Parliament: second reading debate - Homosexual Law Reform Bill (9 October 1985) - part 2

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

[00:00:00] This audio comes from the collections of the lesbian and gay archives of New Zealand. [00:00:04] For more information, visit leggings.org.nz. [00:00:11] agonize over this subject at some link, before they take part in the voting over the next week or so, which will determine the fate of this mega. I would like to suggest that the excesses of zealousness on the path of the advocates of the extreme positions have not helped the logical debate of this subject as we really needed. Before we come to our conclusions. I would submit to Mr. Speaker, that one of the reasons why we have this bill, and we have this argument is that the present law is clearly seem to be deficient. And it isn't sufficient to say that because the price of law is deficient, we must necessarily have the change that is present in front of us. However, I do suggest, the time is long since passed, when change should have been achieved. I was one of those members in the house at the time, my colleague, the member who I told her, proposed his private member's bill about 11 or 12 years ago, and we came from memory within six months of its passage had that building path have been path. I do believe that would have been no case for the measure we have before us tonight. It is a difficult subject to debate and to explore and to discuss because feelings are often felt so keenly. And because the diversity of opinion is so wide. I like I'm sure every other member of this house has thought by making oneself available, listen, to be talked to the jawdat to [00:01:59] the views one's electors, [00:02:02] which all come with this year by do this justice. Each one of us in this house no doubt shows his or her major of prejudice. But we must try as best we can to put out personal prejudices aside and do what seems in our judgments be right. I'm not at all sure that because the community is so divided on the subjects, the polls or petitions got rightly. So I do underscore the fact that the community is divided, divided in some instances very badly. Parliament's must not only try and solve this problem, but I believe we have an additional task which no one has yet addressed in this debate, to try to remove or reduce the polarization that society is present suffering in this debate. I have found in the course of discussing this general question with many people, that the evidence which comes from the mothers and wives and the ex wives of homosexuals, to be particularly sensitive, and to be particularly revealing. I would like to thank those many constituents who have come to see me and tell me their personal stories, and so help to build my picture of how I should respond in this debate. [00:03:24] Mr. Speaker, this bill has three key elements. [00:03:29] The first concern the matter of the age of consent, and whatever age we choose, it will be an arbitrary age. The second medic concerns decriminalization, and the third, the path to provisions amending the Human Rights Act. First with regard to age, I accept that biologics at the age of 16 is very compelling. I accept also the age of 616. For young girls, and head wrestling your behavior is in essence, an arbitrary age, but society has come to accept it. However, it is my belief that 16 is asking the country to move to five to five. And it would be my personal preference for it. Although I willingly accept freely accept that there is no particular logic to 18 any more than any other age. I believe the passage of the decriminalization provisions are essential. I supported such a major 11 or 12 years ago, I took the time to travel at that time to try and become conversant with the the general thrust of the Wolfington report in Britain, which I believe was a very thorough study. And if there was a ton of useful precedents explained there. I am much much happier with path to I believe Finally, I will vote against. Fortunately, it will be presented to us as I separate bill at the stage three procedures. So it would be possible for a person to support a member to support the criminalization but to vote against the question of raising interest to [00:05:21] I, [00:05:22] I know also there is a certain logic to the to the arguments in favor of part two. But I do believe that much of it is asking the law to do the impossible. Part two is asking the law to legislate for public attitudes. And that is never been very successful at doing that. And there are many, many examples of this. decriminalization is the essential ingredient. And I will support the bill for a second reading stage to make sure that we have the opportunity of achieving decriminalization at the end of the day. This bill sir is described is a conscience major that is not familiar with the ways of parliament will be perhaps a little misled by this reference to conscience. No doubt there are many members who will view the vice by Mike on this measure in conscience term. But I myself feel that there is something perhaps more important that the conscience involves the life perhaps indirectly it involves conscience. And that is, where did we choose Members of Parliament feel the overriding public good must lie. Where does the overriding public goods lie? The Honorable George key doctrine that I have to support. I will not vote according to any matter of mighty principle, or any matter of biblical study, and you can find support for the bill and support against the built in the Bible. I believe that the greater good lies in removing the chief mischief and other words, to achieve the measure for decriminalization. And if that is achieved, most else will in time for into sensible place. Could I make this point? [00:07:18] Because our society is so deeply divided, I believe the house in the way in which you've handled this bill should not aggravate the division, but should do its best to try to begin the process of healing the division. [00:07:33] And in this sense, it is my submission that neither side, those opposed to the bill or those who want the bill passed in its entirety exactly as it is, should win. [00:07:47] Because if I do the other side is bound to feel rejected. [00:07:52] It is possible it is possible that the bill will be rejected at the second reading stage. And that I believe with a serious blow to this gesture towards social progress. That if we succeed in passing the second reading, [00:08:10] and we succeed in sorting out our our views on the question of what is an acceptable but quite arbitrary age at which decriminalization should commence, then we will have the opportunity of considering what is I believe a much less important consideration whether or not we should adopt for myself, I would be disposed to both again. [00:08:35] And so Sir, I would like to [00:08:38] thank those who have written to me and there are many, many hundreds, those who have taken the time to talk to me, and those also many, many hundreds, and give me not only the abuse, but in many case cases, the personal experience, it has taught me that there is a problem to be resolved. A problem that we cannot dust under the rug, a problem that we cannot ignore by rejecting the bill in total. It has taught me also that there are many people in society who don't understand the problems of the homosexual who are fortunate and not having this problem in their own families. But that doesn't mean the problem isn't there. And it doesn't mean the problem will just [00:09:27] go away. [00:09:29] So Sir, I would come into the house, that we pass this bill. It's the second reading stage. And that we sort out the details of age during the Committee stage. And in this regard, I would hope that the sponsors of the bill will make provision for the house to tackle the question of age in orderly fashion. [00:09:54] Because it did become 16 or nothing, it may very well prove to be nothing. [00:10:00] There will be an age which can find a if the bill is passed that second reading stage and age meets the general consensus providing we find a procedural way for tackling this. [00:10:11] With those thoughts. I wish this bill good wishes on its present to the house. [00:10:18] This is the Mr. Speaker like the member for no Sure. Some 10 years ago, I think it was I voted for the member for why chose was bill for homosexual reform. And a decade has passed. And in my view, our society has moved along with it since 1975. And I don't have the same difficulties as the men because I'm sure I have a part one, part two and part three of the bill. I thought about part one, I thought about the age question. And I wondered about 16 and then I examined the total picture. If you have the eye doctor cell for females 16. Why various for males? Is there some sort of malice chauvinism attacks during the age of consent for females? 16 easy pickings as again, having miles some otherwise. Sorry, my view there is a common ground to have an age of consent at 16. But Mr. Speaker, I don't think the sponsor of the bill. know people like myself on this bill would be hard and fast. Pushing the age all the way. I think the essential feature of this bill is part two, Mr. Speaker, and part two is to decriminalize. [00:11:51] However section [00:11:53] now the answer is to decriminalize the power to decriminalize our sexuality. Sir. Mr. Speaker, I had no problem with that. The men of atomic he says this evening that he would support the criminalization of homosexuality. Yes. Yes, the belt against the total bill. And I can't understand that sort of logic. [00:12:21] All this bill is saying in that area is do we, [00:12:26] as a democracy want to put people into jail? Because they have a form of sexual orientation. Whether consenting guy that we might disagree with, for example, the men for life here, he said he finds hyper sexuality possible. Okay. That's his third wife to find homosexuality. What does that mean? Because you find some person's behavior repugnant, you send the child to get the you put them in court, you get the law, and you put them into a prison cell, because you find their personal behavior repugnant. Let the speaker remember for time I he went out, I didn't stop activities, [00:13:19] from some sort of book, a list of activities from some sort of book that he had. Well, let me tell the number. Am I [00:13:28] correct? Yeah, I'm sorry, the hierarchy? That's right. Let me tell you the number of hierarchy that went down the list of those sort of activities, that's not something special. So homosexuality, they are these are activities that spread right for the heterosexual world. Are you saying then that because you find a form of heterosexual activity, unpleasant, that you're going to make it a criminal offense? Because let's what the member for hierarchy will say, Mr. Speaker, there are many forms of heterosexual behavior, that quite a large chunk of people who are not homosexual, find unpleasant. And we thought we thought they would be out of their mind to suggest that they send those people the child because some of the best manuals on the subject, recommend some of these activities, recommend these some of these activities. And so where do you go and we got what is. [00:14:34] Mr. Speaker? [00:14:37] I also find when the member for longer I said something effect that he might some political copy that this bill coming in, we are the faceless in New Zealand today. Well, what sort of morality is that? What sort of obscenity he used to obscenity? In my view, the much wiser of center too much right in morality, is going to be to want to plant nuclear bombs on our soil, telling him to bring nuclear shifts into our heart. To me, that's why the immorality of obscenity [00:15:15] behavior between consenting adults behave between consenting adults, does the member for longer really want the child does the member really want to say people who behave in a particular way to job because he doesn't agree with their behavior. Now, the essence the hallmarks of a great democracy is to embody all forms of human behavior, embody all forms of human behavior, as long as it doesn't in any way harm, life, limb or property. [00:15:56] is Phil, for me, society is moved since 19, 35, with a bit of a white board in this legislation, we got a long way throughout the world that got along the number correctly said that this bill is being watched with quite interest by the World Wide community of guys. I never saw been active in New Zealand. I didn't see another group come in. I saw them on TV. I heard the idea I think I became before the committee. And none of the Moral Majority. I certainly moved into New Zealand, attending the condition you say wonders, in regards a piece of legislation that in my view, is long overdue. Mr. Speak, I don't want to prolong this device any in any way. In regards to my vision this year, it is one point I want to say the member hierarchy decide that the junior government web two is private member's bill this is was trying to run this through the legislation through this health. I can't see any of it whatsoever. Every member in this house is allowed to get up and have a go on this bill. No one's going to stop them. And you should get up and give your viewpoint on it. Because you want to know where you stand. And you should be able to say where you stand. I respect your credentials, you should respect my son just on this issue. It is a conscience issues. I feel strongly about the issues. I believe it should be decriminalized. For me a crime is murder. A crime is a crime is burglary a crime is but not a form of human behavior that I might disagree with. As long as it's not doing me any hand, so to speak, I certainly hope that when members do get up and speak when members do vote on this legislation, and even if they disagree with the age part. All right, let's have some amendments in priestly age. I'm sure most members must agree with the decriminalization of homosexuality over a certain age. And I think most members should agree with that. For goodness sake, let's let's aspect of the bill. And in regards to the human rights area, I've always thought that it's wrong to damage someone in regards to human rights because you disagree with some sort of behavior of this, I think all people should have the right to a job, the right to earn a living the right to associate within our society without being compelled to lose a job or to lose something within their life because of their sexual orientation. I think it's a question of human rights. And I'm sure that all members are called human rights in New Zealand. And we should go along that sort of philosophy. Just one point, Mr. Speaker, the member for hierarchy mentioned, a nice medical authorities I read on the subject side, not a bill that we're discussing tonight. The sooner we decriminalize family sexuality, the better it comes out into the open. And the easier it is. [00:19:29] The problem the better for [00:19:31] the easier taste the tackle the medical problem of it. If you lie about bisexuality, it's the white of having guilt, always me gotcha Ryan activities, that helps us spread the whole serious disease of i remember correctly uses inside context, Mr. Speaker when he spoke about what developing a community of promiscuity? [00:20:00] Are we going to make promise God? [00:20:04] Are you going to make promiscuity a crime? [00:20:08] sexual promiscuity is just fine. [00:20:11] I mean, it's [00:20:13] your attitude of mine to a particular form of human behavior. And the only thing I make Mr. Speaker, is that members All right, we'll have differences about the age question. But the question of decriminalization, if a member wants to get up and say, he does not favor decriminalization, is he saying that he wants to send them to jail, he said he wants to send them to jail, send them to prison, because that's the intelligence. There's nowhere else between. And I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that all members in this year 1985 move along with most of the Western world and support this bill. Grand [00:21:01] found the debate tonight, quite enlightening, and I think that the various points of view have been put very clearly, both from the extreme of the liberalisation movement and from the extreme of the conservative movement. It is, of course, a moral issue. And as such, we, as members of parliament have to exercise our own conscience. Inside during we bring to this chamber, the beliefs, the moral laws with which we were brought up. And in my particular case, as I suspect most of us in this chamber, I was instructed in the Christian belief, and I adhere to it to this day. There seems to be some doubt as to what that Christian message is. Somebody somewhat habit, there is a it is a message of condemnation, message of Hellfire and damnation, a message that requires people to interfere with the activities of another in an attempt to save them from themselves. But I prefer the Christian message of forgiveness, of compassion, of love, and of tolerance. The message that each one of us in our own way has to work out for ourselves our own salvation. There is a my personal belief, I accept that others may have another beer. There is the view that I bring to this parliament and put to the test. When legislation such as this comes before this house. What should Parliament do, then as a group, when it discusses such a bill? I think the first criteria must be Is there a suffering of our people, the request this parliament to assist, [00:23:09] then I think it has to say [00:23:13] how can this Parliament maintain the standards of behavior, which I clear majority believe unnecessary in the interests of the society? Is it true that there is suffering that needs to be alleviated? [00:23:32] I think clearly there is. [00:23:36] I do not accept that. Homosexuality is a matter of choice. I'm quite satisfied that in many cases, if not it all, it is not. [00:23:53] I think therefore that to apply a criminal sanction is wrong. [00:24:00] So I think people are suffering. [00:24:03] And therefore I seek to alleviate that pain. [00:24:07] I asked him I at risk if we do this, for others that I love. For others that I represent. From activities, the two people may take her. [00:24:22] I don't think so. [00:24:24] The only people that are at risk, in my view from such activities could be children, and provided the protection is there for them, then there is no reason not to support the decriminalization of subjects. I do not believe that it is the function of this parliament to enter into the bedrooms of the nation. If I am in any doubt at all, I would err on the side of saying that it is no business [00:24:54] to interfere in that way. [00:24:57] I do not support homosexuality, I personally find that rather upon. I certainly have no desire to come back on another sexual life. I feel particularly sorry for those who find it necessary so to do, but I have no desire to make it a criminal matter. I do not think that requires the sanction of the law, possible imprisonment, or at least to be seen to be brought before the court. And therefore I say they should be decriminalization of homosexual acts. The next part, of course, is a little more difficult as it relates really to the protection of the Act. I think 16 probably today in 1985 is rather Yeah. I accept the arguments, that if it's good enough for young ladies, then why should it not be good enough for young men. But I would prefer that the age was higher. And during committee stages of the bill, I suspect there will be some amendments made in that area. But the hardest part is the question of a human rights legislation. Passed I have said that I do not believe that the criminal law should apply. Nevertheless, I think it is absolutely essential that all New Zealanders in their own individual right, are entitled to express [00:26:30] their views on anything. [00:26:34] Free from interference. Unless there was some compelling reason why that should be restrained. Mr. Graham opposition. We enacted the human rights legislation. We made it difficult one could say we made it an offence for people to discriminate on the grounds of sex, on the grounds of their marital status on the grounds of a religious or ethical beliefs. I don't find much to argue in any of that. I think probably that it is right, to try to encourage people to take an objective and fair and tolerant view of them. But I accept that there are some behavior happens which people find tightly apart. And quite obviously from the speeches in this house tonight. Many members of this chamber find homosexuality totally and utterly abhorrent to a degree far greater than I [00:27:40] should they be restrained from expressing that view. [00:27:45] Are we doing New Zealand society proud, if we say to them, you cannot no longer say I have, I want to have nothing more to do with you. Because I do not agree with with your behavior path. If you elect to follow that, feel free to do so. As I have said you must work out your own salvation. I can help I can guide if. But I have to say to you that I don't agree with your method. I don't agree with what you are doing. And I voiced my opinion against them. If we do not allow people to express that view, even if it may be bigoted on occasions and prejudice, then we are suppressing something which will become a very lightened and festering so at a later time. And I think that is very dangerous. And I think we have to be very careful before we outlaw the right to express views. Well, she says it's not in the bill. What is in the bill is the people who in possession of real estate, or Java jobs are not now entitled to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation. [00:29:08] Well, expression opinion, all right. [00:29:12] I see I don't think it's quite as simple as that. Because what you're saying is, if I want to if somebody comes to me for a job, and that person is a homosexual, I cannot discriminate against them on that ground that correct or not? I think I should have that right. I think I should be able to say, [00:29:31] I don't [00:29:33] blame you. I am not heaping scorn and condemnation on your head. I accept that you have the right to do as you will. But I personally don't want to have anything to do with you. [00:29:46] So I don't want to employ. [00:29:50] That's my right. [00:29:52] And I don't want that right, taken away for me. Because if it is, then I will go away. And I will say I have been frustrated and expressing a view that I have. And society hits for danger if we do that. [00:30:08] And so I Mr. Speaker, [00:30:10] it is not an easy matter, [00:30:12] passions are ours. And I think that the best thing that can be done at this time and in this chamber is to support the decriminalization to look carefully and listen to the arguments regarding the age of consent. But when it comes to the human rights legislation, I have to say that I am not convinced that sexual orientation should be included in the human rights legislation. I would hate to think that society is prevented from expressing its view on this or any other method, unless there are compelling reasons and in this case, in my view, they do not exist. That is all I have to say at this time. [00:30:57] Mr. jack nicholson [00:31:00] speaker [00:31:02] is I see this bill. I see it as a radical measure. [00:31:08] It is two revolutionary purposes. [00:31:13] The first is to establish for the first time in New Zealand, the homosexual lifestyle is a legitimate option. This is the bill aimed at a testing and affirming and enshrining that legitimacy in the laws of this country. Its second radical purpose is to attempt to redefine traditional normalcy as we have known that in this society. [00:31:48] This book, and its proponents [00:31:52] are using this bill and let's divide to argue that homosexuality is a normal expression of human sexuality. So clearly, Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks to make a socio political statement, which characterizes the relatively recent gay liberation revolution. The revolution began about 1970, perhaps precisely in the year in America, giving rise to the customary strident and [00:32:36] arrogant demands of the younger guys. [00:32:41] That revolution thereby transmitted the older law abiding monogamous homosexuals into relics of the past. For them, I had considerable concern and genuine sensitivity. And I have expressed that in earlier advice in this chamber, however, monogamous partnerships between older homosexual men when swiftly out of date at the inception of the gay liberation revolution, speaking New Zealand is following the American sequence of events. Some years behind, but we are following the same event. It is rare for instructor to see, well documented research of the American scene has to reveal in America speaker, the social institutions, which has been the most influential within the homosexual subculture has been the gay bar. In fact, without the gay bar, gay bar or gay sauna, as we would say, in New Zealand, it would be impossible to conceive of the homosexual movement as it exists today. Indeed, the exact event which broke the movement into the open arose when the New York Police in David to curtail homosexual activity at a gay bar, and the Stonewall Riots occurred. Speaker already in New Zealand, we have equivalent meeting places, and we have had them for some years now. 234 years [00:34:46] of the American gay bar. [00:34:49] medical researchers have observed that the degree of promiscuity defies the imagination of those not familiar, gay homosexuality. From the point of view of traditional values, they are some of the most destructive and degrading institutions in America today. The move of the bill suggested some might go to the city of the world which has the highest reputation of homosexuality. She has Mr. Speaker, Soho by recently, she has made her inquiries and so hereby [00:35:39] I do not want to see them in New Zealand. [00:35:43] I do not want them to flourish here, just to speak of this bill is passed. Inevitably they will. With gay bad for foreigners constituting a major focus for the transmission of disease. The most recent one being a, we see revealed the full implications of gay liberation, homosexuality, for the rest of the community, in terms of the health, illness continuum. of them government does I help health and well being of the whole community, by the individual human rights of the individual homosexual, there is considerable documentation for identifying the gay community, the promiscuous gay community, is a reservoir of disease for the rest of society. I have studied considerable documentation by medical researchers in this matter, and I believe any member of this health would have access to the same just make a component of this bill will resist these allegations, since they are inimical to their interest and to the passage of the spill. But evidence suggests that the homosexual community itself is very much aware of this. [00:37:14] They are well known homosexual periodicals. [00:37:19] And they carry medical advice columns advising on the nature, treatment and prevention of illness directly related to male homosexual practices. There is no comparison to female homosexuality as I should not be compared in this context, though it is convenient. So to do, there is a distinction and they are not in the same category. Speaker in America, there is a national organization called the National Coalition of gay sexually transmitted disease services. The degree to which the homosexual community is affected by sexually transmitted diseases 50 days and the promiscuity. prevalence among homosexuals is revealed in its own advice. to its members, I quite simply one sentence always exchange your name and telephone number to facilitate contact in case signs or symptoms of an STD or later discovered the so much more I can't repeat in my time tonight. But the impression given by a study of the literature of the National Coalition of gay sexually transmitted disease services, literature, is one of ceaseless and quite even personal sexual activity, which creates the ever present danger of estate. The coalition that coalition has devised the measuring scale to enable gay liberation is to ascertain their relative probability of contracting an STD. seven major categories are listed. To have a different sexual partner every other week is said to be a low risk. But to have more than 10 different sex your partner's a month is a high risk factor. As to the types of encounters carrying high risk. The coalition points to one night stands and group six. The coalition also points to the high risk of sodomy and of all angels to remain to scuffing and also makes a particular point about the possibility of major surgery to repair injuries sustained from anal sex using one. It also warns about intestinal parasites. Writing in the medical world news journal in 1980, Dr. Dan Williams and active member of the coalition stated his concern that there could be a sudden outbreak of seriously damaged immune systems. Mr. Speaker, this house move that he did follow as he [00:40:44] predicted, about which he expressed such deep concern. [00:40:50] There is little doubt that the extreme promiscuity associated with the male homosexual condition guaranteed they are a high risk population as their own coalition points up for sexually transmitted diseases. The Sentinel, a well established and respected homosexual newspaper in San Francisco, has admitted that the risk of contracting disease among gay persons is approximately 10 times better persons in the general population. It was also reported that homosexuals have a risk of developing hepatitis the 10 times greater than the risk to other persons. Mr. Speaker, these conclusions were confirmed by a survey reported in the official publication of the American Public Health Association. This is a yielded a variety of results, one of which was that 78% of the thousands surveyed by them had been affected at least once STD. The same says I indicated an average of 49 different sexual partners for homosexual over a lifetime. This survey was with members of the gay coalition and other homosexual organizations. It was furthermore reported in that survey that 10% of homosexuals have more than 506 year old partners during their lifetime. The high rate of illness in the homosexual community has been repeatedly linked to the promiscuity of some of its members. And the connection between the promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals or some homosexuals. And the tendency to infection is clear. Speaker any Act of Parliament that my in any way, predispose us to go further along the course which we already have, and to impair the health of the community should not be passed by the commenting about the high incidence of ZD in San Francisco, Dr. Urban graph, director of the city clinic indicated that the problem is due to generally active people having multiple six partners. And Dr. Breath my the observation that most of the partners chosen was single. Dr. Silverman, Director of Public Health for San Francisco, has indicated and described that city as a tolerant city. [00:43:52] Mr. Speaker, I want to very briefly discuss some of the issues which have been raised with me by continue students, and also some of the fears which have been expressed because many of the expressions of opposition which I have received, have attested to a degree of fear as to what may or may not be in the bill, not always well informed. And I want to say that those people, particularly outside the house, but also some within the house, who have dwelled at some length, on some of the more bizarre and I hope, some of the more rare sexual practices which have been described in medical and other literature, actually not addressing the issues in the bill, but are in fact, preying on people's fears, to the extent that some of those practices which have been described are not, in fact, homosexual practices at all. But our sexual practices, which can be engaged in between people of any gender and any form of peering. And then I think, is not actually helping determine the issues which the bill is about. With the speaker, some of the fears right with me, by my constituents, have been based on a perception that if homosexual acts between consenting adults, in private, and a longer punishable by imprisonment, then homosexuals will in some way be free to prey on young boys in our society. And there is in fact, totally incorrect. If it were true, it would be good grounds for opposing the festival. Still, there is nothing in the bill, which would permit that to happen. In fact, it is interesting to note that the bill provides a protection for young boys, which does not exist in law. Now, there is no specific protection for male children from her sexual attentions at prison. But the bill does is to provide or seek to provide exactly the same protection for male children. As for female children, I happen to be the father of one of each. And that is, I think, how it should be. It is unfortunate that the youth in our country is at risk from the predatory sexual attentions of all the people. We must protect them from there. It is my belief that we have an obligation to protect our sons and our daughters equally. And that is what I would want the law to do. And that is what I understand this bill to do. It would incorporate into the crimes act exactly the same measures protecting my own children, as personally protect female children. I want to mention the age of consent, Mr. Speaker, because that has been mentioned by some members. And I want to mention that in the context of that equality before the law, it may well be that 16 years of age is too young and it is too low is too young an age of consent. If the so then I would suggest that it is equally too young, for female children as well. My daughter knows the same protection before the law, as I would wish for my son. It seems to me that the question that issue in the age of consent is whether they should be a different legal prescription in respect of homosexual activities, then there is in respect of hetero sex, heterosexual activities. I want to turn now to part two of the bill Mr. Speaker, because that is another fear which has been expressed to me by a number of constituents and has been mentioned in the house tonight. That path provides a particular protection in respect of discrimination on the basis of perception of sexual orientation or affection. [00:47:51] The [00:47:52] fear that has been expressed to me is that if there is no general criminal sanction against homosexuals x between adults, then people in a position of responsibility, such as teachers, or members of the police force, or senior members of the armed forces, May in some way, be able to abuse that responsibility in order to obtain sexual advances or to place their sexual attentions on people who I was in the care. And I want to say that there is manifestly not correct. The question of heterosexual attentions on for example, school pupils, females, two peoples by male teachers, which is probably the most common form of sexual abuse of this position of responsibility is not does not call into question the legality or otherwise, of heterosexual acts between consenting adults. It is I think, statistically, the most of all, were, in fact, the, by far, the greatest number of abuses of positions of responsibility in a sexual manner [00:49:01] relates to x by my own in a superior position with respect to girls are young females who are in some way and they care. And that, in fact, the license for the x between adults were causative of that, then we would be looking very hard at the position in relation to heterosexual x between arrows that society does do very severely and swiftly with, for example, a male teacher who abuses that position of trust, in respect of female peoples, exactly the same sanction, in respect of abuse of trust, or of advocating mo behavior, would, would apply, in any case, to any personal position of possibility, with respect to the people for whom they're responsible. The argument that they're going to be a rash of teachers, there was one constituent suggested Sunday school teachers, to I go to advocate MMO x to the children within the UK here does not in fact, stand up. It is a fear which has been picked up. I want to say also, in respect of an argument, which was advanced by the name of for North Shore that part two is asking the Lord to do the impossible to legislate public attitudes, that that is not in fact, in the bill. And that is not in fact, in the present law, which makes it illegal, certain forms of discrimination is obviously impossible to require by law people to hold certain attitudes. The present law does not require people to hold certain tolerant attitudes on matters of race, or religion, or any other matter which is currently covered in the Human Rights Commission egg. What it does do is make illegal discrimination that is an unfair or unjust attack on the rights of other people on the basis of perceptions of race, or religion, etc. And what this bill seeks to do is to make similarly and unfair on the rights of people on the basis of a perception about their sexual orientation, illegal and I think that is a very just and proper thing for this house to legislate for the member Amira suggested that it would make it possible that expression of opinion or dissociation from people whose nature one disapproved of, or whose nature gave rise to perceptions, which led one to one to dissociate oneself from them. That is not in fact, what is proposed in the bill. It is an unfair attack on the rights of other people, because one thinks they might have a certain nature, which is, in fact, in the bill. remand is a principal in this bill, unlikely to be lost sight of in the emotional debate, which has arisen. And I'm pleased to see that the vast majority of members who have spoken on both sides of the debate have stayed clear of some of those emotional statements. But I was disappointed to hear an attempt earlier, to link this bill to such matters as incest, euthanasia, prostitution, and so on. They are not in the bill, and I've been visited by the bill. The bill does not affect the law on those, nor does it make any statement on on those matters. And I think it behooves members of this house to bear in mind the matters which are relevant to the bill, and the house is standing orders on relevance when debating it. The bill is also not about homosexuality, per se. And that is a matter which is not well understood. The bill is about whether or not certain sexual practices or sexual practices between certain types of people should be subject to a criminal sanction. It does not imply a judgment for or against people who wish to engage in those practices. It merely deals with the question of whether or not they should be subject to criminal sanction, to the threat of imprisonment, consequent on there to blackmail, blackmail, sometimes the violence which goes unreported because of the possibility of legal action. And I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the questions which members must address their minds to those narrow questions of whether or not we feel that there should be a criminal sanction, dealing with matters, which are questions of moral principle, perhaps, which are questions of strong opinion in society, but which are not questions of damage to third parties, which are not questions, which are normally dealt with, as in our criminal law. There is also the question of equality before the law, whether or not they should be two different sets of legal prescriptions governing on the one hand, the behavior of the majority of those people in New Zealand who are heterosexually inclined, and the minority who are hungry, sexually inclined, what the bill does take to do is to amend the Crimes Act. So that there is one law, which is applied equally to all with the same protection to our young agenda, to remain free and capable, and to various other people. I believe that they should be equality before the law, wherever possible. And I think this is one of those cases where there must be equality before the law. Therefore, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this bill should be passed. And I believe that whether or not one believes that 16 or 17, or 18, or some other age is the appropriate age of consent for sexual activity, that they should in fact, be one age of consent for sexual activity. And therefore the bill should be supported with the age of consent of 16. The question of what the age of consent should be in general terms could be addressed if the house so wishes in another matter at another time, but the speaker, I would like to say in the time remaining to, to me a few words, a petition, which has been [00:55:03] brought before this house, petition with the member for hierarchy, say it was for God for country and for family. And I want to refer to the numerous representations I have received from Christians in my electorate and changed because they do not like to see the mantle of Christianity hijacked by people holding one particular view on this bill, by people who are patriots, and who do not like to see it claimed that only people who are in favor of this bill can claim to be for country by people whose hold strong family views. And he resists the suggestion that only those who oppose this bill can claim to hold strong family views. There is much more I could say about the petition, but to speak of it either way, either members of the House wish to speak on this bill. And so I leave it at that I hope the house will support the bill, as it has been reported back. Mr. Townsend, the speaker, if ever there was a time with the houses flying blind, it is on this bill, as a result that the select committee does not address two very vital areas that we are looking at tonight. One is the age of consent. And the other is the moral aspect of the threat of it to the wider community. And if we go back and tell us what the select committee didn't have file to report to this house on many speakers tonight, I'm grappling for information to know what is the right decision on this particular bill. As to how whether the bill should be passed, or whether it should be declined and the effect that it will have and the risk it will put to the community at large. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I wish to embrace [00:56:58] honorable gentleman but tonight Carmona [00:57:02] and the house fans agenda until 2pm. Tomorrow, [00:57:10] IH [00:57:11] whether by mutual consent or not to be a criminal offense. a good deal of haters gone in this debate, Mr. Chairman, and has been generated by many who profess strong Christian beliefs and are outright by the morality or immorality of male homosexual behavior. The fact that no criminal sanctions exist for female homosexual behavior is a point on which most are silent. Is it the job Mr. Chairman of politicians to pass laws which deliver moral judgments on members of our society? Some Christians quote the Bible as the source for saying yes, but the Bible is a dangerous document from which to quote, Mr. Chairman, you can get it quoted back at you. Christ himself did not have a high regard for either lawyers or law makers. Unless your justice gives full of measure than the scribes and the Pharisees. You shall not enter the kingdom of heaven, he said. And for those who are anxious amongst us to rush for the judge the behavior of others, he made the mob of his diet an offer which they all refused. He said he who is without sin cast the first stone in 1956. Mr. Speaker, prior to the reform of laws against time and state shows in Britain, a committee was set up by the cardinal Archbishop of Westminster to draw up a report on the Catholic position regarding homosexual law reform. The report which was submitted to the British government came to among others the following conclusions and I quote, attempts by the state to enlarge its authority and invite the conscience of the individual, however high minded, always files and frequently does positive. It should accordingly be clearly stated that penal sanctions are not justified for the purpose of attempting to restrain sins against sexual morality committed in private by responsible adults. That is criminal sanctions should be discontinued. Because one they are ineffectual to they are inadequate in their application. Three, they involve punishments disproportionate to the offense committed and for the undoubtedly give scope for blackmail and other forms of corruption. Now now on in their right mind, Mr. Chairman, could accuse the Cadillac Bishop of Westminster, of leading some kind of radical reform to hasten the demise of Western civilization. The truth is that people are not made a not my either good or bad by laws, but by the seat of ethics we acquire and by our own moral formation, which is gained on a personal basis, not through legislation, I was going to cry for the house a number of very well informed and sympathetic views in terms of the empathy the riders head and many members would have had letters like that. But I want to conclude by quoting one from an ex London policeman, who wrote to me in favor of reform as follows. In the matter, he said, of the homosexual law reform bill, there appears to have been no mention of who does the arresting if consenting adult homosexuality in private remains a crime? Will it be you Mr. Anderson, or a religious group or a vigilante squad? Or will it be the police before the English law change, he wrote, I was a young policeman, or it into the dark streets in the private recesses of London to hunt and arrest homosexuals. My actions were the immoral act, his crime, his sexuality, my shame that I had no brief to crush the sensibilities of a fellow human being to criminalize private morality. turns off the steep path turns us off the steep path to civilization. I think this house should pay good heed, Mr. Chairman, to the words of a young London policeman, now a New Zealand citizen, writing in earnest, and with great concern about the way in which this house fights on this manner. I urge the house to take the liberal sign and compassionate road to reform that is the road which leads to a better society, and an improvement on what we currently have. And in my view, Mr. Chairman, there is the option before this house. [01:01:54] Mr. Lee, [01:01:56] like it was bigger. [01:01:59] I want to firstly explain to the house into those people listening tonight, how they're promoted this bill has been using her offices, Junior government web to [01:02:12] rush this bill through this house. [01:02:16] And to explain that correctly, this should have been the day of the report back of the bill. Instead, we are commencing the second reading debate. [01:02:28] by exercising that action, Mr. Speaker, it has successfully stopped what would be the normal conventional house to have a seven day gap between the report back and the second reading. And on a bill size and this major importance. That would be the protocols. [01:02:48] Speaker, I reported this bill back I want to make it absolutely clear that it was not done under any government instruction or what? [01:02:56] Well, speaking to the point of water, the animal was to winning. [01:03:01] You said that is fighting material, it is not a point of order, in accordance with our standing orders? [01:03:11] Well, I would I would have to find that by it seems that the matter having been dealt with in the select committee report, it's not appropriate for us to [01:03:20] cover that ground again. However, this is the second reading debate. [01:03:26] Mr. Lee, speaker. [01:03:29] So this debate is a tremendous interest to the people of New Zealand. It is also of tremendous interest to the worldwide homosexual network. [01:03:43] Because this bill, the bill that has come before this house now has been prepared over a long period of time on a very highly organized basis. And, sir, it's in their words that they have chosen this time. And I have chosen the socialist government. [01:04:03] And it should be a concern to the people in this nation, that some members of their government have made declarations of very liberal attitudes, and who do not accept the traditional models of our society. [01:04:19] And what we have now, speaker is a bill before this house, which is of intense interest to homosexuals everywhere because one, it indeed is the most progressive legislation of its type ever offered in the world. And secondly, is the reflection of the intense commitment of the homosexual people to obtain the rights they believe, [01:04:49] at any cost. [01:04:52] And therefore, sir, they've gone through significant lengths to infect, to ensure that this bill is not amended. And I can I agree with him on that one point only that one point early that this bill cannot be amended. [01:05:06] Sir cannot be amended, it can only be thrown out. And that is the clear direction of the people in this country. [01:05:15] It is not sufficient to simply eliminate part two of the bill, order HZ raise the age benchmark to 18 or 20 years that will not in any way. eliminate the threat that this bill in any pot [01:05:32] represents to the family life of this nation, also the public health of this country. [01:05:41] So the [01:05:43] clear reason why this bill [01:05:47] cannot proceed. [01:05:49] is the fact that the people have spoken through the petition. [01:05:54] The petition that has been announced to this house as 817,500 49. But sir, I want to tell a house tonight, that figure unofficial, [01:06:07] certainly, but it is a figure in excess now 830,000. That figure, sir, is a figure in excess of the figure that elected this Labour government in office in July 84. [01:06:22] in excess of 830,000. And we listened already to some amazing verbal semantics tonight as to why this petition is not valid, but it's understandable that there has been inorder links and taken by the proposals bill to the spirit of this petition, sir. And they will go on doing it. But they will keep on this snidey and worthless attempts, because the petition finally stands alone. Sir, let it be said again that this petition is an historic petition of immense proportions. And any way that the members who will not accept the petition can do so is to deny the petition as a democratic tool of this parliament in this cabinet. Mr. Lee opposition hierarchy, sir. [01:07:14] The petition [01:07:16] is so large that's been compared that would be an excess of 80 million in comparative to the United States of America. [01:07:26] This petition says clearly, unequivocally plainly, that the people this country [01:07:34] do not want this bill to be made law. [01:07:38] I kept there, sir, there will be areas that will still be found, in spite of the attempts were made by volunteers with a very most honest and most [01:07:49] purposeful approach to the chicken of this petition, that there'll be some errors that will still be there. Whether it be 5010 little bit even hotter, the whole half of the bills. That still is a voice of incredible proportions. It is a voice that says to every member of the Parliament here tonight, [01:08:12] that it is their responsibility for this parliament to pass this bill. [01:08:18] Sir, I have to say to you that it's been a great concern to me to have been assailed as one of those organizers of this petition [01:08:31] to have heard the repeated comments of right wing fundamentalist bigots. [01:08:37] Sir, I repudiate and I renounce all those allegations as totally intrigued. [01:08:43] And I am delighted tonight to stand here to associate myself with Peter Tyson, Keith hay, and all his other workers who have gone up believing that the people's country wanted an opportunity to say in a very visible form, they do not want to bill they have done that they have faith was more than justified. And the people sir has spoken. And it's right, it is proper, that that petition. And that effort should be aligned with the motor, which has also been, in fact, spoken against so strongly that the motive for God for country and for family is a proper expression of all this petition has meant in this compilation. Sir, it's important. I believe every one of us has members of parliament here tonight, and to the country that that petition prevails. [01:09:38] So I want to speak [01:09:40] about the fact that homosexuality is not [01:09:47] one that cannot be changed. There's been a number of comments made already tonight. [01:09:52] That is very fundamental to this whole argument that the homosexual is born that way it is welcome to the left hand or right hand. [01:10:03] Sir, there is no evidence around the world. After decades of in fact of the system, biologically hormonal, genetically, the homosexuals are born that way. Therefore, if they're not born that way, and accepting that there is some very real difficulties that can be faced by many people from parental imbalances, etc, and accept that that will take a long time for adjustment of life. But it is still therefore and acquired old in behavior. And therefore it's an acquired old behavior. It can be an unlearned behavior, and homosexuals, responsible for their actions, and it is a matter of choice. It is a matter of choice. And I am delighted, in spite of the unfortunate allegations. And I've already in this debate, that investment has been put into the lives of people to allow the formation of internationally acclaimed bodies that will help the homeless say to this country, such as homosexual, anonymous, and the exodus organization. So people against this bill, because I have come to understand homosexuality, I don't believe I understood that very fully, I believe a lot of this nation have understood very little in the initial campaign. But I do understand Nelson. And I have no pleasure in briefly talking about the practice of homosexuality, but I believe it's important. It's important that once again, the house and the country understand exactly the nature of this practice. And we speak against, again, I repeat, not the homosexual, but the practice. So I'm speaking from a pamphlet, that is cool age new rules for safe sex put out by the AIDS Foundation, an organization that seems to have been given the diversity of the health department by which is in fact, the H network in the past, using taxpayers money, and set a chance here in this login repeat pamphlet, that the practices of homosexuality are failing the course fucking follow six. Second, the point where you swallow the semen or you stop before the actual swelling of it singing, dancing and water sports that is urinating on each other. Women, which is tying the malaria, which costs brings the mouth into contact with feces, or the second, even two ends of the envelope, sharing of sex toys, testing, which is to use the first and into the rectum and write up the body of the partner for using other such things as In fact, I don't believe we need to hear about sir that is abnormal thing that is unnatural lyst that is against every normal habit of the body, it shall help sir, as being something that this country surely cannot accept any form or manner, it is cooling, in fact, for the abnormal to be nice to know for the people who believe normality is what life is all about to be seen in the context of this bill in his presence to be then abnormal. There is a comment has been raised as to whether the homosexuality is a sin of past will not increase, it will increase. And I will quote a book the book again, that was created by the member for cavity, a book written by Mr. Bacon on the social effects of homosexual New Zealand. And says says here, not just the first point, which said that the homosexuality when declared legal would be seen to be legally acceptable. But it goes on to talk about the fact that a boy will be more likely to have a sexual encounter from a practicing homosexual. Thirdly, that the homosexual lifestyle will in fact, encourage unrestrained propaganda that will certainly start in the classroom of our nation, sir, and will continue in society for that homosexual group flavor of the month. [01:14:37] They funding from the text players press. Finally, physically, that homosexual behavior will be a magnet to other homosexual communities around the world. I think that's almost certainly so I believe logic supports it. And so I say to you that I that is my belief. And I believe common sense is that the bill is that passes through this parliament will see an increase in homosexuality, Britain after 10 years. States from the research public act increased 300%. San Francisco, we know has seen an increase of 25% in sexually transmitted diseases. Los Angeles, Indiana. Hi, Mary had to close toilets and parks, because of the increased activity of homosexuals. Since it's been decriminalized. Sir, homosexuality will increase from the decriminalization of Bill. Now that that is so it has got to be seen that the AIDS problem will commensurately be that much greater. And it's been significant. Lee admitted so far in the comments tonight. So what are we doing in the light of those comments? Was the increase in homosexuality arising from this building passage? To them say we see no difficulty when aids the greatest killer disease confronting this nation? Or the The world is, indeed at our best, all? Right, put yourself the very surely logical common. It was health, if we have waited two years when the age will be indeed at this, in this country, are very much worse. threat. Would that be the time that this bill would be offered as Parliament? I think not. I think not. Indeed, if the decriminalization of this type of law, which has happened in many states, United States, was the reason to hope the aid then why is it indeed the fact that he has become almost an epidemic in the United States now, doubling every six months in a sentence? Sure. It is a responsible, illogical Edison saying that we are pursuing legislation that will in fact, give rise to an increasing rate. At this time, this delay opposition from the health department is obviously confused as to what will happen from his assessment. One thing is clear about it is affected promiscuity is the issue to avoid, he is backed up by the World Health Organization was to find promiscuity, as you need to patents as any two partners, resulting from sexual activity. And they, if we take for the facts at the AIDS victims, in the United States, have all on average had at least 100 partners in the year preceding this. They said we have common security of a large scale and it cannot be laughed away by the homosexual community. This is a community of promiscuity. Mary effects were delivered to the committee to indicate that over a homosexual lifestyle lifetime, there is over 1000 partnerships. I say to you, sir, that the threat of AIDS alone stands as a reason why we should not be passing this bill. By increasing concerned at the family unit. And I have spoken primarily in address live given to the nation, the 21,000 people I've had the privilege to address that the family unit is at risk by the past to this bill survives at risk, sir, with a heterosexual community distinctly at risk from that action because on the inhibition 70% of the homosexuals in this country are bisexual. [01:18:49] It's not sufficient to talk as another member that about In fact, the risk of those people in their marriage situation, the risk sir, surely, is put the wise and from the wise to the nation of the whole. Secondly, the children of any family that must become at risk that will be at risk in the classroom where it will be quiet, in order to speak about the Christian of homosexuality to see it promoted actively by people in teaching positions. Sir, I'm gonna have to come home to the parents and ask your parents why they should not be involved when I have been openly taught the advantages of this type of alternative lifestyle. Thirdly, the family has an identity and as a whole as a risk because they face the challenge of a legal lawful, so called viable alternative lifestyle, the lifestyle of homosexuals. And if we have any concern for the family of this nation, force integrity for its future importance to the station, both roles, cornerstone of society, then we must not pass this bill because our family will face the greatest single thread in this nation's history by the passage of this bill. Sure. All these arguments, I believe, make it very clear that the parliamentarians of this house must not allow this bill to be possible.

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.