Parliament: Committee of the Whole House - Homosexual Law Reform Bill (9 April 1986) - part 1

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

[00:00:00] This audio comes from the collections of the lesbian and gay archives of New Zealand. For more information, visit Read [00:00:10] the animal the 20th [00:00:13] shame and feel [00:00:16] the assistance of the care. [00:00:27] And inside doing, Mr. Chairman refer you [00:00:33] to speak with [00:00:34] verify whether it is a speech report of order so we can get Eric membership [00:00:43] and the speaker's ruling 138 core, which refers to private member's bills [00:00:52] and states i private member's Bill Cosby [00:00:58] Have you got Mr. Chin [00:01:01] A private member's bill clauses of which my [00:01:06] next the operative word involve an extra charge on the people in the way of rights payable into the public account requires the recommendation of a crowd and therefore out of order. Now, Mr. Chairman, I raised bed at the stage for this reason. We have concluded the committee stages on path one of the civilian [00:01:30] law reform bill [00:01:31] and this is clear from the voting. I'm not referring to them to say that as clear as a consequence of the basement, there is now strong prospects of the major Put simply being fast with which in my view, does right the question posed or indeed answered under 1384 Now, Mr. Chairman, I could elaborate on the manner in which this major is passed code. In the words of speakers rolling 134 speaker states in the 1929, volume three to one page eight to eight [00:02:19] involved, and I quote him an extra charge on the people. I want to refer to the submissions we've had, in particular from the Department of Health. [00:02:31] But I think it is becoming apparent that indeed, there may be a charge should this major further proceed. Now the other part of the speaker's ruling, because Tyson's ruling of consequence and considering the issue [00:02:49] is whether his quiver if there is to be an extra charge, the crown which of course means the Kevin The recommends that the spill [00:03:04] is the Navy, it is out of order. [00:03:09] Speaker statement rule It is therefore out of order [00:03:14] unless [00:03:15] the cabinet representing the crown, recommend that pricey. Now, if one reads on further [00:03:25] three speakers ruling 1391 [00:03:30] there's reinforcement of bad old ruling [00:03:34] by is older room by speaker a rock. Now I appreciate that he was talking about a specific taxing bill. But he nevertheless includes and the second and final thing. It is not competent for a private member to propose additional taxation. Now, Mr. Chairman, I haven't raised this Earlier because one had to be fair to the private member and see what likely course the bill was the type. It is my belief [00:04:13] that this [00:04:14] measure should further proceed and and BB [00:04:18] my the key word [00:04:21] I did not say shell well will know what I'm speaker Spicer, he said might involve an extra charge on the people. [00:04:31] Now I think the committee Mr. Chairman, can resolve this issue in a number of wise. [00:04:40] But I would like to suggest to I would [00:04:44] like you to consider the relevance of speakers Titans ruling and the context of this [00:04:52] private member's bill ready for speakers rulings and respective private member's bills. If there is doubt I believe it to be the responsibility of a crown. In this case, the cabinet. She wins the head through the leader of the house and I've checked back on the speeches given at the time the bill was introduced. [00:05:17] The leader of that neither the leader of [00:05:19] the Prime Minister know the Prime Minister spoke [00:05:24] and and so doing or not doing in the case of the Crown's I'm in the cabinet position on this matter. [00:05:32] Now, [00:05:34] two things can happen. There can be I ruling from the chairman in accordance with speakers ruling 138 for private member's bill and affair is a difficulty for the chair and I appreciate [00:05:48] that it is [00:05:50] very sensitive. [00:05:53] Very delicate. There might be of assistance to the committee. If the Prime Minister or the leader of the house, hiding down and indicated whether, indeed, the crown or the cabinet is prepaid and are nearly finished at his pre paid or not to back this bill with public money. I think [00:06:17] we've got the main point. [00:06:22] Well, I think I think the main but having spoken half about five minutes is [00:06:25] his, [00:06:26] his point is clear enough. But I think there are other members who may we may wish [00:06:29] to comment about [00:06:34] this, Mr. Chairman did refer to a speaker's ruling, but in no way indicated to the committee, or we paid to seek to indicate to the committee in what why he considered that this bill may, in fact, involve an extra charge [00:06:49] on the table. [00:06:51] It seemed to me that that there was no point of order in that the speakers rolling with your third there is not at all [00:06:58] on the bill before the committee [00:07:00] More important than that it bears even waste on the matter which is before this committed, [00:07:06] if, in fact they were somewhere in the bill, something which could be construed as involving [00:07:11] the possibility of involving [00:07:13] a charge on the people that would necessarily have to be right in the house and will be a mentor for the house and the speaker, not for the committee, and certainly not for the committee when it is seized of only one part of the bill. That is part to the bill closes eight and nine, dealing with a minute with amendments to the Human Rights Commission as the member who raised this point, and I think it is a spurious point that the member who raised the point should probably have done so at the time of the introduction of the bill. Having failed to do that. I think he could probably seek the advice of Mr. Speaker outside the chamber. I fail to see how he can in any way seek to raise a point of order of this nature in the committee of the half. [00:07:55] I think the [00:07:57] well i think i think is better is is very quick dealt with by stating to the committee that it can't be dealt with at this stage. I uphold the the interpretation of the situation which we are in that has been, that has been set out for us by the member for Nelson. What we have is a wish on the part of the member for pepakura. [00:08:18] member for pepakura. To have the question of the bills acceptability as a hall technical Hall, decided upon by the chair. Now, it's not the chairman's function and committee to decide on the acceptability of the of the of the bill as a whole. The only function that I have is for is with relation to amendments. The proper cause therefore, for the name of fab occurs to raise the point of he wishes to at the point where the bill is next considered as a whole. That is just in the course of the bills being read for a third time back in the house. [00:08:56] You have a better point of order. Mr. Lee. [00:08:59] Thank you. I take note of your comments with the chairman. But 16, two of the speakers rulings, state swell houses master turn standing orders so far as allowing by unanimous consent. I private member's bill that as an appropriation bill, to pass through certain stages, it will be on local to pass the bill. Now, the issue is in therefore, is a question of the appropriation. And Mr. Chairman wants to accept that the time more correctly, was meant to be referred to would be now as the beginning of the third reading. The Christian of appropriation is clear. So, the point in in retrospect is at the time introduction where the should have been established. If the speaker accepted it as not an appropriation bill. And he ruled that way. And as the chairman, perhaps you would care to indicate to the house if he did say Then there was grave concern by many of us as to the relevance or the correctness of that ruling. And we would also want to seek from you in the context that ruling whether or not that is now correct from the knowledge that there is an appropriation that is relevant to part two. Well, and certainly in measure two, part one, part two being the reference to the course the extended activities of the Human Rights Commission in line with their powers to have to deal with a an expanded and extended role in the acceptance of sexual orientation. The part one, of course, would be representing the cost that would be incurred by the health department in the additional costs that arise from administering I that would [00:10:52] arise from the we've got her and I don't want to cut them up unnecessarily but [00:10:56] I just 10 years I'll hear them every time and I just want to point out in iteration for this for the sake of the member for hierarchy there. [00:11:05] I appreciate what he is saying [00:11:08] that this is not the forum for discussion. [00:11:11] I'm not [00:11:12] attempting to rule one by the other I'm saying that it is not part of my [00:11:17] position [00:11:18] to so [00:11:23] essential points needs to be made and that is, even if an accepted the case that involves appropriation, [00:11:30] all the standing was provided to 991 is no bill may be passed might be passed, and that is repeated in speakers Romans 16. Two unless there is a message canceling it but of course does not occur in the committee status of the house. Even if it was assented to by the committee. The bill is not passed. At that point. There is a further stage which has to be gone through and clearly would be appropriate to a plane a ruling about whether the bowling balls with procreation If it doesn't miss it to recall before [00:12:04] I finish speaking further to the point of order Mr. Freeland [00:12:07] pipeworks, the senior government worker, what we're really looking at is the [00:12:13] practicality of whether the staff should [00:12:16] devise a considerable amount of time [00:12:19] to further considering the detail of this legislation if [00:12:22] the government has no intention of providing the message, to [00:12:28] enable this bill to proceed [00:12:30] into legislation, and therefore all Where is required, quite simply, [00:12:34] rather than [00:12:35] waiting or carrying up for the work in the committee stages that the government has no intention of doing this, [00:12:41] or you should [00:12:41] know but the easiest way to have this matter resolved would be fully [00:12:45] a minister, the leader of the house or the Prime [00:12:47] Minister, they simply say [00:12:48] that they the government [00:12:51] will adopt the bill as policy, if that's their intention. [00:12:55] I mean, if that's their intention, because that will ensure that the appropriate monies voted by the crown as the speaker. But otherwise, we would be asking the house to be wasting their time [00:13:08] dealing with many hours of [00:13:10] debate possibly on the detail of this legislation. [00:13:14] When if the government is not going to [00:13:15] provide the [00:13:16] financial [00:13:19] support bill that would be wiping up [00:13:24] racing it. I would suggest, Linda when you limit three users, that is an extremely dangerous suggestion, if he is suggesting to the house unless the government indicates in advance that an appropriation will be available for private lenders. Still, some time before the last stage Otherwise, the house or committee should spend no time on the nature of government, of course, because of the introduction device on all private member's bills, which involve an appropriation merely by indicating in advance that there will be no appropriation available. Now, I suggest the opposition we may want to introduce, shall we say? Private member's bills was not totally built. conscience sometime in the next few weeks, they would not wish to adopt, there's a some form of ruling to come from the chair that the government, [00:14:07] the government might not necessarily be unhappy [00:14:09] with such a ruling, given the time it will save over the next few months. [00:14:13] I can I can appreciate I think, perhaps before we go any further on this, we should give the member Can you promise benefit of our ruling? And just to say that I can appreciate the point that he is making. And to say as I've already done, we've got a difficulty which is that we have the creature the house and we we in the committee here can't you can't do any more than just to proceed on the basis the house already decided. [00:14:43] upon what [00:14:44] will now I'm seeking your guidance so in that. Right. [00:14:51] Now, I do want your assistance because in ruling You did say it would be within the country. patterns of the committee translated into the house to deal with the matter. I originally raised under speakers, rulings 1384 and 1391. Now, Mr. Chairman, could you indicate I assume you mean, at the commencement of the third reading? I assume, when the committee report back in a second to the speaker on the proceedings, which took place in it, it the committee. They all say I would be grateful for your assurance on that point that we can indeed reverse this method, perhaps with the assistance of the prime minister. [00:15:45] And secondly, [00:15:49] Mara just respond to a point I think, raised by the Chief government with as many as 134 does caution the house in respect to Private member's bills. Were there and I quote, May, in Christ be an extra charge on the people. Now wonder if we missed that going through. I wonder if by committee in the house in the initial stages, in fact, [00:16:19] overall overlooked [00:16:21] the fiscal implications of this measure, and this might be the wish of the committee at this point. It may be, it may be the wish of a committee to seek the guidance of the speaker, if, by some special dispensation, the committee can temporarily dissolve, we can get the speaker back and deal with the matter here and now, I think so it would make the deliberations in the committee which are the fine print, which will involve long term the dollars insanely I think it would make it easier for individual members to make up their minds. Because responsible ones, if in doubt, might find the revenue implications of this measure the persuading factor and voting one way or the other, particularly the Minister of Finance, or the Associate Minister of Finance, or the Undersecretary for the Minister of Finance. But to be fair to the member four panels to North he has spoken at certainly, as one who's trying to balance the books or bridge the gap between in the internal deficit, I can understand the support formation, which might, indeed I believe will increase government expenditure. Now, I think it's important that the committee stereo, talk to the speaker about it, because I repeat, whether the government spends or not whether the government has to spend extra may influence individual members In the voting on specific clauses and the committee states, the members who taking part the the first point, I suppose that one should make is that the matter of whether or not this bill involves an appropriation has already been decided on it was declared in the in the house on the eighth of March. And I'm just saying that various members of by the point that we were, in fact in some kind of limbo, but it's not clear whether we're debating a bill for which an appropriation has has has been granted. And I want to refer members in case there's any doubt about that. Two hands are paid 351 of the eight of the eighth of March, where, where it's made clear that the bill does not involve this on a file, which might kill the bill does not involve and appropriation that was a matter that was clarified at the point where the bill was introduced on that day. Secondly, the question of the timing of any pointable rise in respect of the speaker's ruling rulings on page 138, I would take the appropriate time for any member who wish to do so to raise a point on that would be when the when the speaker is back on the chair, obviously, but prior to the bill actually being read a third time. [00:19:19] I think that [00:19:21] the element the member member has asked when that will [00:19:23] happen, and of course, it will depend entirely upon when we when we conclude this stage, the company stage the the further question that was raised and whether we should seek leave from the from the [00:19:36] Committee for the speaker to to come back as of course a metaphor the committee [00:19:41] and [00:19:43] and of course, there's any objection to that course will and we just we just proceed. [00:19:49] The question then is that part to stand part and when is better was last being discussed. Mr. [00:19:54] O'Flynn had, I believe, four minutes [00:20:00] I appreciate you having all that. What about you? [00:20:01] Well, does anyone have [00:20:02] another point of order? One of order further? Mr. Winning as a matter of clarification, you said it is in within the competence of the committee to determine when the speaker [00:20:13] deals with this particular method, [00:20:15] memorably narrowly, [00:20:18] is we also I think that's the little bit of assistance. I appreciate. I seek the leave of the committee that Mr. Speaker do now return and deal with the matter rise under standing order 1384 and 1391 and respective and appropriation on Olivia on the people. [00:20:41] That goes back to big he has any objection to that? [00:20:46] Well, not not there's any any objection? Well, [00:20:49] the point of order, Mr. Chairman, what we're being asked to do is to recall the speaker to rule on something he's already ruled on. He has already ruled the bill does not involve in the procreation I suggest very carefully to committed they would be wise not to record the speaker the question rolling he's already given [00:21:07] I take it there is objection. [00:21:11] The question now is that past Tuesday and pilots mistily [00:21:17] a new point of all this, then you put [00:21:21] ice leave the comfort of their house to consider the pub to cause why cause. [00:21:31] So, I do this conscious that we have accepted the motion and that the house has been governed by the part one in part one has been voted on as a whole now, sir, I'm asking the house to set aside and return to the to the normal rules. Because, sir, in addressing car one, it was clear that the motion that the house accepted, didn't have it and restricted the opportunity to speak on what finally was a series of nine amendments and seven clauses. And Sir, you know, the similar capacity Part Two also has a further eight amendments, there is only two clauses, but eight amendments in addressing in this particular request I put to the chair, there is two clauses only. And I believe it should be considered as quite different from the request that was sought by lead for part one, because of the other is strict the number of causes. But the fact that there is so many amendments to those two clauses only, sir, I believe, requires, in fact demands at the house ground on this path to the right to debate those two clauses [00:22:55] in separation Literally, [00:23:00] like it was that chairman. The The, the important point, sir, is that we have had limited opportunity to address what has become a very complex committee stays the amendments in total now 19. And we probably have hardly seen in the house, a bill that has had so many members for those limited number of substandard pools. So we just asked him, and I'm speaking from leave the house and the concurrently house was the home committee, that these two remaining causes, therefore, is any to cause and effect to address. But by agreeing to that, we will have the opportunity to fully examine the total framework and implications of the eight amendments that apply. [00:23:51] I [00:23:53] came online whether that was movies emotional or at least was [00:23:59] part of what a thing that I thought of what I was late for clarification, I rose to seek leave of the house. I believe that's the only procedure that I have. True. Yeah. [00:24:12] Well, we'll put that better to the committee, the Christian being [00:24:15] where the one off the [00:24:18] bill should be because of a poor BY clause. There is [00:24:25] a course of action [00:24:27] will not be followed. The question now is the [00:24:30] Stanford [00:24:33] Norman James. [00:24:35] Chairman, I wanted to speak to this at two [00:24:38] of the, [00:24:39] of the bill which to my way of thinking is the most of noxious Pandava. It seeks to decriminalize on the grounds of sexual orientation and bring this in under the Human Rights Act and make it a crime. To think for like myself [00:24:58] belonging to 98% [00:25:01] of normal New Zealanders [00:25:03] who we are now having air rights violated to pay homage to 2% of New Zealanders who declared themselves to be homeless sexually inclined, and we talked about this sexual orientation. Mr. Speaker, if sexual orientation is going to be declared legal by the passing of this bad to have this bill, then this parliament is telling all New Zealanders that because sexual orientation, namely homosexuality is legally right. is they have to become legally right. There's also the morally right. That's what they say, Mr. Chairman, people in this country, most people in any country believe that when something is declared legally right by Act of Parliament, then it's automatically follows. It should be morally right. Most people think that way. I agree that that passes people pass legal laws and That's what this panel was about to do, Mr. Speaker. Well, I've got news for politicians in this parliament. If they're declaring sodomy at 16 years, I used to be legally right. And I've already done that. And then our goal is to clear that if you discriminate against people practicing that, legally, you are going to be morally wrong. I'm going to tell you now that if you think that 98% of normal New Zealanders are going to accept that, [00:26:25] that the discrimination [00:26:26] against homosexuals is morally wrong, because this law is already protecting and giving extra rights to 2% of the country, then you've got another thing coming in, you're going to regret ever having passed this bill. And passing part two of this bill is virtually saying to 98% of New Zealanders, that homosexual behavior is not nearly legally acceptable, but morally acceptable. That's what the path to the villa say. There's nothing else that can say that's as simple as, as falling off a log. Not only is time to sexuality, legally and morally acceptable, but as has to be encouraged. But it has to be encouraged. [00:27:03] It's what that's what [00:27:04] the bill saying because I'm not allowed to get up in this house and speak against it. If I was a preacher on the ball, but I'm not allowed to talk against [00:27:11] it. [00:27:12] As an employer under this bill, I'm not allowed to discriminate otherwise, I'm contravening I read the bill more times member for Glenn pills were and she was the fact that bill cheese or cheese or Donna from this out, I'll personally come up and campaign and and see the gym. [00:27:32] And not only that it has to be encouraged. But indeed, it's gonna have to be financed by the government. And the government is financing. There's no question about that. That's the that's the point that the member for packet pepakura was trying to make. If 98%, Mr. Chairman of normal New Zealanders and Hillel to discriminate against legally recognized homosexuals, then it must be become lawful. It must become more [00:27:59] if we're not allowed to discuss discriminate [00:28:00] against it on other grounds the human rights, [00:28:04] then let's become more practicing homosexuals [00:28:06] to teach that sort of thing in the schools. It has to be lawful if they are legally entitled and morally title to do it. And as they are on the path to this bill, it must become lawful for them to teach in the schools. And anyone opposing teaching homosexuality in the schools will be breaking and cultivating the Human Rights a and I will be taking to court I will be taking if I went to out there, if this bill is passed, [00:28:35] and I go throughout the [00:28:36] country opposing it, like I did, prior to coming in, I will be contravening the law of this country, and I'll go to jail. Well, I'll tell you what, I probably will. I probably will. Yes, I can be taken to court. And I probably will be any place that gets up in a public platform on a pauper any page that gets up and preaches what the Bible says against sodomy. Well, they come to a meeting, they asked the question about, [00:29:04] Mr. Mr. Chairman, [00:29:06] under the bills definition of sexual orientation, and I know I don't have to read it out, [00:29:11] but I will. [00:29:12] Sexual orientation is related to any person with a male or female means the heterosexual, homosexual or by sexual preference of that person, and includes any characteristic the agenda to protect the secret. It goes on and on and with what I'm saying since homosexual orientation, this display goes to Chairman. Chairman. [00:29:38] Mr. Chairman, [00:29:40] I take it that [00:29:41] I have entitled to five or four or five minutes and I took the call because nobody else is doing it guys. [00:29:54] Thanks for [00:29:57] the speech we just heard from the member forum. deserves a full reply because it really summed up all the prejudices and misinformation and myths that have been promoted around the country by those opposing themselves. I think it's very important Firstly, to say that the bill will not in any way will not prohibit in any way, anybody talking or preaching anything they like about homosexuality, or about meter or sexuality or about any other form of sexuality. That is the first fit, which the men before Invercargill had wrong. When he said that any preacher who gets tough in his pulpit and condemned sodomy will be liable to be imprisoned, he is actually quite incorrect. And if he believes that he is right, then I would suggest and the 15 minutes he has released to him after dinner that he tells the house which section of the Human Rights Commission Act which has to be amended by this bill actually will provide that penalty on a preacher get tough and open the member for Invercargill. I'll be listening with great interest after dinner to hear what he has to say on that. He said that it will permit people to talk about homosexuality and the way that he has talked about it. And in fact, he is threatened to go into the electorate of the member holding field and campaign against their Well, I would say, is just threatened to come into my lecture to I would like to tell them in the three you, Mr. Chairman, that he is most welcome to come and campaign and my electorate anytime he wishes, I'm sure in fact that it would be no end of help for me in the next election campaign. In fact, I would consider it an honor to have the member running against me perhaps you'd like to give up and because of and come and run and what I can Central and student and the categories and maybe sexy so [00:31:49] sure. [00:31:50] I notice he's not saying just to do this, Mr. Chairman, remember us quite wrong when he sees that this bill will stop people talking and preaching against homosexuality, it was very carefully drafted. So as not to do that. It was in fact drafted to eliminate discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in areas such as the provision of housing, and employment and goods and services, I'm just telling them in but what it means perhaps he should listen, and then he will be able to hear more. Mr. Chairman, I'll be interested to hear and his next few calls, whether or not in fact, he is able to give us any evidence to support those assertions. I don't believe that he can, but I'll be giving you plenty of evidence and the rest of my course that I have lived to the contrary. [00:32:39] Thomas arrived we leave the chair and when this bed was last time discussion, Fran was speaking she still has if she wishes, two minutes, [00:32:47] Kevin [00:32:48] Porter was winning [00:32:52] GM and [00:32:55] prior to the key races, I raised a point of order under speakers rulings 138 for private member's bills, the ruling by speaker Stephen volume TT one of hand side page eight to eight, which said a private member's [00:33:10] bill clauses of which [00:33:12] may involve an extra charge on the people in the way of rights payable. Tax, of course, into the public account requires the recommendation of a crown and as therefore out of order now, Mr. Chairman, you ruled on this now accepted, but during the the tea break, I have further consultants, speakers, rulings and country to the point of view, espoused I think about five have been 17 by the member for Nelson, I have not sought opinion beyond speakers ruling, and I have not sought the views of the staff of the legislative but I want to refer him as the chairman two speakers ruling 17 one Interestingly, again by speaker status, we must have been extraordinary busy speaker 1935 Volume Two four to page 473. And [00:34:12] precisely the man with atomic he says it is an extraordinarily busy time, as we try and correct a few things, sort them out and get them back on to an even keel. [00:34:24] Well, Amanda Hastings will be the first guy to redress the balance. [00:34:30] Now, speak of sites I'm saying 17 one a private member, and I quite I private member's bill, [00:34:39] which would enlarge the scope of the state's liability by providing to the expenditure of public monies is an appropriation bill. And also, it's really as simple as that. This bill implies the appropriation of public monies at the time of its introduction to the house is distinct from the committee which we are now addressing. It was ruled not to be an appropriation bill. We have since, however, despite the protestations of the member sponsoring the bill the junior government with now backed by the leader of the house, we are now confronted inescapably with the fact having heard over the past year, evidence here and there, mainly in here that the state, the government, or the crown will have to appropriate money. [00:35:37] Now I haven't finished finished yet. I haven't now you can interrupt me. [00:35:43] If they are waiting, we'll just presume This is at you gotta be help. It sounds [00:35:49] like I will give it a go. [00:35:51] If the honorable man but we'll, we'll cool. [00:35:53] This is a regurgitation of the subject matter that we've already [00:35:58] explored in The point of order the rise [00:36:02] earlier. [00:36:04] I take it from his point of order that what he wishes to do is to question whether or not the ruling of this [00:36:12] space is properly given quite different. And if that's the case, [00:36:18] then I can I repeat my ruling that, of course made my rise a Christian, but this is not the place to [00:36:24] do it, that the chair during the the house of committee can rule on the admissibility of amendments, but not on the question of the status of the bill as a home. That is that is a man of [00:36:35] for discussion by the house as a whole. [00:36:38] And it's a neighbor wants to then of course, he can write that question. [00:36:41] And it's a perfectly appropriate one from dereyes. [00:36:43] But in the house and not on the committee. [00:36:47] Yes, well, names. [00:36:49] Mr. Lee [00:36:52] is not understanding the orders the problems of the chairman in the committee that house to seek Speakers [00:37:03] ruling in respect to a matter like this, and I repeat that the point in which this meta comes back before the house at this time having already been aired in the earliest, earlier part of the debate is because we believe there is a substantial influence now, by this matter. During honest debate tonight, we are addressing part two of the bill which refers to the Human Rights [00:37:30] Act question. [00:37:32] It is clearly the question that is to do with appropriation, we believe members of the House would want to take into account and therefore this proper that it is now decided before this debate continues. Well, [00:37:47] being in front of all of us walleston [00:37:49] just again, this is [00:37:51] this is really seeking not only to challenge the ruling you've just given but that is really saying that it is legitimate in some way in the committee to seek to overturn a ruling given by the speaker or the introduction was built. [00:38:07] And I thought it was the [00:38:07] chairman. There was no way that the committee can even entertain discussion of that matter. [00:38:12] I can't, I wanna [00:38:13] the bottom of ceremony, [00:38:16] didn't hear the early part of this before the break. But it does seem to me that it can be contemplated that in the committee stages of the bill, we could make an amendment [00:38:31] which [00:38:32] causes the original ruling to be no longer valid, but quite apart from making an amendment. It does seem to me to be within the bounds of possibility that in the detailed discussion of the bill in committee, something is disclosed which also makes the original ruling no longer valid. And if that is seven, that is what I take it the member for pepakura is Saying, would it be appropriate for me to move to report progress in order to get a further ruling from Mr. Speaker on this matter, it will see if we were to go right through and take no further ruling and find that, in fact, what the member for pepakura says is correct. We would have been out of order in passing this path, and indeed Finally, the bill without the necessary further procedure because of requirement of an appropriation of some kind, and it seems to me that the proper course might will be to simply move report progress, to get mr. speaker to make a ruling and then come back into committee. [00:39:42] Speaking to the phone about a friend while [00:39:45] I understand what the turkey is sit back and say come in for public or has not given us even one example of where he thinks speakers ruling 17 one, the criteria they have been fulfilled as he was Unable to give us an example of another speaker's ruling that he tried this little trick on before dinner, and I would suggest that, in fact, we are wasting the time of the house. The speaker has ruled on this. The bill was very carefully looked at at the time when it was introduced. [00:40:18] Speaker has ruled there is no appropriation involved. [00:40:21] And unless the member propublica or another member of the House is able to give us to tell us where they think there is an appropriation involved in I suggest that there is just no cases for this point of [00:40:37] speaking further to the point of order, Mr. Willington will be brief in response to [00:40:41] the man before getting consensual and to be precise, at about 5pm. Tonight, I said I did not think it in order for me to traverse the manner in which under a point of order, I believed and appropriation to be implied. And you will recall that Mr. Jim, and I think existed from expanding. I can now refer the member for Wellington central so wishes and and indeed has requested to the Department of Health. It offers statement of the 30th of April 1985. statutes revision committee of this parliament, which is a document number 954. And which quite clearly refers, in passing at least it's going back to spit speakers ruling 1381 which states are private member's bill clauses of which may involve and that's the key word may involve Maliki pick up the Department of Health's memorandum to this parliament. It says and I quote, I has followed an epidemic course in both the United States, regrettably, and Europe equally regrettably, since it was first reported 1981 stop, there is every reason to think it will do the same in New Zealand. Now, Mr. Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that they dealing with or I dealing with a matter of the type and tempest in the homosexual Law Reform Bill must inevitably imply or in the words of speaker statement 1929 may involve an extra charge on the people. Now, I am prepared to table that document, but as I sit said a minute ago, I didn't think it proper to refer to such a document in the course of raising a point of order. Now, the member for Wellington central says I haven't used enough speakers rulings will let me go to 1391. With Well, what did you say? [00:42:50] Well, here is the Department of Health memorandum number 954 day to the 30th of April 1995, which I am happy to table which which basically says it all now. He must sit down. [00:43:01] She's a girl. [00:43:03] She's FIFA. And I'm told, I'm told you medicine event microphone a bit. And any minister who wants set [00:43:11] the knows about that microphone. [00:43:12] Let me go to 1391. It is not competent. And I quote, Speaker a rock [00:43:20] volume 33rd hand side page 489. And I'm sorry 486 and 497. It is not competent for a private member to propose an effective [00:43:32] additional taxation. Now, that's what it's all about. Now, how many more speakers rulings does she want? [00:43:39] Now, Mr. Kim? No, no, she's getting up again, which is a pity. Now, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, you [00:43:48] in Ireland, and we [00:43:53] have Hastings again, Wellington. Thank you. I believe sir, that you are in invidious position. And I believe, sir, that when those bill first came [00:44:05] in, [00:44:07] Parliament did not tighten the appreciate all the ramifications of the measure, particularly the appropriation side. And as I said before the Thea gentleman, [00:44:18] there may be members in this house, [00:44:21] who are waiting, in balance Ron balance to make their minds up on the fiscal implications of it, say for the budget deficit, [00:44:31] and who have did not [00:44:33] quite naturally hear those implications or [00:44:38] comments relevant upon the introduction of the bill. Now, I say that because the Prime Minister didn't talk about it on the introduction of Deputy Prime Ministers and talk about the Minister of Finance didn't talk about it, but a year later, we've heard a lot more. We've heard a lot more and I think to be fair to the committee, and in particular to you, the chairman. It would be saying Support for the committee to say this is a bit bigger than we first thought. And therefore, let us dissolve the committee go back into parliament proper under the speaker, he cannot challenge will not override what you have determined in that sense, but [00:45:21] he can assist elements [00:45:25] in fully addressing the issue in a manner that it has not been able to pass back. [00:45:34] I think that [00:45:35] we had a succession of points of water which are on the [00:45:40] Well, [00:45:43] before name is seek to take further calls on this, I [00:45:45] think that it should be made clear to them we're really rehearsing arguments that it's not appropriate for me to rule alone. First [00:45:50] one, can I return to the member, the member for Timothy's points, [00:45:55] which seem to be to be important? [00:45:58] Have any power rule on that question? [00:46:05] ruling on this matter, Mr. Speaker. [00:46:09] That's the motion. [00:46:12] I'll take it that [00:46:13] well, understanding what a 289 in any manner by move that way we will accept that ruling and seek the speaker's gardens. [00:46:22] Put the motion. Those in favor say aye. To the country now. [00:46:29] The eyes head. Mr. Speaker, [00:46:38] I've been asked to grow your tables [00:46:42] a secret ruling on a question that that has been raised in respect. The [00:46:49] the question of whether or not the homosexual Law Reform involves and appropriation since I wasn't in a position so to give a ruling on this myself and the A nation has been basically integrated by the committee that you're ruling the sword on this question. [00:47:08] Yes, [00:47:10] we are. Ms. Wellington. [00:47:12] Thank you, speaker to speak [00:47:14] of this issue first arise area tonight prior to the to gentleman winning the committee. I requested and has been a challenging of [00:47:26] the member for Western chairmanship of the committee, none whatsoever, as the generals of the house will testify, but as I said, at about five o'clock, the difficulty I believe the committee has got itself into is that following the debate, discussion of the amendments and voting on they are in part one, it is become clear [00:47:54] to the committee and therefore to the house as a whole. [00:47:58] that there [00:47:59] may be Maybe revenue implications in this measure quits the committee and Parliament had not originally contemplated. And Mr. Speaker bed I believe, was foreshadowed in speakers Tyson's ruling in 1929. Volume 321 on page eight to eight when he said I private member's bill closes of which and here is the operative word my. My I am not saying that it will or even shell but as foreshadowed in one of your predecessors rulings, a private member's bill clauses of which may involve an extra [00:48:46] charge on the people [00:48:49] in the way of rights or taxes payable into the public account. The consolidated fund, as we would put it today, requires the recommendation of a crown and Therefore or is therefore out of order. Now, Mr. Speaker, when the bill was first introduced, none of us Frankly, I'm sorry, [00:49:10] sorry. [00:49:19] Firing advice not [00:49:23] applied and applied. But I am given the given the interval asked how long a member has to speak on this particular issue. [00:49:36] I, [00:49:38] I want to hear the member shorts he has raised on a pointable quite correctly, and I want to hear him to stake this case. The only requirement that there is is that the message should be put to sleep. [00:49:54] Yes, thank you Mr. Speaker. [00:49:58] I was referring to Speaker siphons rolling 1929 volume 51, page eight to eight, and he said for [00:50:08] the neighborhood and try to attract the member but the members, obviously referring as well as quite properly to the volume of the parliamentary reports. But he's also obviously referring to the volume of collected speakers rulings and I would be obliged to draw the attention to the number of that speaker falling at the times bigger patterns to speaker. It's page 138. Speakers ruling for on the same page, subtitle private member's bills. And Mr. Speaker does bracketed see a private member's bill closes of which may involve and this is, this is the purpose of my raising it and I repeat, I have not stated that it will work Shell. But as Speaker Stephen foreshadowed A long time ago now may involve an extra charge on the people in the way of rights, which he obviously meant to be taxes payable into the public account, which we would say today is the consolidated fund requires the recommendation of the crown [00:51:21] and is therefore out of order. [00:51:23] If I may come back to that, sir, but in order for the moment refer you to 1391 [00:51:32] which says [00:51:35] second sentence, it is not competent for a private member to propose additional tax agent which I believe sir, met speaker a rock in 1879, volume 32 pages 486 and 497. [00:51:52] Well, I wouldn't [00:51:56] I wouldn't [00:51:57] go into that too much. And those are further ruling. Mr. Speaker, page 17 speakers rolling 17. One against speaker space in 1935, volume three, four to page 473. I private members and I quote bill, which would enlarge the scope of the state's liability by providing for the expenditure of public monies is an appropriation bill. [00:52:27] simple terms. Mr. [00:52:28] Speaker, given those three speakers rulings, I believe we have reached a point in the committee where we need to go back and establish clearly and that's the Prime Minister, the deputy prime minister or Minister of Finance can assist the committee on the the house as a whole of the stage. To what extent should the homosexual law reform bill be To what extent there might be an impact on the people as foreshadowed in Speaker stadiums ruling. That's the question. [00:53:03] Will this cost this hard pressed people more and x [00:53:08] or no order order would remind the member of his obligation to express this method perfectly. Yes. Speaker I'm happy to do that and by way of evidence in the belief that there may be a burden on the people with your by your lease, Sir, may I refer the house to the Department of Health [00:53:33] paper head office with the Department of Health paper signed by Dr. [00:53:38] Baca, Director General of health. My I refer the house to his paper to the spreadsheets revision committee of parliament [00:53:49] on the very survival 95 order [00:53:54] system, remember here in advancing his case, you have a question. The SI I understand that up to date the house and the committee has been working on the assumption that the speaker's ruling which was given on the introductions was built a bet that did not involve negotiations was a valid fifth. Now, I understanding of a situation as that, but that remains the rule of this house until there has been an alteration in the bill in some way, [00:54:35] which would [00:54:36] alter the validity of that ruling. Now, I would ask the member if he has evidence that would lead me to believe that better so that he would produce that evidence? Yes, we were all sir. will say that. We're like, I can in the sense that speaker stays on for shattered and I choose my work. I choose my Words with caution for he said night, and I believe there that he means that injunction to act not as a break on the committee or parliament, but to act as a caution to act as a caution and know what I'm sorry. He seems to understand what an action factors the argument is the meta issue before without quite at the matter issue before what else and I presume before the committee is whether the bill has been altered or is being proposed to be in such a way as to make the ruling given by the speaker invalid. Because otherwise, what is a member or the committee is attempting to do is to overlook or speak a ruling this has been given by the chair now, the Was is not acceptable. And that so that I would ask Remember to quite quickly come to the point and explain to me in what way the house or the committee has embarked on a procedure, which was not invested. That when the ruling was given that this bill did not involve an appropriate ask him to quite late to the attention of the to the procedures committee or involved in it, which were not foreseen in their ruling me if I give way to the members chemically. And traverse something that was put to the chairman. Before you will recall is another circumstances it was another circumstance it was felt rather than an amendment to the bill which is one possibility as you have said, The other circumstance is evidence arising during the debate, which was not in front of you at the time you made the ruling. But which nevertheless, indicates that if the bill is passed in its present form, they will need to be an appropriation. And that is the evidence that the member has put before the committee. It was not in order for the committee to consider it because it was a speaker's ruling. And therefore, you have been asked for return to listen to this evidence and see whether it in fact, would have altered your ruling Had it been in front of you at the time that the bill was introduced? Right. Well, I was able to arrive at that point. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My my I therefore refer to the Department of Health's paper number 954, which is obviously any thickness material Paper must go to the minister to be received by the appropriate committee of Parliament. In this case, statutes revision committee, I say was nice specific dollar and since Tim's, added by way of a demon to this paper, it is clear to, frankly any member in a finite size or anyone who has been a spending minister, that the passage of this bill would, although I repeat, not emphatically stated, would mean a further appropriation by the government. [00:58:41] of oh by the people, and my evidence is in. It is, [00:58:47] it is in fact, [00:58:48] an addendum to the fan of paper which read [00:58:53] it says many things, but it says in my view, this critical thing has followed me epidemic. Remember, this is the Director General of health. He was not given to using emotive words. He is not in that mode. But he's out and get restless. He hates state has followed an epidemic cause not a cause any order, I would remind the member again, the application to express this point of all the tests Lee, and will say my submission is this, that in the absence of ice specific revenue spending pattern for the current financial year, and as the customer in New Zealand government, the two subsequent years and the absence of that material, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Finance, he keeps a close eye on these sorts of things. And his colleagues should come back to Parliament or I promise You have a house and fill out all the detail because this bill is passed as the Minister of Defense knows, as the Minister of Education knows, as I believe the Prime Minister knows, as the minister. [01:00:14] You your history. I mean, you really are history, as a deputy prime minister knows, doesn't involve a very considerable extra expenditure. [01:00:24] If I read read the tising the changes in the law if [01:00:28] if only for that, [01:00:30] but in in addition to that is combat to combat. [01:00:36] The insidious effects of the law shouldn't be passed or the bill shouldn't be passed. Now, my icon 21381 spacers rulings 1381. So that is quite clear, that it's there may be an extra charge on the people in respect of Texas, Mr. Speaker speaker is there shall be an extra charge [01:01:02] that require order [01:01:04] or a recommendation of the crown, we have not add a crown point of view on this matter order [01:01:12] as I take it and I am trying to be assistant here, I take it from the because the gun does seem to be unable to comply with standing orders, which is that a point of automatic be expressed [01:01:28] and relevant and the opinion of what members various members of the House is obviously not within that now, if I may [01:01:37] 1, remember by saying I understand his point of order is that, because they've announced has been presented to the committee and to the house that they're that I is a reached epidemic proportions overseas, and we'll reach epidemic proportions from New Zealand. Therefore the passage of this will involve the appropriation as I take it the lettuce is [01:02:09] now, but [01:02:12] have I correct live [01:02:15] correctly? And [01:02:17] if I may just finish it off. So it is not the wish of the committee or indeed of the house to overrule your decision because at the time the bill was introduced, Mr. Speaker did not have that in order. I'm [01:02:33] sorry, the member is not speaking relevantly to the point of order point of order. [01:02:38] What the wishes of the committee may be irrelevant to the ruling that you're asking me to give [01:02:45] you a speaker if I may just conclude [01:02:47] and I appreciate your your tolerance. [01:02:50] And I know neither are members who are monitoring that, sir, I do. I am obliged to you not for my own sake, but for the sake of the issue. I'm obliged and I appreciate what you have said further as no determination. There was none in the committee to overturn decisions. I'm [01:03:13] sorry they are [01:03:15] embarking on matters which are not relevant you raised it is not relevant trying to help lead by divorce [01:03:25] was a [01:03:27] friend world [01:03:28] famous thing to the point of order. The the member from pepakura has in fact presented as his so called evidence the [01:03:39] the Department of Health submission to the Select Committee on this bill submission number 954. He has quite a very selectively from it, and in fact, the house should know those of the house we have not read the submission and you yourself, Mr. Speaker that the health department in its submission actually did outline The aids education program and prevention program they are establishing an effect they have already established and there is nowhere in that submission, which in any way suggests that the costs of that campaign will increase should this bill be passed, in fact, quite the contrary, the department seed and our quote from it, there, it is unlikely that the passing of this bill will negatively influence the effectiveness of the proposed aids campaign. It considers that there could be some positive benefit from the campaign, which would depend for their success to some extent, on good communication and the effective and open dissemination of information. In other words, that was the public environment which this bill would create which was important, not that it would require the the expenditure of extra government money. The government already does have an age program that [01:04:55] would have rights prize of some time ago but it seems to me that as a distinction from the your Prior ruling, the change circumstances could occasion and increase appropriation over a period of time. And if one looks at the chronological evidence in the space of this matter, I think a very strong case to be made out to begin with, sir, that since the bill was introduced, we have seen an appropriation of something like $3 million in respect of this program, let's set the order I would ask them to come to the point of the I Am, at the moment, he has been totally irrelevant. I have I could come back and give you the legal distinction. And I sort of draw to your attention on the word go. It is this that not only May there be an emerging from the committee evidence, suggesting appropriation has to take place either inside the house or outside, but changing circumstances can also provide that evidence which may lead you to change your your ruling. Now, sir, [01:05:55] what I have said is simply that there have been appropriation so there is the Standard, [01:06:01] there is likely to be [01:06:02] because of the increased incidence of a, I further increase appropriation that is supported by other seasons, where the liberalisation of the law saucer and epidemic happens or Order, order order late math member is trying to I have 10, both sides that are trying to reduce some sort of arguments about the effects of this. On the incidence of AIDS as an argument with a little bit wasn't appropriate. Now, that was not really appropriate. I want him to produce evidence of a question that's in front of me, and that is, whether the situation is any different from what it was when the ruling was given. That did not involve appropriation. Now, that is the only what's in front of the house. The difference in Evidence book was available at that time, as compared with what is available now, not what the evidence may be. That is irrelevant to the situation. It's the alternative explanation of what would distinguish the ruling now as opposed to them. But I'm asking you, sir, to tune your mind if you can and the legal way to what you might regard as evidence in all the circumstances, rather than the provision of evidence right now, which you will know well, cannot be sorry, but it's because the speaker's ruling was given in the light of the circumstances that were known for time for the speaker. And widely now, I have, and I've been requested to make a ruling on the fact that there were certain evidence that was unavailable to the speaker at that time, which has since become available. A house, which would justify a reversal of that speakers room. Now, that is the question that's in front of the house. No other questions, evidence was renting else. But why that evidence is now available and was not about well before I'll give it to you in a nutshell, [01:08:21] and the claims has been provided. [01:08:24] I will give you the evidence and nutshell and the evidence is provided by the member for Wellington central who is on public record as saying, when this bill is passed, the guys from overseas are going to come to New Zealand for holiday to celebrate. [01:08:38] That's my evidence. That's my evidence order [01:08:42] or not more. And what more decisive evidence could you possibly need in order [01:08:53] to apologize? [01:08:55] He could not produce any evidence that I've ever said [01:08:57] that order. No. domina for southern border. Play. [01:09:10] It's obvious that the matters which can be seriously right from this point of order have already been raised the question in front of me the question in front of the is unless method members have methods which are relevant, this very narrow point of why the evidence, not what the evidence is, but why the evidence was not available to the speaker at the time original decision was made, and so peoplehood dies the speaker [01:09:51] Yes, yes, speaking. [01:09:54] I will be relevant and stick to the facts. The facts are they said that when you ruled on this Bill when it was first introduced, I believe and I believe the majority of members thought that your ruling was correct. It certainly was for part one, sir, because there is no appropriation on decriminalization. But the evidence which has come before this house, in fact, before the whole of New Zealand, is that there have been such an overwhelming, empty this bill a day, an overwhelming cry against it. This parliament, which you would not have known, so when the bill was introduced, was subject to a petition the largest in this country's history of three quarters of a million order that, [01:10:34] Mr. Speaker Yes, I would [01:10:36] remind a member [01:10:38] of the obligation to speak to the point of order and [01:10:46] this bill, if it is passed, [01:10:48] will affect the Human Rights Commission which is funded by the taxpayers. It is paid for by the crown. There will be a whole stream of submissions to the human rights commission, even if there is only one and there will be thousands, [01:11:04] that in itself will cause a huge increase in the expenditure and vote for the Human Rights Commission. And I am a partition of over three quarters of a million. So in my view proves that there will be an awful lot of extra work for the Human Rights Commission. [01:11:26] Late [01:11:28] column speaker what I would suggest to you is that the member Napier's contribution has in fact clarified the issues fairly well for the house. In that, as he said, there is an appropriation involved in one of the bill which is the only part which has been passed by the committee. It has been suggested to you on the basis of evidence which cannot be reduced, that there may be some involvement to an appropriation in part [01:11:56] two and indeed [01:11:59] the quest the comes to pass in the committee in the committee. That is all. And that is agreed, I think by the house that that is all that has happened. Part two is yet to be considered by the House of low voted on with any amendments. If there is anything which happens in the debate on the part two of the bill and the committee [01:12:22] with later [01:12:23] I don't know, I would remind the member but he along with the last two speakers is not addressing the question let's do fantasy, the change circumstance, the speaker before him, not the Jane circumstances and I do not intend to any further contribution unless I hear some arguments which is directed towards the circumstances but I have to deal with an up today have been nothing strict I apologize. What I'm trying to say is that there are no train sir stances since you made your ruling, the only change circumstances which could occur have yet to occur in the committee. And the point which then be right should be right after the Committee stage before the committee, you may then have new evidence and new methods to consider depending on the nights remember the past in the committee, but at this point, there is no new evidence, which was suggest you should change your ruling. [01:13:26] That's right. And [01:13:29] again, I would remind the member because and I'm not the I'm just from a little bit with my experience up to date, but members not addressing themselves to punch the tissue. Speak and I member it is the new evidence, which was not available to the speaker at the time. And to reverse the night from that evidence is irrelevant. November will not be there. [01:13:56] Specifically on to request and I suggest You the one change, which has not been brought before you is that the evidence which the member for pepakura has made his claim upon is based [01:14:12] upon a Piper, which was presented to the [01:14:14] select committee subsequent to you making that ruling, and in doing some order [01:14:20] order, [01:14:20] but that that fact has already been brought to my attention. [01:14:25] And unless the matter has new, I would ask him to receive his seat. [01:14:31] I just make one more point, Mr. Speaker, I suggest [01:14:34] that that evidence having come forward it should be studied by you in the class [01:14:38] to see if it has application. [01:14:48] To speak, I want [01:14:49] just to make one short point which might be of assistance in your dealing with the allegations that there have been some evidence all that has been suggested sensor was sneakily summarized [01:15:01] by you [01:15:02] in connection with the suggestion that there might be some increase in the spread of AIDS and some increasing the health vote to do that. [01:15:11] All I want to say, sir, is [01:15:13] that is a highly debatable matter. There is some suggestion that it might [01:15:18] equal suggestions that it might not ended as a highly debatable matter. It isn't fresh evidence on which the chair should rule or deal with its previous ruling it should have here today I submit to evidence, I believe is specific and is different between that there was vulnerable at the third of March at five and to what we have tonight, and that is contained in a written answer to the Minister of Health. And it's only 10 days also. And as a Christian, puts the Minister of Health requesting the cost relating to infect the AIDS epidemic as relates to Two issues in this last passage of time that I quoted in the figure, sir, and it's in my folder here, my desk is 9.9 million. So that is a specific figure that I suggest to you is, is it determine? It answers the question as to the nature of the change of the status of this bill. And so it must be considered by the chair has been directly related to the matter of the bill because 73% of homosexuality is related to the disease. [01:16:34] He was available to a speaker's advisors before this decision was made. [01:16:58] Sorry, the Is it but I did not say that all the sentences available to speak as it's a speaker or his advice. And one of those who are available providing the speakers of a very people who have been quoted in this matter. Now, that position, as I understand is that no one is trying to overall the original ruling given by the chair. There's been no suggestion that that should be done. But, but what it has been suggested is that because of new evidence, which was not available to the speaker or just advice, at the time, it has become apparent that an appropriation was involved, which could not have been foreseen at that time. And my understanding of the situation is that it has led to by those who are raising it, that the inevitable consequence of the passing this ledger will cause an increased incidence [01:18:03] of [01:18:05] the venereal disease of a [01:18:08] and that because of that, a further appropriation of public knowledge will be involved. They those who are involved in the counter arguments, saying to me that the evidence that has been presented from from the same source is that not that it will unequivocably produce that effect, but that it may produce that effect and that but that is also may allow a more effective public health campaigns be carried out now, and we then come to the question has been raised as to whether the actual question for public health campaign in involved because of this legislation is appropriation and appropriation has already been made for that with presumably all the contingencies involved in that. Therefore, the instance of that appropriation does not fall more heavily. Because of the passage of this legislation. We can learn to the question that was raised by the member for night about the weather the expected increased incidence of the work of the Human Rights Commission in actual facts involved in appropriation. Now, there would have to be evidence and proof to me that the actual passage of this legislation involved not just the more active engagement of those employed by the Human Rights Commission in their work, which might be one result but in actual fact First would have to be employed to deal with the matter. Now, there has been no evidence brought to me there has been no evidence brought to me that in actual fact, that would be the result. And so that under the circumstances, that because the evidence has been brought forward the house this equivocal and for the, for the chair, to make a decision, [01:20:31] against the advice that he has been given [01:20:36] up to date, and that advice is quite expensive, would be to enter into the because it would be to make a decision, which favored one side contrary to the advice that have been given to the chair and for that reason, I do not intend to open The original decision that was given by the chair that this bill did not involve in appropriations [01:21:10] for the point of order, [01:21:13] to the extent that [01:21:14] they can't legal situation is this, that a person who wishes to allege discrimination on the grounds of homosexual preference may not, I believe, bring a case for the Human Rights Commissioner. That would be a great help to me if the member who after all is legally qualified, would draw my attention to the particular standing order, which he is raising the funds for wrong because his words up to date do not indicate to me that there is any standing order or speaker thrown into which I should draw my attention. Bigger. It's the most recent order pending water which I'm writing will speak is rolling which I'm raising is the one you just given me now [01:22:01] I can I can substantiate on the ground level. Julie, [01:22:03] you just gave a ruling and you said that the Human Rights Commission pass of this bill [01:22:08] will not be not not the occasion extra creation by a special [01:22:12] category that will be order. But [01:22:15] the play is [01:22:17] what I have given. There's not a rule about the what the activities will be in the Human Rights Commission. Not at all. But I've given us a ruling with this bill does not involve an appropriation. And I have that. And I have given a ruling that my to form a particular judgment one way or another and the assumptions being presented to me would be to fly in the face of the advice that has been given to me by dispassionate people and to take part in one side or as the argument here. Now, if the member is raising his his point of order, the most recent ruling that has been given from this chair for the purpose of questioning it, I would remind him that That is a most disorderly procedure. Bigger speaker I'm allowing the speaker, I'm relying entirely on the words of your ruling to justify this point of water. So the member, what is the ioad? Again, remember to draw my attention to standing order which the house appears to be in breach. And I said, I'm relying on [01:23:26] this point of order on the basis of a speaker's ruling. [01:23:29] That was your ruling just given. And do you intend to bring that ruling into question as it [01:23:36] was your purpose? Well, this is the point. So your ruling had the clear [01:23:45] explanation to the house [01:23:47] that if it could be proven evidentially at the passage of this bill would require greater preparation on I'm sorry, the members with asked a question that every member of the staff must be with [01:24:00] is bringing [01:24:03] my ruling into question well have you been voiced by [01:24:13] the men [01:24:15] there is some machinery available [01:24:19] but that is not be done by the seat of the member wishes to write. But I have given my rolling and that is fun point of order right onwards Robert novel for the benefit of the house and light of the committee. Can I take it, that as a result of your ruling, if some member is now able to produce concrete evidence of the methods that have been alleged, which is acceptable to your advisors, then you are prepared to at a later stage of the bill. Again, rule on this matter That is a reference to a Mr. Speaker station ruling involving appropriation in other words that we carry on with the the committee. But if those members who claim to have solid evidence that has not yet been [01:25:15] put in front of you and your advisors [01:25:17] that you move at a later stage of the bill, if necessary, reconsider the matter. Yes, but this list doesn't matter, but can always be right until the final of the third reading of the letter. It can be made, but subsequent to a ruling circumstances has now changed because of the committee. That circumstances change. But I would remind the member that the type of evidence that would be needed to overall the speaker's ruling is not one that is based on offense. That would have to have facts to substance [01:26:02] Yes, but not opinion. [01:26:05] Responsible oppression entirely different points? Not entirely different, sir. [01:26:13] Well, [01:26:15] that's it I believe in this meta. [01:26:20] We are very much paving away for subsequent legislation others also it would [01:26:26] be a great help to me yes if you would draw my attention to the Standing Order yeah all the speakers rule is which you want to discuss alumni not delivery, late spit rolling which is just immediately begin by the speaker will sir I service as briefly as I enable and inside during a fair once more speakers ruling one three it for now. So I believe the difficulty we have is for towel by speaker statement who said it's not a matter of producing had evidence at a particular point, which was the difficulty for the house when the bill was introduced. And so there were only 13 speakers out of 95 when the bill was introduced, and one can work the percentage era and I believe they was not sufficient evidence for the recorder for [01:27:28] the port to the opinions. [01:27:31] But the member is intending but I should reverse [01:27:35] My ruling. Well, when [01:27:38] I would ask him to tell me at this stage because he said especially time to switch what remedy he wishes to achieve. SPEAKER I but he is Thank you, I believe for in respect of your ruling on the ninth of April 1986. They say of necessity now has to be Yes, [01:28:02] but I'm asking him what rim of the EC [01:28:06] See? Well, Mr. Speaker simply this energy. [01:28:12] Guys, like guys, I would spend the taxpayers money like pouring water out of a tech. [01:28:18] And that's the point of issue tonight. Well, I interjected Sir, my my my remedy I seek, sir, is an assurance that the methods rice and speakers rulings 13841391 and two in 17. One and not yet concluded. And that's a metaphor for the moment. And I am obliged to you for your indulgence over the past that the math is encompassed in those speakers rulings, [01:28:52] left in a bind, and are not finally determined. No, no the matters in [01:28:59] 138 421391 I find this is doing this because if you look at the context and they're all to do with taxation, there's no [01:29:10] private member's bills. Yeah, private Mason's bills [01:29:14] affecting tech taxation of one form or another and so that they are not relevant. I would advise Remember to look at the context of those rules. [01:29:27] It was a taxing below middle order order. I have already taken [01:29:33] the trouble to make my video with the situation. [01:29:39] I have always taken the trouble to do so. [01:29:42] But that is [01:29:48] I declare the half incrementing point point of order Mr. Peters. Just seeking your clarification on the standard of evidence and not any way challenging any rules. You've made. I'd like to know now, given the Express with use of the word imply, that is an implied appropriation. What is the standard of evidence that you would regard as being sufficient in respect of the ruling class? You know, [01:30:14] I'm sorry, it will depend on the circumstances but the speaker does not make decisions such as this on [01:30:22] without guidance from the [01:30:25] appropriate authorities, so that I am not in a position to say now [01:30:32] what [01:30:34] if the evidence is brought toward me by appropriate authorities may be date. Let's speak on this matter as always, guys? Yes, the I declare the house and committee on the homosexual more reformed [01:31:01] Play homosexual Law Reform Bill ran wild has two minutes [01:31:07] before tea I was replying to the member for the cargo to appear to be under the misapprehension that the passage of [01:31:15] part two of the bill would somehow [01:31:17] stop him or any other person in New Zealand, expressing their views about homosexuality. And for his benefit, I'd like to run through the provisions in the shedule of part two, to explain to him that none of them whatsoever have anything to do with speaking or preaching from pulpits, or having meetings or public locations for proficiency trades or callings. Vocational Training bodies, access to public places provision of goods and services, planned housing and accommodation, educational establishments, discrimination by subterfuge and charitable instruments. Mr. Chairman, I cannot find any of those prices now look through the Human Rights Commission Act any reports at all to what people say. And I have a feeling that the member foreign cargo has either got deliberately or inadvertently confused with the Race Relations Act, which is in fact a piece of legislation, which deals with what people may or may not say, unlike the Human Rights Commission Act, which only deals with actions and the provision, as I've said, of things such as goods [01:32:29] and services. [01:32:31] The problem is, of course, that the arguments put the father name before him because of his being one which has widely been circulated around the community, not only by some members of parliament, but by other groups of people who purport to be telling the truth. And in fact, in this case, they are wrong, because that is not what the bill says. And I would suggest that they should read the bill because they might learn from it. What we are actually trying to do [01:33:04] I raise a point of order. [01:33:07] Mr. Chairman, I I seek your clarification on two points. And I think they are appropriate that they be raised at this point of time. Firstly, sir, [01:33:20] in the light of the fact that at the beginning of this debate tonight I am successfully moved, that the debate be carried through on a course by course basis as opposed to the whole or the pop. And so, in the context of that, though that has been inhibiting to the discussion and the debate the house, would you confirm whether that now means that understanding what a 286 the speaking time is limited to four or five minute periods to each member of the House. Can I ask you a running another that's inspired you and also correct Secondly, sir, wrote your attention the fact that we have a interesting procedural difficulties in life. So in the second part again dealing with the Human Rights Commission, there is two clauses, and there was nine amendments. They'll say there's not amendments cover important issues such as accommodation services, traffic officers, penal institutions, education, youth organizations, and in fact, religious bodies now so the point is, is that in those amendments, they are applicable only to cause eight and nine if those two causes pass. Now procedurally sir I put to you there is a difficulty facing the chair. That should cause eight or nine and the emotion before the house now is at the top two as amended stand pop. If that is in fact the last, the amendments involuntary Nolan Boyd now I just put two there's a Tiffany will be facing the chair and I want to ask you if you care to comment on the matter [01:35:11] as thinking to the corner what a doctor column [01:35:13] with a hierarchy so incorrectly, it is if the vote on the main issue that is part two as amended or if not amended depending what it is by the time we get there is not passed. The amendments if they are passed before they get there will let because Part Two won't be passed. And that is absolutely correct. In other words, there will be no amendments the Human Rights Commission Act is part two is not passed in the main vote. And I had understood that was intentional move a hierarchy in terms of his approach [01:35:43] to part two. [01:35:51] I know the first five minutes I was saying and the liver Welcome to Central disagrees. What I'm saying is that the labor This bill is passed what this bill does. part two of this bill does is to amend the Human Rights Act of 1977. [01:36:09] I know that the member for Wellington central notes that are under under existing and re existing Human Rights Act, it is unlawful to discriminate for employment reasons and a variety of other reasons against people because of race color religion, or six that's already there. [01:36:27] But there are exceptions. [01:36:29] For example, even on the existing Human Rights Act, I cannot get a job as a warden in a girls boarding school and be a very good reason for that. [01:36:41] Well, at least I've been chasing girls, I wouldn't be chasing boys, [01:36:44] that's for sure. That's right. [01:36:46] And so and No. And also, I couldn't expect to get a job as a leader for girls got that under this [01:36:53] act. It's not Amanda under the deck. [01:36:57] You are going to have to accept your You'll have to accept leaders in guild guys, but leaders in orphanages what is an orphanage who I know homosexuals, and unless it's amended at the moment, the sexual orientation is quite clear. It's there. It says sexual orientation in relation to any person, whether male or female means heterosexual, homosexual bisexual affectional preference lead person and includes any characteristic and a provision to this is to enable eight people not to be discriminated against. Now I'm saying if 98% of normal New Zealanders [01:37:39] go and [01:37:40] bisexual 97% because according to the Highland Paul 2% of New Zealanders are homosexual and 1% is bisexual. So let's take 97% of people in New [01:37:52] Zealand are having their rights violated, because I have to accept the people in into their homes. If you bought a house By [01:38:00] going to Bora [01:38:03] Bora under standing order for one hour, [01:38:08] which relates to [01:38:09] press representatives infringing standing orders, I'm referring to Mr. Harmon. [01:38:15] He has my gosh he makes Mac [01:38:19] was frankly imitating the member for in Chicago was the letter was making his speech. [01:38:27] I found that offensive as it may well be that the hammer of the the [01:38:33] NBA as a point of view on the matter [01:38:36] may will be, it is not is by [01:38:38] understanding order for one is to use his position in the press gallery [01:38:43] to indicate which point of view he shares [01:38:47] one way or the other. And may I may I read the standing order any organization whose representative and fringes of standing orders of the house [01:38:56] may be excluded from representation in the press gallery For such time as the house to race [01:39:03] now Now, Mr. Chairman, that but I appreciate you can see it [01:39:09] behind you. [01:39:11] My gosh, at 37 you can see a lot [01:39:23] TV in bed [01:39:24] has indicated for the risk of [01:39:26] the public gallery and this else what [01:39:28] he believes and I assume [01:39:30] what his employers believe it. Now say might I asked you [01:39:36] his employer is in the first instance, of course, the Minister broadcasting is [01:39:40] a member of the government. And of course we have a government Junior, we're introducing this bill. [01:39:47] So one could go on. [01:39:48] Mr. Chairman, what recourse has this house on the standing [01:39:54] order for one hour in respect [01:39:57] of the media representatives [01:40:03] Mr. Peters, [01:40:06] shaven that, much as I don't want to go against my colleague from Sephora, I have to confess and admit that I made a face myself up [01:40:15] the [01:40:17] honorable member from T, the members of the press gallery. And I think that there may be some uncertainty in this that he was making a face back. [01:40:32] To be fair to him and Mr. Hammond, man, otherwise it's a good week, last couple of weeks to see him be as maligned maybe unfairly and it is a guilty party, if made will be myself and I was asked to take that consideration. [01:40:53] The contribution that has been made by the member for sarama to this seems to be a graceful, graceful sort of way of suggesting that the member for the of the press gallery against to this point of order was directed was in fact, that member of the press gallery might not have been guilty of the offense with which the member of a fabricator was charging him. Now, now, utterance was heard from the press gallery on the matter, and as I understand the member for pepakura, what he was suggesting was that certain gesticulations were made or certain, or certain gestures, which, which somehow indicated to the member pepakura that, that that particular person might not have agreed with what was being said. But I think it's well known in this house that members of the press gallery sit there, they frequently smile and when a member of the House says the member for Toronto is done, perhaps [01:41:49] Mike's a gesture in a friendly way [01:41:53] to a member of the press gallery, that he might get some response from that [01:41:56] now if that is if that is the [01:42:00] Well, a member of proterra tells us that was that he was being friendly and one can assume that it was reciprocated. [01:42:07] But in that instance, [01:42:08] it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that really there isn't a point of order. And that really the matter should be taken no further, and that we should proceed. That Yes, I think that's that's the situation that we have. And I'm a disadvantage because I've had actually without turning around and, and not paying attention, keep an eye on what's going on. But I think the member for telling a foot for extra I think providing an explanation for which we would otherwise otherwise have had to St. Joe's with [01:42:40] Mr. giants was speaking he has three minutes, [01:42:43] three minutes. Right. [01:42:44] So, Mr. [01:42:48] Chairman, under the bills definition of sexual orientation, [01:42:54] since her sexual orientation is to become lawful, it's become more of a And can be discriminated against then so much the men boy homosexuality relationship, they come lawful [01:43:09] at what concerns that it [01:43:12] was really vital for that sort of it at 16 years of age for consenting adults and 12 years of age bike and said that's already been made legal. So So also if we are going to have this homosexual sexual orientation, no longer to be discriminated against, and I'm not gonna be able to employ for part I've got somebody coming into my law practice, like giving them a or a job and find that they're either a lesbian, or however sexual, I cannot set them free of discriminating under the human rights or her but certainly in my household, as a domestic servant or nanny to my children, and find that there have got this [01:43:52] newly newly legalized [01:43:54] sexual orientation which can mean anything it can mean a man boy relationship. It can mean a woman girl relationship. And it can mean all those sorts of things as long as they've got it and they're gonna have it all right. There's no question about it will become the mecca for all those already got it all the old all the old homosexual perverts are they coming here fly in the code and all of them can afford it into the new into the new country where we've [01:44:24] got 12 year old boys and 16 year olds who are now doing it legally and lawfully. And if I discriminate against them in occupation or profession, anything like that, then is one [01:44:35] of the 98 [01:44:36] normal New Zealanders, heterosexual New [01:44:39] Zealanders having my rights violated. If you legalize hyper sexuality, [01:44:48] or sexual orientation, which, in essence is homosexuality. If it's legalized by this parliament, [01:44:56] then surely people are saying well, it's legally right. It's Got to be morally right. motors, the Attorney General at doyen of constitutional purity there is [01:45:08] whose budget for this bill Burton for the 60? Well, I want to ask him does not every user who accepts the legal interpretation [01:45:15] of [01:45:16] this parliament and its [01:45:18] administration the laws is being legally to be obeyed? Now say okay, if homosexuality is not to be discriminated against, it must be morally right. Not to discriminate against it and morally wrong to discriminate against it. [01:45:34] New Zealand is presented as [01:45:35] young, who will be discriminated and get my rights violated to pander to 22%. [01:45:42] Quite frankly, in the Bible, Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak to part two of this bill and to oppose it. I oppose it very strongly. In top one, the bill told people what they could do. In part two, the bill tries to tell people How they should think and react. I find it totally repugnant Chairman to find that we are trying to sanitize an act of gross indecency. It has been an act of gross indecency for many people for many, many years. Now we are told by part two of the bill that you must not just discriminate against these people. I will tell this house that if people who have lawyers or people staying in their property, they are no longer allowed to say Look, I don't want you now as a tenant, because I think your ways are disgusting. That is now they and themselves are going to find that they are acting unlawful. I tell you now, decent New Zealanders will not accept it by will not accept it in spite of the mutterings for the member of a pseudonym. I also want to tell you that Mr. Speaker, that it would be outrageous. If If I would find it outrageous if this is allowed in the autobody a better [01:47:03] thought [01:47:05] Christ Church somewhere and attendance his name so I've been for Christ Church central visit. Sydney Sydney is interjecting on his colleague, the member for night get within three feet. I can hearing from here with the member for Cigna mind leading the change that we know his views on homosexuality, leave them outside and allow the member for Nike to finish what he's saying. [01:47:30] I hadn't allowed his way of the man before certainly wasn't addicting. I hadn't been aware that they may have had a profound [01:47:37] effect doesn't [01:47:40] show the member for night of the chair will take action appropriate to protect him if he requires it. I hope you had my time. Jim, is this right German? It would be a tragedy for this country. If this bill is introduced. And I believe the introduction the proposal of the bill said that it would be unlawful to discriminate in our schools. That to my point is one of the most dangerous things that this house could do. I'll tell you now, that if we allow school teachers to practice homosexuality with their pupils, they will be an outrage in this country and an outlaw that will drown even the noise of my colleagues at the back because it will be lawful for people of young boys of 16. If they are willing in schools, especially boarding schools, to practice homosexual acts with members of the staff, I find that utterly repugnant. And to that end, Mr. Chairman, I have introduced a nice op, which stands in my name and I would like to formally introduce because I think that heavens above were crazy enough to pass this stupid bill. Let us at least keep it out of our schools. And don't let the sodomy and perverted x go on in the educational institutes of this country. also introduce the ESOP and my name regarding the forces, police, traffic officers and officers of a penal institution. I have spoken to all four groups of those discipline bodies who are responsible for Law and Order and defense of this country. I can tell you now that the vast majority that I have spoken to view it with utter repugnant that they should have to accept practicing homosexuals boasting if they wish that they do that sort of thing within their midst, it would cause more trouble than this country or this house but ever imagined. Believe you me in penal institutions, for instance, I homosexual Warden or a homosexual female officer could use the influence which they can bring to bear on inmates in order to procure them [01:49:43] for [01:49:44] acts of sodomy. It could happen and I have spoken to prison officers in my own electorate, who are absolutely appalled at the thought that they could have working with prison officers. It has happened before, but it was then illegal It will become under this bill quite legal for a prison officer and an inmate if you wish to practice sodomy in one of her majesty's prisons, for heaven's sake, [01:50:10] let us at least if you must pass this [01:50:13] repugnant will keep it out of our prisons, schools [01:50:17] of our police, [01:50:19] our traffic officers and our armed forces. Mr. Chairman, this bill has raised probably more heat than light, I wish to God is I'd never [01:50:29] ever been introduced. [01:50:31] It has divided us Zealand, like no other bill in this century has done it is divided cities. It is divided political parties, it is divided families. It is even divided churches. It is iPad bill, and I urge you that if we've still got a long way to go, but at least let's mend a few fences. I consider part two of the bill to be the most repugnant part of the bill because it tells people how they should Sure thing, and I find that absolutely unforgiveable. [01:51:06] The banks [01:51:09] speak. [01:51:11] I think the name of an IP [01:51:12] for that contribution. [01:51:15] Just a speaker. It's interesting, isn't it that the Minister of Education has just arrived in the house the member for one gunnery. The member who supported the legalization of the act of sodomy, for 16 year old boys, or if you wish, adult school teachers and 16 year old boys in schools up and down this country, he voted in the eyes lobby for the age of consent to the 16. And other words, he can dine time of sexuality between 16 year old school boys and 16 year old boys and the school teachers will consent of course, Mr. Chairman with consent and remind those listening and those in the gallery that this parliament in its wisdom, so called wisdom has legalized the act of sodomy for 16 year old boys. And over and over, and opponents of that on this side of the House voted against 20 voted against 18 better the guide 16 and next year we will vote again. [01:52:25] And the following year 14 [01:52:29] and any other time that this matter is a race to gain in this house. [01:52:33] It costs $2,600 a minute to run [01:52:35] this house and full weight. This parliament has been dealing with what I can young boys sodomized each other. And in the case of the Minister of Education, what I can school teachers legally sodomized young people. That's what was decided. And part two, and part two of this bill [01:52:56] now legitimizes [01:53:00] The act of sodomy. [01:53:03] The perverted business of sodomy, legitimize it, we've legalized it. And now we're going to legitimize it. And I want to know from the Minister of Education the member for if he's going to support this part of the bill, that will me that schools up and down the country can and math higher on merit of America, practicing homosexuals in that school that has the higher practicing homosexual school teachers who turn up for a job to look after young boys in boarding dormitory. That's what they'll have to do. They will not be able to discriminate them because of their so called sexual orientation. And we know how promiscuous many or most of these homosexuals can be, and we know how important that is at the tender age of 16. Young boys are protected. And this Parliament should have been protecting those young New Zealanders from this kind of film. But now, now, the vast majority of Labour Party members voted for the age of consent to be 16 for the act of sodomy. [01:54:20] And now we have [01:54:22] the law of nature's the third reading, but tonight we're discussing the legitimization of homosexuality in our society, and as the member for nicea rightly points out, the very, very worst part of this bill, socially evil, damaging, and a threat to democracy by the family unit that stands to be crippled by this thin edge of the ways that parliament is working its way through at the expense of people out there. In serious economic difficulty is what Parliament should be dealing with. Why can you sodomized the fellow next door? Or the school teacher with the pupil, as it would be nice to be supported the legalization of the act of homosexual attitude for 16 year old boys. That Minister of Education has a lot to answer for. And his conscience is breaking. He three shades of red and I invite him to get up and stand up next and tell us how does he want to legitimize the act of homosexuality in schools by not allowing school boards of governors not to hire practicing and in some cases, highly promiscuous homosexuals in school. He's got a lot to answer for homosexuality in our society practice openly and in our schools. He should not be the Minister of Education. At least his colleague, the Minister of Defense, Had the decency to Canada's health and exclude the armed forces that now [01:56:05] not the Minister of Education, [01:56:06] nor the [01:56:09] Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw members attention back to the principles that were faced with with respect to part two. And the key aspect and most of the members who've spoken so far haven't gathered this point is that this part to deal with sexual orientation, and not with sexual behavior. There is nothing whatsoever in the proposed part two of the bill, which would prevent educational institutions, the armed forces or any other body prescribing role about inappropriate sexual behavior among adult in the care of others or in those institutions. It is quite clear. And most schools of course, well, in fact, all schools have got very clear rules now. [01:56:59] about teaching [01:57:01] engaging in sexual activities with a pupil about heterosexual teachers doing that that [01:57:06] is quite clearly laid down and would continue, [01:57:10] whether or not Part two is carry, I have found in my mile and in public opinion surveys that there is in fact more support for part two of this fellow among the public than for part one, because the people who do have a concern many of them about the behavior that they are concerned about and certain types of behavior, do have a care about people who buy reason of for whatever reason, have the sexual orientation I cared about and concern in the community and they recognize that they will continue to be bans against inappropriate behavior in the institutions concern and for that reason, I look through the various amendments which have been suggested. I find that there are very few That I can support because they don't deal with this question of being concerned about the orientation rather than the then the behavior. And I think that, in fact, looking through all of these, Mr. briber, will be surprised. But here's the main one. So number 11 is the only one I can support because that is dealing with the question of activity. And making it quite clear that, in fact, what this bill will do will not, in fact, prevent school board having rules against inappropriate and oppressive behavior in a sexual way. And I'm quite happy for that to be explicitly stated. It's not doesn't need to be. But to clarify the doubt, I'm quite happy for that. But as terms of the rest of them, die as most of the speakers have done, have filed to make that distinction, and I think is caring people we should be concerned that this is a group which has been oppressed and discriminated against on the basis of an orientation And that over which very that I have not chosen and which has been developed, and that we should have a concern about that. And I in fact support the fact that we should be able to recognize that there are some homosexual teachers and there are some homosexual generals, and they've been married many very famous and effective ones in the path. And for people who do end up having a homosexual orientation to be able to look up to and decide there have been some great people in who helped to build human civilization who share my orientation. And for that reason, I'm very keen that we should in the law say that that continuing discrimination and oppression of people because of an orientation over which they have no control should see. And that is something which I have found the vast majority of the people who've contacted me share that concern. As I said, even some of them who are reluctant about the age of consent, share a concern for for homosexuals that they should not continue continue to To be a proof [02:00:01] that people here [02:00:02] are proposing the continued oppression of celibate homosexuals, of which of course there are many, because they wish them to continue to be allowed to be oppressed, picked on and discriminated against purely because of their orientation. I'm pleased, strongly pleased to support part two, because that does nothing to harm the legitimate interest of people who are concerned about the actual behavior of people in authority over them that continues to be protected, but they do recognize the right of all people regardless of their orientation. They have decent chance of getting a good job, appropriate accommodation and the good stuff in life and and basic respect in this community. In part two of that bill will assist us to happen. [02:00:47] The [02:00:48] Honorable [02:00:52] Chairman, I rise to move an amendment to clause nine of part two of this newcomer sexual Law Reform Bill As the bill stands, it makes an offense to discriminate against a particular person on the grounds that that person is a homosexual or bisexual. In other words, this bill makes it an offense to discriminate on the ground of one sexual orientation. With respect to what has just been said by the previous speaker, I want to quote the German sociologist and homosexual, Danica, who bluntly declared that and I quote, the faithful homosexual friendship is a myth. The myth may have its utility in accustoming society to the phenomenon of homosexuality. The lofty durable friendship sells easier. But by now we should accept the phenomenon in all its full reality and have the message accepted also, and This reality is that we are after many partners by force of our orientation. I returned to my amendment, which I'm foreshadowing in these comments now. My amendment claims that in certain clearly defined circumstances, where certain type of homosexual male job applicants [02:02:29] apply, [02:02:32] that they should not be appointed, particularly where they would be in a position of authority over boys. If this bill is finally passed, the neck would apply specifically to those under 16 years of age. My amendment also suggests that it would not be unreasonable for a person offering accommodation to deny That accommodation in certain circumstances to a certain type of homosexuals, that certain type of homosexual are referred to is the predatory and promiscuous sodomy. And they said a masochistic homosexual who brings brutality and cruelty to his particular type of homosexual behavior. I reserved a reminder house of a reference I made earlier that in San Francisco, the coroner's office is reported to have organized a workshop for sadomasochistic homosexuals, on how to have their preferred variety of sex without injuring one another. The reason apparently offered was that 10% of the homicides of the murders in San Francisco, the result of sadomasochistic homosexual practice practices. That course incidentally was paid for by the San Francisco taxpayers. Now, there are many levels of homosexual behavior resulting in deriving from the orientation. And I am referring in particular, to the right of New Zealanders to discriminate against this type of homosexual and that is exactly the type I am referring to as well as the predatory and promiscuous sodomy. New Zealand parents who do not wish to see their young sons at the mercy of such a homosexual male, should not be charged as having committed an offense against the law for taking to apply such discrimination in protection of their son. New Zealand parents with a spare room in their home should not be charged as offenders under this law, assuming it goes through, if they refuse that spare room to a person whom they under Stand is a predatory Solomon, when the aim of such discrimination is to protect their children. The point of my amendment is to give New Zealand parents [02:05:11] this right. [02:05:12] If it's part of the bill gain the support of the majority of members in this house as did the first eight clauses of part one, then such New Zealand parents will commit an offense by discriminating against a predatory sodomy or a sadomasochistic homosexual by claiming has this bill does that no homosexual may be discriminated against such decisions by reasonable parents will make them offenders under this act as it stands. And my amendment sticks to Mr. Chairman, my amendment seeks to protect. Thank you. My amendment seeks to protect them by giving them them the right to apply discrimination in such specific circumstances. Otherwise, this bill would make them offenders against the law. If passed on amended, this bill would make protective and caring New Zealand parents offenders against the law. Now, that is unacceptable and untenable and this Health Month therefore, oppose this path. But if it is our mind to pass it as it did part one, then at least it must support my amendment. [02:06:40] The second reading [02:06:43] of part of this path means that any 16 year old of whom it may be said it was a consenting partner or the partner reserved to the first part of this bill, my legally in that indulge in homosexual six. My amendment is I am Such an extraordinary set of circumstances which would effectively take away the rights of parents to protect their sons from a predatory sadhanas being in a position of authority over their son. My amendment also gives a household or the right to prevent a predatory sadhanas from being accepted as a border, in their home, in a household with young sons. [02:07:29] Chairman when [02:07:33] homosexual behavior even though it is conducted in private, of things, other occupants of the same building, then it becomes a public affair, and in such circumstances for this house to deny the rights of those immediately involved finding such behavior repugnant to deny them the right to discriminate against Because of the orientation, which produces that behavior is to remove justice. And to the measure is out of all balance with the concept of human rights. It grants human rights to a minority. And if I am to take the halen poll only 2% of the country and thereby removes the right of the parents who comprise part of the majority population from discriminating in their desire in their duty in their responsibility to protect their son, the children. Mr. Chairman, this is really untenable and I appeal to this house to see the inordinate occurrences that would be discriminated against. I mean, the behavior of parents if the bill goes through as it is, in my surveys of the opinion on this as I move around the country which I do a great deal, particularly on weekends. I have learned that part two of this bill is the most unacceptable. And I bring that information for what it is with to the house and view of what the previous speaker has seen. This house is entitled to note that I have advocated against unwarranted discrimination against an ethnic minority. yet here I am arguing for discrimination against active homosexuals. In fact, my objection and I underscore it again is to predatory promiscuous solderless by a male Mr. Chairman by a homosexual and I believe I can cogently make the point to validate my amendment so that they do not appear inconsistent with my earlier early stance on issues for the people I represent. In fact, I conclude this part of my foreshadowing of my amendment with a real case on my books relating to a constituent of mine. A constituent in the city, some of the household or on my role, and some are not [02:10:21] there on the role of the members of Wellington Central. [02:10:24] This woman who is a lone parent with several sons takes in borders to help bring in an income to help her raise her family. If one of his sons has been brutally sodomized, and is in such a trauma that his only desire is to kill that person who sodomized him who was a person who held [02:10:49] authority over him. [02:10:51] She will not be permitted Mr. Chairman, discriminating future if in advertising and taking a border and she is an impeccable Mother and house was thinking to give her base to her children. She will be met, it will be an unlawful act of his and an offense. If in future, understanding her experience, she discriminates against an applicant to take up that spare room because he is a homosexual. Now it would be a totally reasonable thing for that mother to discriminate. However, if that's part of the bill goes through, in view of her experience with her son, and his trauma, and it is a problem that will continue through masterpiece life, I believe. Then she will be made. an offender is this bill goes through. I bring that current case on my caseload. And it doesn't rest alone in many cases. And I bring it to this house as an example. And I would say that mothers within the precincts of the [02:11:56] Parliament tonight [02:11:58] for she has Given his permission for me to refer to the specific case, why should she become an offender under this part of the bill, if in future, she refuses the spare room as accommodation to an applicant who is known to her as a homosexual? [02:12:20] I believe that the member for seven Mallory has put her finger on the fatal flaw in this part [02:12:29] of this bill. [02:12:31] Because [02:12:33] what this part [02:12:34] would do if it became law [02:12:38] was would be to make it [02:12:41] a form of offense [02:12:44] to take the kind of precaution but someone in the circumstances that she just referred to [02:12:51] would in surely all conscience [02:12:56] be entitled to take [02:12:59] and that's the fight flaw in this [02:13:02] and it applies in other areas. [02:13:06] I am much more opposed to this part of the bill than I was to part one. [02:13:13] And for that kind of reason [02:13:16] and this carries over into other areas. [02:13:21] It is not [02:13:23] the question of [02:13:27] an active violation [02:13:29] which will remain an offense [02:13:33] whether it be homosexual or heterosexual, [02:13:38] but it is the act [02:13:41] of the aggressive homosexual [02:13:46] who may initially be attempting [02:13:51] a homosexual seduction [02:13:55] but in the case stated the parents the family [02:14:02] will have the fear [02:14:06] even though it might succeed. [02:14:09] But certainly that in the event of resistance, it may go further [02:14:13] and become an offense. [02:14:16] But it is an offense if this bill is passed, that they should discriminate in order to prevent the possibility. And the same problem goes over into other fields. It's been brought to my notice and I've been asked to raise it in the house and I do [02:14:38] that in the boy scout movement. [02:14:41] And with cubs [02:14:43] inquiries are invariably made [02:14:46] of miles who are proposed as leaders as to their background in this area [02:14:54] and certain [02:14:58] volunteers [02:15:04] The member interject if he wants to answer this, he should get to his feet and answer it because it is a very important matter, a very important matter. But [02:15:15] it would I believe, [02:15:18] and correct me if I'm wrong. [02:15:21] They an offense to make these inquiries and act on them and I understand that the Boy Scouts movement gets [02:15:29] official cooperation [02:15:32] from the police in making these inquiries. [02:15:36] Now, if the bill is going to permit that, [02:15:41] and there is no question of discrimination, [02:15:44] please tell me [02:15:46] because as I read it, it does not. As I as I read it, it does not. Now I moved into the question as another member has raised it up the boys school [02:15:59] and Boys School [02:16:01] where there are boring facilities? [02:16:05] Is the bill [02:16:06] going to permit [02:16:08] no homosexuals to be live in [02:16:12] house masters in boys school? And is it going to be an offense? To say no, we discovered that you're a homosexual [02:16:21] and we can't keep you, you will have to go. [02:16:25] Now, [02:16:26] these are very real questions [02:16:29] that I think [02:16:30] the committee has to concern itself with. [02:16:34] Sure, they are impediments to the person who has this affliction. But [02:16:40] which is the greater right that's being infringed? [02:16:43] The homosexual [02:16:47] all the boys under his [02:16:50] jurisdiction, [02:16:53] not that he might commit an offense after this bill is passed. [02:16:58] That is a criminal offense. [02:17:01] But that he might gaijin homosexual seduction. [02:17:04] Now, there have been occasions in the recent past [02:17:10] where a public issue has [02:17:12] been raised in at least one of our universities. In connection with [02:17:17] the Mr. [02:17:19] Chairman. [02:17:21] Dr. Bill says [02:17:24] I believe that the name of the game again should be resuming his seat [02:17:27] now is making a mistake.

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.