's bill gets through a lot of it stages and I can take a bit now. I'll take a bit club that doesn't have whiskey with any members [00:56:10] in oppression form will not pass you the company today. I are they enjoying my accounting? I haven't stayed here three nights looking at the speakers and I've been doing my homework. There's about 36 probably 36 members in this house. They will fight against this bill at every stage. There's probably 3435 people born at every stage and the homosexual passport, [00:56:38] under instructions. [00:56:40] That is not only 16 years ago [00:56:43] 16 years of age. There's already been amended much telegraph footwear united. Well, I can assure you, [00:56:50] that will be in the lobbies. bylaws will be in the lobbies [00:56:54] with the harm is sexual [00:57:00] And then the members of this house can have some real agonizing to do, because what you're going to be voting for [00:57:07] is 16 years [00:57:08] of age or not. [00:57:10] And I'm thinking that this house will go nothing. So it's not. It's not over yet. The bill of public goes through its second reading stages, as we've all had another gota have not had another [00:57:26] question, right, but I've already got it done. [00:57:29] He's gone. [00:57:34] Mr. Speaker. There's been an international organized [00:57:38] campaign amongst [00:57:44] sexuals Well, I can assure you that if you think 835,000 users was organized, I can tell the member [00:57:56] paper in the cargo and every time it comes down, [00:57:58] and I strap it in goggles, he puts another [00:58:01] 500 bucks in my pocket. [00:58:07] Hey, he's the best. [00:58:11] And last night he reminded the buddy MP, I can assure you that if you think that 835 was organized and you're criticizing the petition of having X number of smokers and think [00:58:25] people being pressured like I can assure you [00:58:27] that the bill passes through this house in any shape or form at all. The repeal referendum petition will stop the very next day based on computerized electro roads based on computerized [00:58:48] will be given the opportunity of signing the repeal bill with [00:58:53] the house move. [00:58:55] chumps not gonna go away. [00:59:00] We can do it. [00:59:03] I can say but [00:59:10] as far as I'm concerned on this session, [00:59:13] it's either right, it's wrong. I'm not gonna be mealy mouthed. [00:59:18] I agree to disagree [00:59:20] with people on this is wrong, and it's wrong and I upside as far as I'm concerned, I do not distinguish between this and I'm no table thumping Bible bashing Christian, I might tell you that. I'm representing at least three quarters of those 835 people [00:59:37] like myself, don't even go to church. Don't even go to church. [00:59:44] Oh god tonight, Lord. [00:59:48] I drink whiskey. I drink whiskey. I swear I used to chase women. [01:00:09] Don't go to church. I got out of the [01:00:12] site and watch the horses workout. Gonna go [01:00:21] down there, and I'm gonna hit the company of the [01:00:26] pastors and the Presbyterian pastors and the Methodist pastors, congregations and say that suddenly getting concerned that it's not a sin. Now they're getting paid to preach the gospel. Now they're gonna have more trouble with the law. They're gonna have more trouble the law of the land Judgment Day. [01:00:44] I'd like to be a fly on the wall. [01:00:50] I want to get back I want to get back to the seriousness of it. [01:00:55] no laughing matter [01:01:00] When the whole sexual population, not only that five or 4% homosexual population and sexually induce venereal disease or fatal disease, and deliberately so [01:01:18] the non stop, there's an internationally [01:01:21] organized campaign amongst the homosexuals in every country in the world. [01:01:31] The member and the member for energy is more in danger of senility than anybody else. [01:01:38] legalized in every country depressurize [01:01:45] right throughout the homosexual international community. [01:01:50] There's been a campaign [01:01:53] in every country to pressurize the non homosexual population to legalize sodomy. To put this the spirit of the homosexual disease as that's what I've been doing. Now, it's quite obvious. It became obvious to homosexuals in the UK and in America and Europe and all over the world [01:02:12] years ago, five years ago [01:02:15] that the homosexuals were killing themselves by the thousands, would I. [01:02:19] And it was quite obvious to them that no government, [01:02:23] no major national Corporation, was going to spend millions of dollars on research just on a homosexual disease, when homosexuals only make up a small percentage of the population to get the source of money spent on research to stop the spiral disease that other people are getting to spend on multiple sclerosis cancer and arthritis. [01:02:50] So what do we do? [01:02:53] The International [01:02:56] the international homosexuals only hope was For the world blood banks to become sufficiently contaminated with [01:03:10] innocent people, sexual women and children Why is a bisexual homosexuals at risk for a number of them [01:03:22] have contaminated with the H virus to be poisoned to [01:03:25] death by this [01:03:28] disease. That's what it is to have both [01:03:33] governments and corporations [01:03:38] government [01:03:42] spending millions of dollars on research. Now [01:03:54] cut off but it was just the time when the speaker closed him off entirely In the house writers

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.