This page features computer generated text of the source audio. It may contain errors or omissions, so always listen back to the original media to confirm content. You can search the text using Ctrl-F, and you can also play the audio by clicking on a desired timestamp.
New Labour Party member for Hawke's Bay should be told the rules and traditions of the House. It's, uh, speaking to the point of order, Mr. It's quite it's quite clear that standing orders and speakers rules provide. No, we won't. We won't rehearse the matter. I've I've, uh I've already ruled on the point, Doctor. Bill Sutton. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the mistake. Uh, what what was to Wellington as the member for Ware said, In respect of the member from Tamaki [00:00:30] and I'm a bit close to, uh, the member for Hawke's Bay. What, in fact, was your ruling? I mean, clearly pointed out to members that if I mean, several members have have taken the call and then sought a further call, other members have deferred to them. Um, and they've been allowed to continue. And and that's actually been a characteristic of this debate, that members have had more than one call end on end. But of course, it's up to the member who next seeks the call, whether [00:01:00] or not he defers. Now, I'm not sure whether the member for Hawke's Bay in fact wished to defer to the member for Tamaki, But I take it. He did not. Doctor. Ms. Mr Chairman. The mistake made by the member for further point of order, Mr Honour, to quit. Carry on. Can I? Can I Just the the honour of Mr [00:01:30] Wellington had a point of order. Did he wish to pursue it? Yes, Mr Speaker, if if one wants to reduce it to its technicalities, it is a matter of whom the chairman first recognised. Now I can't believe if the member for Tamaki on his feet, you could recognise him first. And the member for Tay second when the member for Tamaki is on his seat. So we would ask you, sir, perhaps to, um, explain what you've brought [00:02:00] the point of order. Trevor Mallard or standing Order Order. Mr. Mr Chairman, Standing order 287 is very clear on this, and I'll remind the chairman of it in committee. Members may speak more than once to the same question, but where more than one member rises to speak, the chairman shall give preference to a member who has not previously [00:02:30] spoken. I think I think that that deals with the point. Um, Doctor Bill Sutton. Mr. Chairman, all members of this house are equal in this kind of debate. Even the de facto leader of the opposition, Mr Chairman, The mistake made by the member for Tamaki and I believe made by my colleague, the member for Southern Mary is to confuse behaviour with orientation. Now I wish to I wish to respond [00:03:00] to the very serious point raised by the member of Southern Mary because I believe it deserves serious consideration and a proper reply. I believe that the difficulty that she is raising should part two become law is no different from the difficulties that exist under the existing human rights legislation, which which prohibits discrimination, for example, on the grounds of race or on the grounds of sex. Now it would be just as valid [00:03:30] if we take your example for somebody who was letting a place in their house whose child let us say, had had been raped by a man or let us say, been subjected to violence by a Maori or by an Irishman to discriminate on grounds of race or of sex when letting a position in that household. But that is something that this house has considered seriously. [00:04:00] When it earlier passed the human rights legislation and decided should be unlawful. What this proposed change to the human rights legislation provides is that the same kind of protection against the presupposition of illegal behaviour should also apply to people of different sexual orientations. I don't believe that it is valid to assume that every man is a rapist. I know [00:04:30] that some few women in New Zealand take that life, but I don't believe that that is valid. Nor is it valid to assume that every male homosexual will be a rapist. That is totally unjustified, and I believe that it should be illegal to make that kind of assumption on the grounds of sexual orientation. Similarly, I believe it is totally wrong to make assumptions about individual marriages or individuals of any other race [00:05:00] simply on the basis of what one Maori or one member of any other race may have done. And I urge the member for Southern Marin to consider that point seriously. It's not. It's not a matter for hilarity, and I'm grateful to those few members of the house, including the member for Southern Mary who have debated this and other points in part too seriously I have foreshadowed [00:05:30] Mr Chairman a number of proposed amendments to Part two. I wish to mention those that are listed as clauses nine A and nine B because they relate to very specific changes. The intention of these changes is to allow certain narrow forms of discrimination where the existing human rights legislation allows discrimination [00:06:00] on the grounds of sex, and to extend that same right to discriminate to the to the grounds of sexual orientation where it relates to preferential treatment where, based on sexual orientation, where the position is one of domestic employment in a private household. Because that clearly is a particularly intimate kind of situation. And I believe that, as it is now legal to discriminate on the grounds of [00:06:30] sex with such a position, it should also be legal to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation. It's a very narrow right, and I urge members of the house who are in sympathy with the basic thrust of Part two to agree to that, and the member for is interjecting and saying, for or against, I'd like to remind the house that that member is one of the members who made it certain that the right to England, of course, would apply from age 16. His behaviour was [00:07:00] a calculated attempt to make it an extreme choice between black or white alternatives and an extreme choice. Now he wants to apply the same extremist kind of argument to part two, and I would like to know if the member for and other members who are opposing Part two are going to take an extreme line here. Also, Mr Banks, Speaker. That was the member that just resumed his seat. The member for Hawke's Bay [00:07:30] that, um, undertook a great deal of pressure from some of his colleagues to vote on the age of 16. And it was the subject of a ruling by the speaker of the House at the time we recorded. He wanted to vote against age 16, but his colleagues said, No, you don't come with us. Hawke's Bay and they forced him into the lobby. We saw it, and it was the subject of some debate. Mr Chairman, the member is incorrectly [00:08:00] representing an earlier ruling in this house. Well, I think the member is is aware of the fact that we don't refer to rulings once they're given. Once they're given their their history. Uh, so I'd call the member back to the bill, and I'd ask him not to, uh, if he would not to use the occasion to Discourse on on Pastor. Mr. Banks. Mr. Chairman, I think listeners out there should be aware that part two of this bill, uh, is the worst part of this bill. The first part has been dealt with. [00:08:30] I voted against it, and so did a number of my colleagues voted against it. But the majority of Labour Party members voted for it. And that was the age of consent for sodomy at 16. And now we've got part two of the bill, which is even worse with far, far more reaching ramifications and very, very bad and deep. And that, basically, is in the most simple terms that if half a dozen homosexuals turn up for a job [00:09:00] and someone's looking for half a dozen workers, they cannot be They cannot be discriminated because of their sexual orientation. And in this case, because they're homosexual. In other words, an employer cannot say to that person You're a homosexual, you're a homosexual. You're not wanted in this job. I'm sorry. you haven't got the job. We're not interested in employing you because you're a homosexual. They cannot no longer do that. Once upon a time, Mr Chairman and I have employed more staff than anyone [00:09:30] else in this Parliament. Anyone else in this parliament? Much more staff, much more staff. Once upon a time, when staff turned up that we didn't like to look at Oh, look up because they were a bit grubby or their hair was too long or something else. We told them your hair is too long. We don't want you out. But now you can't even do that. So the right of the employee, er, to turn down people for any reason has been taken away from him and her, which was a very sad day for New Zealand and for private enterprise, I can tell you. And now if [00:10:00] a homosexual turns up, that person cannot be turned down for employment because that person is a homosexual. Now I've employed more homosexuals in my business interest than any other member in this house. And I'll tell you something, Mr Chairman. Most of them have been good workers. Most of them have been good workers. and in the industry that I come from, there are a considerable number of homosexuals, bisexuals, all sorts of sexual working in it and doing a good job. But what? That doesn't mean to say [00:10:30] that I support the legalisation of the act of sodomy at 16. I don't and I voted against it. And it doesn't mean to say that I stand here and will not stand up for the employers of this country and say they should be able to hire who they want when they want, who they want when they want. If you've got long hair and you don't want to hire that person, you should be able to say You've got long hair, we don't wanna hire you or any other reason or any other reason. If that person is a homosexual, you should be able to say you're a homosexual. [00:11:00] It's not good for my business. I don't want you in this business, But under this bill, under part two of this bill, employers will not be able to do that. Employers are being squeezed as it is now, and their right to employ who they want when they want is under siege in recent years, and part two of this bill will mean that employees will not be able to turn someone down who turns up for a job because of his or her sexual orientation. We live in a democracy. [00:11:30] Private enterprise is the lifeblood of that democracy. And yet the private enterprise, er, the risk take of the revenue created the businessman or business woman. The employer will no longer be able to say to that person, You're not wanted here. The person says. Why am I not wanting? And the person says, Because you're a homosexual, we've got six homosexuals in the place at the moment. We don't want any more of your life because you can't sack them once you get them in. Mr. Chairman, you can't sack anyone these days once you get them in so the person comes in [00:12:00] and you can't get rid of them. So before they come in, you should be able to say for any reason and even part two of this bill addresses the reason of homosexuality sexual orientation. The employer should be able to retain the right to say you are not wanted. You're not wanted. I don't want to employ you, but no. Under this bill, that person will be able to wheel along to a faceless bureaucrat somewhere and have that person hired in that job. The decision by the employer overturned [00:12:30] because of this bill and provisions in part two of this bill. It's a sad day. This is a thorough the evil bill. The member for Wellington Central Kren. She can smile. She's happy because it's going through the house slowly but surely, but it is thoroughly, thoroughly bad. 835,000 New Zealanders signed a petition that supports my chair. Yes, I am going to respond to some of the points that have been made, and then perhaps later on, we can hear from the minister of education. [00:13:00] But I think there have been some comments made prior to the comments on education, which I'd like to reply to. The member for Southern Maori talked about the case of a woman. A mother who has a, um who lets a room, in other words, has somebody living with her family, uh, as a border in order to raise some extra money. And she said, What would happen to this woman in the case of, um, one [00:13:30] of his sons having been, and I wrote down her words brutally sodomised. Would this woman not be entitled to discriminate in future on the selection of her border? Well, I think the member for Southern Maori and I hope she's listening to this should go out to the lobby or if she wants to come over here and read this. New Zealand Statutes 97 77 Volume one numbers 1 to 68 and look at page 401 Section 25 4 of the Human Rights Commission Act, [00:14:00] which says nothing in this section shall apply to residential accommodation, which is to be shared with the person disposing of the accommodation or on whose behalf it is disposed of. The fact is that the amendment moved by the member for Southern Maori is not simply going to protect that woman because she is already protected. What that amendment is going to do is to make it legal for anybody. In fact, it's it. It is going to remove completely from the bill the accommodation clauses. It means that if you [00:14:30] own a block of flats, if you're a large investor such as the member for claims to be, and you own a block of flats around an Oriental bay with 100 units in it, then you can go through the private lives of any of those tenants and evict any of them that happen to be homosexual. Now I Maybe that's what the members of the house want. It is not what the member for Southern Maori presented to this house in her discussion. It certainly isn't the law now, and I'm seeking to make it the [00:15:00] law that you can't do that. Mr. Chairman, the member for Southern Mai, gave us a very emotional speech based on the case of a woman who wants a border, somebody staying in her house and he wants to protect her Children. I think that is, actually it may be an actual case. The member for Southern. I accept that it is an actual case, but the problem [00:15:30] is that woman is already protected under the legislation, and I invite the member to read the legislation. Now it is no use frightening people into voting for an amendment which will have far more sweeping consequences than what the member for southern Maori has told the House, and her amendment certainly will have very strong, strong consequences. No mother or I presume, Father wants to be in a situation where they are exposing their Children to what the member for Southern Maori called [00:16:00] brutal sodomy and the member who dealt obsessively and heavily on Sadow masochism and pre what she called predatory and promiscuous homosexuals gave us no evidence whatsoever to show where in this bill that people are going to be forced to associate in any way or to provide goods or services for people like that. If people are predatory Sodom who brutally sodomised people, [00:16:30] they are criminals and they should be dealt with under the criminal law. This bill is nothing to do with that sort of behaviour. It is to do with discrimination against people on the grounds of sexual orientation. And that, of course, includes not just homosexual orientation but heterosexual orientation as well. And that is that is what is said in the bill, and the member for Tara should read the bill, read the definition in Clause nine, the definition of sex orientation. [00:17:00] The member for Tauranga clearly has not read the bill. Most of his inane comments indicate that. And I wish he'd just take a little time out of the house and go away and read it and perhaps read it in conjunction with the present Human Rights Commission and the Crimes Act, which are already there. Mr. Mr Chairman, the member for Tamaki, used the example of the Boy Scout movement and said that the, um, the Boy Scout movement actually get cooperation from the police and making inquiries about prospective [00:17:30] leaders. Unfortunate. That may be so. I don't know. And if the Boy Scout movement were to protect the Children that are put into their care, I think that is very commendable. But the problem that the member for Tamaki has is that this Human Rights Commission Act does and the amending bill do not cover voluntary organisations. They are exempt. It covers in fact, paid employment because it is paid employment. Mr. Chairman paid employment, which this bill seeks [00:18:00] to protect. It is people's jobs, their incomes, their livelihoods. It has nothing to do with whether or not you want to be a Boy Scout leader and the member for should just listen. Listen and he might learn, perhaps if you can show us the part of the bill where it says the Boy Scouts are covered. We might be prepared to listen to him. Mr. Chairman, there's been a few other things stated about educational institutions, and I want to leave that to the minister of Education to answer. And he [00:18:30] did, in fact, supply the select committee with a lot of evidence, uh, which has already, um, counteracted some of the propaganda, the forced propaganda that's been put about about the bill. Um, and I just want to finish by saying at the moment that the member for Napier told us that this bill, Part two of the Bill, tries to tell us how how to think that is absolutely wrong. And I would be the very last person in this house to try and introduce some method of thought policing into New Zealand [00:19:00] into our way of life. What it does is tell people that in certain areas of action and again, the member for re clearly has not read the bill. Maybe he's incapable of it. I'm not sure where he got to in school, but maybe the words are too big. He should read it to see that this bill talks about what people may or the the the sort of, uh, discrimination, which is outlawed in terms of actions, which is, as I said before in the list, broadly speaking, [00:19:30] covering the provision of goods and services, the provision of accommodation and access to educational institutions. Nothing whatsoever to do with what people think or to do with what people say. Lee. I got two. I'm pleased to to reply to the member Wellington Central and the move of this bill now before the House, sir, what this house [00:20:00] and what members of this house objecting to particularly is the repetition of one phrase in this member's vocabulary. She doesn't believe anyone else can read but herself. And sir, the evidence that she gives to the house indicates, In fact, she is the only one herself who doesn't seem to be able to read or comprehend the facts. And so I I believe it's It's high time that, in fact, [00:20:30] this member who seeks to give very selective comments to to genuine questions of concern about this bill should realise that there's a lot of people listening who in fact are more than ever angered and deeply upset by the nature of her response. Now, sir, let's address these matters. First of all, the question of the Boy Scouts, which has been rightly identified in Tiger Night as an area of particular concern. [00:21:00] And her retort is just a simple shallow that, well, the Volunteers aspects doesn't count. It's only those paid well, let let me advise her that in fact, in case she doesn't know, there are many paid Boy Scout officers in this country. And Sir, let me also tell her that in the case of America, where we have an up to date situation, the paid Boy Scouts of America are currently being sued by the homosexual [00:21:30] association because of their unpreparedness to bend to the situations where there has been a certain states the acceptance of such a law to date. Now, sir, it's indicative and interesting and significant that the homosexual community is suing that particular body. We have said here tonight that the Boy Scouts is one particular body that needs support. I've got on my hand the submission [00:22:00] by the Salvation Army in New Zealand and when making their comments on part two of the bill, they say, and pick up this comment. And, for instance, we would not appoint a male a leader in charge of a company of girl guides, for obvious reasons. Why should we therefore out of order? Why should we therefore, be out of order to refuse to appoint a homosexual male as a leader of a Boy Scout troop? We would not be discriminating against the homosexual because he was a homosexual, but because of the inappropriateness [00:22:30] of placing him in a position of risk both to himself and to the boys under his leadership, sir, that really says it all. A denomination that cares for people and recognises the reality of what discrimination really means, but in the context that they still say that this part two is totally inappropriate. And that is the illustration Now, sir, she also mentions about and replied to the member for Southern Maori about these predatory types. Where are they? [00:23:00] Who are they? These people who indulge in a sadistic practises now, So she knows full well that the militant homosexual community not only in fact talk openly about those practises, it is a part of homosexual behaviour. It is an accepted part of the lifestyle that they openly practise. Where has she been to make such a comment of nonsense to talk about the fact as though that is not part [00:23:30] of today's homosexual lifestyle? It is. And that's what concerns the average good person of this country. And the predatory nature comes by virtue of the fact that the promiscuity, which is inherent in homosexual lifestyle, spills over many people into a very declared predatory form. So when she talks about the question of accommodation and the fact that there is no difficulty, I think there was a reference we [00:24:00] are talking about. A contract has been stated there, sir. That is a contract which does not provide for the contingency she's given to the house. But I asked her also to say, Where is the evidence then, that there has been landlords who have discriminated against the homosexual community? Sir, this bill, this section of the bill is particularly obnoxious. We have gone a long distance regretfully to legalise sodomy. Why should we now [00:24:30] make it a human right? Why should we may now make it a human right and sir, just on it, that simple prefix there are 830,000 people and numerable others who are saying again tonight that this part of the bill is entirely unacceptable. And why should we change the law? The honourable Mr Marshall, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to take up a point which was made, I thought, with some considerable validity by the member for Hawke's [00:25:00] Bay, who sought to remind the House of the importance between discrimination on the grounds of orientation and discrimination on the grounds of practise. And I want to say, Mr Chairman, at the outset that teachers who are involved in homosexual practise can lose their jobs and will lose their jobs if they're involved in boys boarding schools or wherever in that practise. What this part of the bill is about to say [00:25:30] is that they ought not to be prohibited from those positions because of their orientation. The practise is something quite different, and I think, Mr Chairman, it's unfortunate that people have confused the two. Mr Chairman, this bill says that we should not be able to discriminate against people on the grounds of their orientation. We have come a long way from the days when a person who was a white male could virtually be guaranteed that he was free from discrimination. But we set up the human rights legislation to [00:26:00] protect women, to protect people from minority groups and to protect people from minority religious and racial groups. We now recognise that we must give some protection to people who are now discriminated against simply on the grounds not of their practise but of their specific sexual orientation. Mr. Chairman, some members of the House need to remember that the vast majority of teachers are heterosexual. Very, very [00:26:30] few teachers, heterosexual or homosexual, abuse their position as teachers. But there is just as much ground for concern least they should. I have no doubt, Mr Chairman, that there are many lesbian women who teach in girls schools and who teach in girls boarding schools. Complaints about their abuse of their position are extraordinarily rare. I can't recall one Mr Chairman. There is no evidence that homosexual men are more promiscuous, [00:27:00] are more active or are more likely to abuse their position than heterosexual males are. There is no research evidence to support the charge, often repeated in this debate that they will be actively involved in recruitment. There ought to be a greater degree of concern about those heterosexual males who are who carry the responsibility for 90% of our child abuse, 90% of it done by heterosexual males. Mr. Chairman, [00:27:30] this part of the bill gives lesbian women and gay men some of the protection which we now give to other groups in our society. At present, people can lose their jobs not because of what they do, but because of what or who they are. And there are many examples and illustrations of that from the gay community. It is legal at present to deny gay people basic human rights such as equal access to housing, to employment and even to goods and services. And those people have no [00:28:00] legal recourse. And Mr Chairman, it's time that we brought this fundamental human right to cover this particular group in our community. Mr. Chairman, I just want to come back finally to the point that I made at the beginning because I think it is very important a view of some of the emotional stuff we've heard in this debate. There is nothing to stop. There will be nothing to stop a school board from firing summarily a teacher who abuses his or her position by becoming involved in homosexual practises [00:28:30] with boys in a boarding school or wherever. And I want to use this opportunity to dis dis abuse members of the notion that somehow or other by the provisions of Part two, which remove the opportunity to discriminate against people on the grounds of the orientation, that somehow this gives carte blanche to people to do what they like and schools no school board in their right mind would allow that. And this bill doesn't in any way detract from the authority which those schools have now to remove those people from their positions [00:29:00] anymore than that would remove from them the right to fire people because of their, uh, heterosexual practises with students in the schools. And I appeal to members of the House in on this very important human rights issue to deal with the matters which you're in the bill rather than with some emotional supposition. And the member for Hawke's Bay was quite right when he drew our attention to the fact that this bill is about orientation and discrimination on those grounds, not about discrimination on the grounds of practise. [00:29:30] Uh, Mr uh, Peter and I feel I should take part in this debate for a number of reasons. But the principal one is this that, uh, recently I got a communication from a a homosexual group in Auckland which said that I was one of the members who was going to be targeted. And I thought I should tell them publicly tonight that they want to go ahead. That'll make my day, but they will be entering in a path or taking action, which they will severely regret. Make no bones about it. I know some [00:30:00] of these people are, and they will live to rule the day if they think that threat means to a person like myself or some of my colleagues. Now, Sir, the minister for Education had the audacity to suggest that there's no evidence to prove greater promiscuity on the part of homosexuals. He knows that all the evidence from overseas in respect to the incidence of AIDS and its massive spread relates in terms of some of its component to the high incidence [00:30:30] of promiscuity. That's why AIDS has spread with the speed it has spread. He knows that he gets up in the house having commissioned his department quite falsely, to spend public money investigating in support of his argument. He can have no mandate to spend public money to support his arguments on a conscience matter. But he has, and he has attempted to refute his colleague, the minister of defence by such expenditure and to come to the house tonight, sir, and claim that he has no [00:31:00] evidence in respect to greater promiscuity, overrules evidence that homosexuals themselves have given to this house both here and evidence overseas. He knows for what we're talking about. But then again, he's the minister who's who's scared that because he may not be the minister after 87 is doing all sorts of things in education, denying people their democratic rights and, worst of all, blatantly betraying the pre election promises of taking the country [00:31:30] slowly down and getting a consensus on these issues. That's right, that's right. And in most areas he's doing the same thing. So we don't want to hear too much from him in respect to an appeal to reasonableness. We know what his appeal means. Go with me and things will be fine. If you don't go with me, I'll use every devious sub to get my way. Now, sir, the member for Wellington Central has the [00:32:00] audacity to say when Every when anybody opposes her in the bill that the member that the member should read it. What arrogance. That member is so uncertain of herself and her emotions that she has to read every speech she makes in this house. She knows nothing of the law. I tell her right tonight that a tenant who holds that tenancy agreement now cannot be evicted until the expiry of that, uh, tenancy agreement. All things being equal, and it cannot be on the grounds of his homosexual preference, that's the law. Why try and settle something else tonight? [00:32:30] Why try and say this bill should be passed because it offers a new protection in those circumstances, it does not offer anything novel or new in those circumstances, and she should get up and apologise to the House for this continuous continuous course of misrepresentation. Now. Secondly, sir, she said tonight in respect of the bill, uh, that it would offer a new support and help or assistance of defence. In the case of people, uh, who are being prejudiced [00:33:00] against in respect of their gender. That's what she said, she said. Not just homosexual, not just sexual preference, but more, she said. And I can Well, she checks her hands out, she said, Not just sexual preference, but more. And I presume that relates to gender, whether male or female. Oh, I see. Now she wants to backtrack. Well, I would have thought that he heterosexual include two genders, male or female, please, Yourselves and lesbians. You see, [00:33:30] they're members, like the member for Hamilton West, who knows nothing about the law. I mean, he was a PP worker before he came in. That's what he was. The cheek of the man constantly moving from the backbench to the whips place to, uh, to posture, to posture in front of any constituent who may be here from Mike, how important he is to debate keeps his mouth shut. Now, sir, the fact of the matter is that is a no, not a novel new defence that she claims in the case of, uh, the [00:34:00] gender defence, she talks about nothing new in that. So the law is well is well enunciated. Clear. Everybody knows it. Any lawyer could explain it to her and I Why she pursues this course of false in respect to the value of this, Uh, this, uh, this bill, I don't know. She's the kind of she's the person of the course to try to tell this house that we should pass the human rights, uh, clause in this bill because, like the, uh, the homosexuals in Germany, they who were being discriminated against by the Nazis, we [00:34:30] would be so discriminating against these modern people. That is a palpable false, and she know it. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Chairman, I think, uh, I've been tempted to come to my feet to reply, I think, first of all, to the comments made by the member for Tauranga on the on the question of my previous employment. I tell you what, I'll match my accountancy degree with his law degree. Any time Chairman. I did it much faster than he did, [00:35:00] Mr Peters. Really? The the debate has got some parameters. But, uh, perhaps, if the member is wishing to raise that as a part of the debate, he should tell us about his experience at Wellington Teacher's College. I I The member will resume his seat. I call on the member for, uh uh for Hamilton east at the minute. I'm dealing with a point of order just at the present. Uh, I see nothing [00:35:30] really, That I need to rule on on that on that point of order. Although I would ask the member for, uh, for Hamilton West, uh, to deal with the the bill, the relevant sections of it. I understand. There's another point of order on the back. Very brief one, the Honourable Mr Wellington. Uh, I understand that the member for Hamilton West has endeavoured to foretell the day of the next general election and wrote to his constituents No, no, no. It's as simple as that wrote to his constituents accordingly, Mr. Chair of the Point [00:36:00] of Order is he chaired the Select Committee, which heard all the public submissions on the homosexual law reform bill. And I believe a relevant issue before the committee at this point is to use the vernacular, the credibility of the member about There's no look, the member, the member is just abusing the procedures of the house. He has no standing order that he can quote that needs my attention. And, uh, that is taking a mean advantage of another member of the house, and I could certainly disapprove of [00:36:30] it from whatever side of the house It comes, Mr Mallard. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Chen. It's actually pretty hard to, uh, speak with a straight face after that sort of point of order. Mr. Speaker. What? What I'd like to go back to, though, is the is part two of this bill, which, uh and especially to quote from the supplementary submission 372 A of members of the Faculty of Law at Victoria University of Wellington to the committee, which, in actual fact, the member was correct. [00:37:00] I did chair for a significant part of the hearing, chairman. It was a little bit hard to deal with the committee, considering the behaviour, especially of the member for Whangarei, who, of course, was ejected from that committee on at least one occasion. He's done it? Yes. The point of order you proper properly. I believe, uh, halted me when I raised a point of order early. And I accept that, but for the member for Hamilton West to chair the select Committee [00:37:30] to refer back to the procedures, et cetera, in that select committee is quite out of order. The select committee, Mr Chairman, has in fact reported to the house. We've been through the second reading. We're now in the committee stages and surely the member for Hamilton West who is addicted to, um, telling his constituents when the next election. I think the member has made his point, and the point is quite relevant. And, uh, I was about to intervene myself on the matter of relevancy [00:38:00] from the member for Hamilton West. Uh, the question of that select committee stage is now well behind us, and I want him to talk now specifically to part two of this bill. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear that whether dealing with part two of the other matters, one should always be aware of communications. Dated the first of April, Mr. Chairman, the Victoria University Law faculty made a made a very good submission to this bill. And I must say, Mr Chairman, it [00:38:30] it almost convinced me to vote against part two because what it did was show that this this part is actually so weak that it's hardly worth supporting Mr Mr Chairman in in a lot of in a lot of areas, uh, including the New South Wales discrimination. They are quite general in the, uh in the basis for which they forbid discrimination, and they talk [00:39:00] of homosexuality per se, covering both orientation and behaviour. This bill, as it is presently framed, covers only homosexual orientation and quote from them. The interpretation we draw from the New Zealand proposal is that discrimination on the basis of a person's known or perceived sexual practises [00:39:30] would not be illegal. This means continuing to quote that it would be legal to discriminate on the grounds that sexual activity per se was regarded as repugnant or morally reprehensible. Thus, a landlord may legally refuse to offer accommodation to persons who engage in sexual activities such as sodomy. By [00:40:00] comparison, they say, the they considered that clause nine of the bill is not as far reaching as the effect of the New South Wales legislation. The they in fact, go on to say on the third page of their supplementary submission. The New Zealand bill is in fact wider, more complete than that legislation and that it out laws discrimination based [00:40:30] on heterosexual and bisexual orientation as well, whereas in the new South Wales Act. It's confined to discrimination on the basis of homosexuality. It is therefore a more logically complete provision and would prevent discrimination against people on the basis that they were heterosexual in their sexual orientation. And for people who this [00:41:00] is not. The effect of this is not clear. I want to tell you that that means it cannot. A person employing in a massage parlour cannot say to someone No, we won't have you because you're not gay. What this bill will do will say that it doesn't matter on of what sexual orientation people are. They cannot be discriminated against, male or female, gay, [00:41:30] straight or bisexual all, all all six combinations that obviously interest the member for this. So I just want to make it clear. I want to make clear to the house that quoting again it will still be open for landlords, for example, to refuse to accept a homosexual couple as tenants on the grounds that he or she does not approve [00:42:00] of the sexual activity that she or he believes them likely to engage in. In actual fact, they are, they will be able to say to a prospective tenant, I hate you. I don't hate you as a homosexual, but I won't give you accommodation because I don't like what you do. Uh, Mr Roger Maxwell, Mr Chairman, and rising to speak to this part Provision part two of the bill. [00:42:30] Uh, I just want to say that, uh, I'll be intending to vote against the this provision of the bill. And in so doing, I've had the opportunity to reflect on the submissions to the committee of which I attended on many occasions. And I would have to say that having sat through a large number of the submissions, one would have to have compassion for those who have strong homosexual orientation, the 25 or 10% whatever individual submissions would have of people [00:43:00] in that category. But I believe on balance, it's important to realise that the bill will, in the long run, serve no useful purpose of my view and reflecting on that evidence, Mr Chairman, I recognise that, and indeed, there were some intense feeling from some of the people who made submissions that they were being discriminated against. And in fact, many people were very sensitive about that matter, [00:43:30] I believe, and as a result of cross examination, I am sure that some of that was because of the uncomfortable way they felt about the orientation. Uh, and my concern would be that by passing this particular provision, indeed, we may well lead to a situation where there there will be a series of ill founded allegations made with the subsequent problems that that will create against individuals who currently [00:44:00] uh, are either inside or outside the law. I would make the point, Mr Chairman, in this respect that the law will not change people's attitude and that when we seek to put law into place, it should be able to be effective. And I would suggest that no matter how many provisions you put in this particular legislation, you will not change people's attitudes. For example, you're not likely to change the attitudes [00:44:30] of some healthy young man sitting on a building when they see the attractive young lady going across the road, and you will not stop those individuals or others making there is of comments about some other individuals whose characteristics they may feel that there is some humour in Mr Speaker. Mr. Chairman I, an earlier speaker, talked about the discrimination that would occur if this bill was not passed. The group he were talking about was [00:45:00] described as of homosexual. I accept that they may well find that there is some. They are the brunt of some discrimination. But I would suggest, Mr Chairman, that they may not be any more discriminated against or disadvantaged than some other individuals in our community who may have characteristics which may from time to time engender some ridicule or O by other members in the community. To [00:45:30] chairman the question, I believe that we should ask when we address ourselves to this particular provision. Part two of the bill is, would should we deny rights of one group with by replacing it with dubious benefits for the other? And I would suggest that there's been increasing evidence giving here tonight, just as there was during the submission to the bill that in fact, once again on balance that we should not do so. And uh, mention has already been made of the scouting [00:46:00] fraternity, and I had the opportunity of looking out the notes Mr Chairman, once again, on which I noted as a result of cross examining cross examining it is undesirable to have people with homos strong or homosexual orientation, operating and having control over the young men which come under their jurisdiction. And in fact, they went further to suggest that it is undesirable to even place people with that sort of orientation [00:46:30] in a position of temptation. Now, I could go further, Mr Speaker, but I believe in the time available I would just say that that is a grand example, if you like, of a matter of, of looking at this particular provision and making a decision on the balance of the matter. And I would have to say, as I said earlier, that I will come out against it now. There have been other examples made, Mr Chairman, where exemptions should be made. The question Another question, which we must [00:47:00] ask, of course, is where do we stop, Mr Speaker? The amendments that I've heard thus far may be well intentioned, but as Mr Speaker, Mr Mr Maxwell. All right, Mr. Write to Mr Chairman just to conclude. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the call. Uh, the amendments that have been foreshadowed the ones which I have uh, heard thus far may be well intentioned, but In respect of the fact that the [00:47:30] 16 age limit, which has already been endorsed, I find that I cannot support the bill. Uh, those amendments that I heard thus far because of that reason they will be, in fact adding strength if you like to that provision on part one of the bill Mr Speak chairman, I started off by saying that as a result of the evidence that I've heard in the committee and the argument thus far, I find that I have to make a decision which is one based on [00:48:00] balance. I accept that some individuals in our community, as a result of their strong homosexual orientation, need the compassion of the community. I believe that as a result of this long and protracted debate that has taken place in the House and the public, that there will be a much better understanding for those people. But I believe that the bill is not the solution to the problem. And for that reason I'll be voting against the bill and this particular provision in particular. Thank you, Mr [00:48:30] Morrison. As I've already said in the previous speeches on, uh, this Bill, I like most other people in this country would not like to see anybody persecuted, and I think there would be a very, very small majority of people in this country who would agree. Indeed, I may only say one or 2% who would agree with, um, a section of our society being persecuted because of some sexual orientation. [00:49:00] But having said that, the bill strikes at the very basic beliefs of the majority of New Zealanders. The majority of New Zealanders, uh, from any walk of life have a have a basic feeling about what is right and what is wrong. And there are without a doubt, the majority of people in New Zealand has a basic deep feeling of unease about the second part of the bill, which seeks to give human rights to people of a different or [00:49:30] sexual orientation and a different sexual orientation, which, which, which many people would agree, um, produces nothing, uh, nothing apart from, uh, normal sexual orientation, who, which produces, of course and propagates society and has an ongoing society society. Now there are thousands of people, many people who have a [00:50:00] very deep feeling, and you're really dealing with the deepest emotional feeling of human beings. When we get into this area of of, um, the human rights part of this bill, I find this part of the bill far more difficult to, um, to support than the first part. And I think thousands of New Zealanders would agree with that. But thousands of New Zealanders haven't said that also have a basic, very, very basic feeling that there is something basically wrong with this type [00:50:30] of sexual orientation or they aren't Don't feel happy with it, or they feel very, very ill at ease with it now with a deal that also strikes very close to the fundamental, uh, freedom of choice. And we've had the, uh, case brought up tonight of perhaps a pensioner living alone in a house who who, uh, takes in a border and then fines. And that pensioner could be a very, very deeply committed, um, religious person of not necessarily [00:51:00] Christianity, but quite many religions. Who would find then that the border was a homosexual and may find it very, very difficult under the sections of this bill to evict, uh, that border because of, um, because of the way the human rights, uh, part of this bill is structured now. The member for Eden claimed that every person has a right for decent respect in the community. Now, of course, everybody would agree with that. But what has have to what has [00:51:30] to be remembered is that respect has to be earned. It can't be imposed on anybody else. It has to be earned. Also, we've had brought up by the member for Napier. Um, the situation in our jails. Now, if we assume that this thing could drift and that's and there many, many people in our society who have deep concerns about this whole area who have deep concerns about it, are concerned with the drift that we are taking with this type of bill and various other bills in this area. [00:52:00] It's the drift, the general decline or the general drift in a direction which they find concerning. Does that mean if we are going to have some some kind of, uh, sexual connection between males and jails that we will then have to be looking at conjugal rights for other people who are in jails? That, uh, leads 1 to, uh, 1 to wonder. Now I want to bring up a very very difficult issue which any employer who's employed people will find with this part of the bill now, [00:52:30] this part of the bill can make it very difficult to dismiss the person who is in the employer of an employer. It makes it even more difficult, because if that person who isn't fulfilling their job correctly isn't pulling their weight isn't doing a decent job When there are other people waiting for a job and isn't satisfying, the employer in a reasonable way could claim that they are being dismissed for sexual orientation. [00:53:00] And that would be extremely difficult, extremely difficult to prove. And, uh, a very, very trying situation on employers who are already suffering from a very trying situation when it comes to employing people. And it could leave itself open to be misconstrued in many, many ways because the employer is then left with the problem of having to defend himself, having to defend himself against a claim which could be totally outrageously wrong. But that would then [00:53:30] put him in the situation where he has to defend the dismissal of an employee for something quite other than sexual orientation. But it raises that very, very difficult situation. Uh, Mr Lee and I want to, um, pick up the point. When I last spoke on my first five minutes and my comment was to ask the question, Why should this law be changed? And so I just want to give [00:54:00] one comment that hasn't been picked up to date. And that is this. That the meaning of the change, sir, would be to introduce a new standard of right. What I mean by that is that in fact, rights will be given by virtue of this change. This law, if it happens on the basis of behaviour, sexual behaviour, so rights are otherwise associated. As we all know, in terms of race, religion [00:54:30] and gender, this bill effectively, in effect, be gives a new basis of sexual behaviour. Now, sir, that is totally inappropriate and totally wrong. And I wonder also whether the House understands exactly what is going on in the international homosexual community in respect to this particular human rights provision. Sir, [00:55:00] around the world, this clause, almost in the same wording, is being employed in attempts to get changes in various states and various countries. The same wording set is being employed as being carefully assessed to give the maximum advantage to the homosexual community. And the reason they want it is this. Firstly, they want to be seen as a minority group [00:55:30] and in the context of being acknowledged as a minority group, they are seeking to obtain rights that are not available to the average citizen. They secondly, want acceptance. But indeed it's more than that. It's not just acceptance. They're seeking status by the change that's being sought in this part two Human rights provisions section. And of course, sir, they thirdly want to promote their cause. And that will be indeed [00:56:00] greatly enhanced by the provisions that they will enjoy in this discrimination facility. Non-discrimination facility. I said, Let me return to an earlier comment made by the minister of education, and he has spoken sir about issues to do with the classroom. But I call him to task and suggest that he [00:56:30] has accepted very grave responsibility unto himself for the white washing and blinkers on approach that he has conveyed. So he has certainly accepted and acknowledged that there are homosexual teachers. What he didn't say is that within the teaching framework today, and indeed for some years There has been an organisation called the Gay Teachers Organisation. So the gay teachers have existed for years, and they openly [00:57:00] and blatantly talk about this time when this particular section will be passed and they will be able to expand what they believe is their rightful role within the teaching fraternity. That should concern every New Zealander. What should also concern every New Zealander is that right now, at this year, with applicants before teachers, college comments are being given by interviewers, and so this is can be documented. Would you [00:57:30] would you be prepared to teach homosexual lifestyle as an acceptable, alternative, viable lifestyle? And, sir, I have knowledge of people who have said no to that question, and they have not been accepted. I don't believe, sir, that I know about the other issues that may have been relevant to that case. But [00:58:00] each one of those people, in my judgement, were evenly suitable and highly qualified and the right sort of person to be a teacher. They made this tight, but it be robust. But the member for Hamilton West, who presided over the Select Committee hearing, is on this bill having announced the election date on the front page of No one believes this member. I mean, [00:58:30] what is the point of order his interjections and you come to the point, please? Well, I shall. It's a matter of interjection, and it is a matter of interjection by a member who is quite distant from his customary seats. I mean, it's an old ruling and an old convention. If he had said, Well, what time of the night is it? OK? But he said something quite different. And, you know, [00:59:00] I can assure the honourable Member that, uh, I'm satisfied. The member for Hamilton West has been put in that seat to carry out certain whip duties, and he's acting as whip. Uh, I'm not the he the member for Hamilton West has not been interject, interjecting excessively, and he has not shifted his seat for the purpose of taking advantage of interjections. So in that way, he has not, uh, in any way breached standing orders. And while I listen to the comment [00:59:30] that he made just now is a comment which does come across the house now and again, it's not saying that the person is dishonest. It's only saying that he's not believed That's quite quite a different emphasis altogether. Mr. Lee? Yes, Dr Cullen. Question a ruling. But I think I should make something clear in case there's any misunderstanding. The member for Hamilton West is not acting as a whip. He is one of if you like the co promoters of the bill, working with the member for Wellington Central, [01:00:00] working with the member for Wellington Central and is keeping the book. But he's not acting as a whip. There are no whips operating on the government's side this evening, right? Thank you. I should have recognised that there's no whip operating. Uh, I had, uh, assumed that because he was sitting in the whip seat. III. I don't think that that makes any difference to the ruling. The, uh for whatever reason, the member has shifted his seat there. He is not interjecting excessively. And I do not believe he has shifted his seat for the [01:00:30] purpose of taking advantage of interjections. And, uh, I have, uh so I think that ends the point. I'm sorry to have to correct my colleague, the member for ST Kilda, but the member for Hamilton West is not a cop promoter of the bill. He's simply sitting in my seat, and I don't think that that's really not a point of order. It's a point of explanation that I need to rule on and do anything about Mr Lee. Thank you, Mr Chair. You have [01:01:00] about a minute. Uh, I say about three quarters of a minutes ago. Thank you, Mr Chairman. The illustration that I've just given to the house about that applicant for a teaching position is not only disgraceful, it's abhorrent. But the fact is, it's real. It's real. And it's happening. And that illustrates to me. And I believe everybody else listening as to the implications and to what we might expect beyond now that is, prior to any bill being passed. Now, sir, we all know [01:01:30] that the POST-PRIMARY Teachers Association has repeatedly passed me, uh, agreements to say that they are in favour of the passage of this bill passed in, passed unamended. The even the women's sections, uh, has also been, uh, passing remits to say the same thing. So that's the That's the situation. And that's the current climate of the education system. And we are talking about exacerbating that by this bill. Mr Bray. Brooke. [01:02:00] Mr. Chairman, As I said in my previous contribution to the committee of the House, I opposed part two of this bill. I oppose it because it is unnatural for this country to be told by its parliament what it can discriminate against and what it cannot. It will not work. It is totally against New Zealand's nature. And the average New Zealander, irrespective of what Parliament may pass, will never accept part two of this bill. I want to tell the house why I think [01:02:30] looking at the experience of other countries, why New Zealanders will discriminate against the gay community of this country. I want to read if I may, Mr Chairman, with your permission, a few facts and figures that have come from Australia just across the Tasman, they are that 70% of all venereal diseases treated in Australia are homosexual in nature. Oh, well, I'm prepared to table this and, uh, you can have a look at it for yourself. [01:03:00] I'm prepared to table it. You can look for it. Mr Speaker and Mr Chairman, Rather AIDS reported cases double every two months in Australia. It is estimated that 300 men will die from AIDS in Australia within 18 months, Mr. Chairman, that will make people discriminate against the gay community. Half of the homosexual community in New South Wales have the AIDS antibody. It is estimated [01:03:30] that over 100,000 Americans have the AIDS virus. Half of these unfortunates will die within five years. Mr. Speaker. More young men die of AIDS between the ages of 15 and 19 in New York and San Francisco of AIDS than they do in car accidents. That is the scourge which is waiting upon us and without being melodramatic. And it's no good trying to laugh and grin and think [01:04:00] it will not happen in New Zealand. It will. It has happened in Holland. It has happened in London. It has happened in the United States. It is happening now in Australia. And as sure as day follows night, it will unfortunately happen in New Zealand. I'd like to ask the promoter of the bill whether or not she has read the article by Mr Noel Mosen, a former gay person in this country. I want to read to the house why he will never agree to Part [01:04:30] two. That gentleman says I oppose the current law reform bill because in my travels across the world, I have never come across a country that has put homosexuality on a par with heterosexuality. No other country has swallowed the lie that homosexuality is a normal life style. He is so true indeed, he goes on to say, and this will be interested. I know, because it is feared that there will be gay travel agencies in New Zealand as there are overseas, and you will not be able to discriminate [01:05:00] against them, he said. I went for a holiday in Amsterdam one year. Well, my colleague from Hamilton East has had his say he can have another one. I'd appreciate the fact if I could just have mine and he could just control himself a little. Whilst we can we talk on this bill, Just Mr Chairman, who goes on to say, Whilst I was in the United States, I was shown an article in a gay magazine about the New Zealand [01:05:30] Homosexual Law reform bill. It is eagerly anticipating being able to have holidays in New Zealand, which would include safe sex with 12 year old boys without fear of punishment. If you're under 21 that is already, it is alleged, is appearing in gay magazines in the United States. Now I have no definite proof except the publication of this article and the word of a former gay person. But if that is true, then we should be on our guard. Indeed. [01:06:00] And there will be discrimination against the gay community by the heterosexual members of New Zealand's community because I can tell you now if there is a proliferation of gay bars, gay dance halls, gay churches, gay community centres, gay massage parlours, et cetera. As has happened overseas, then gays will be discriminated against irrespective of what the law may say, because the average Kiwi [01:06:30] will not tolerate that type of behaviour. I believe that unfortunately, in spite of all the pious words that have been said by the promoters of this bill that this bill will promote the spread of AIDS when that happens, I believe unfortunately and I mean unfortunately, there will be a public reaction against the gay community of New Zealand. People are already refusing to go anywhere near those people when they should be [01:07:00] treating them. Nurses, doctors in some cases, firemen, others, policemen, traffic officers, et cetera. The discrimination, Mr Chairman, is already there. This bill will not help it. Mr. Chairman, The member for Hamilton Sorry for Napier has brought up the issue of this magazine, which was distributed throughout the house during the dinner hour to members called Shaker. And it actually has, on the front [01:07:30] a picture of a man named Noel Mosen who claims to have been set free from homosexuality. I think the house should know something about this man because it is quite pertinent to the debate, because this man has provided much of the evidence which I understand the opponents of the bill are using tonight. Mr. Mosen was in fact, in England in 1984 and he got help from a firm of solicitors over there called Win Stanley Burgess in getting what he called political asylum [01:08:00] in England on the grounds that if he returned to New Zealand, he will be persecuted under the present New Zealand law. And while he was in London, in fact, he contacted the Australasian gay rights group there and they assisted and in fact, they sought some information from New Zealand, which and some information was about the to the law, et cetera, was provided in good faith by the New Zealand Homosexual Law Reform Society, which is a very, um, quite an establishment group, [01:08:30] in fact, and it was provided in good faith by then, also by the Lesbian and Gay Rights Resource Centre. Both of these organisations, in fact, had correspondence from the lawyer of this man Mosen, while he was in, in, In, in London. He also, um, according to the Australasian Gay Group, there made sexual overtures to one of the leaders of the group and those were not taken up. Um, he told this person that he was in London to play with the London [01:09:00] Symphony Orchestra. Um, he also said in his deposition made out by Win Stanley Burgess, uh, that he had been excommunicated from the Anglican Church by the Bishop of Auckland. Um, he said in his deposition that he had been a leading gay activist in Auckland in the late 19 seventies. Um, none of these things were, in fact, correct. And it was interesting that all this occurred in 1984 when the fact that, according to the interview in this magazine distributed tonight in 1983 [01:09:30] Noel Mosen arrived in Tunisia where he was converted and cured of his homosexuality by a, um Anglican vicar There. Now, Mr Chairman, the the this this man's case is extremely bizarre. He left New Zealand went to Europe, said he was persecuted there. He has claimed that he has been a leader of the homosexual community in New Zealand. That is not correct. They have rejected him, and in fact, they have been [01:10:00] appalled by his behaviour and by the fact that he did have, um, criminal proceedings. He was subject to some criminal proceedings in New Zealand. And that is not the sort of thing I will tell the member if the member wants, uh, mates of his colleagues in the house who are in fact on the same side as him in this issue. If he wants those personal details published, that is fine. Maybe I'll do them next week after consulting with his friends in the house to see if they really want that sort of thing. [01:10:30] Said under the shadow of privilege in this house, I would suggest that they ask some of his friends in this house that this man is not a man whose word can be trusted. He is being used as one of the major sources of evidence against this bill, and it is quite clear from his own personal record that he is not the sort of stable object of personality that should be used in these circumstances. And he is certainly not a person who is acceptable by the [01:11:00] gay community as typical of them. Not for the reasons he says in the magazine here, because he was cured so-called, but simply because of his own appalling personal behaviour pattern. And I want the house to bear that in mind if they want the proof, I'll present it next week after having talked to some of his friends in the house to see whether they are quite happy about that sort of thing. Being said in this house, Uh, Mr Peters, we had a very [01:11:30] interesting series of allegations made by the member and the chair she cannot pretend not to be able to substantiate. Tonight, Uh, she gets up, sir makes every sort of vile allegation imputation that is possible to make all the innuendo in the world. And when she's challenged, it substantiated, she says. Ah, she will next week. She will next week. Now listen, it's no good. The member for East Cape flicking her eyebrows at me. I'm the wrong person. She's wasting her time. [01:12:00] She's wasting her time. Sorry, I know that. I know that hope springs eternal, but I tell her, don't waste her time. Reflect their eyes somewhere else, but not on me. Please, uh, to get back to the serious to get back to the serious debate, The fact is that the part of that man's statement which he objects to, it would be, no doubt the claim [01:12:30] of the high incidence of promiscuity. And I'm a sexual. Does she, uh, deny that there are research statistics overseas which would substantiate the fact that, uh, 70% of homosexuals aged between 19 and 55 had more than three sexual partners per week? Do you deny that that there is that there is ample evidence to support that allegation And if she does, [01:13:00] let us see. Let us see her look at some of the evidence which came before the Homosexual Law Reform Committee. Uh, sorry. That came before the Select committee considering the homosexual law Reform bill and She would then know that what this man is saying is supported by that evidence. And it's not good enough to get up tonight and talk about establishment figures as being the homosexual law reform group, being establishment figure that I would never, ever thought that would be the case. [01:13:30] But secondly, to talk about a point of order the honourable Mr Wellington very briefly again, one of the problems. One of the problems, Mr Chairman, is that the member in charge of this bill has a very, very sensitive microphone in front of it. I've had correspondence about her and comments and rejections in inverted commerce instructions. Now I would suggest, Mr Chairman [01:14:00] that the member in charge of the bill, like a minister, say, estimates or piloting a bill through the House should be required to restrain itself. Yeah, no, that's, uh, that's a a perfectly reasonable point to make that that interjections should only be rare and reasonable. And I thank the member for raising the point, but I'm certainly aware, uh, of the member in charge of the bill, and, uh, I've heard interjections from time to time, and we'll keep an ear on them. Mr. Peter. The fact is that the, uh uh, the opposition to this bill is not [01:14:30] going to be persuaded by the, uh, manner the member for Wellington Central. She can laugh and Scott, but I tell her, and within a very short time, within a very short time, she will be held as the principal person in New Zealand responsible for the fastest growing medical anomaly that this country has. That's what she will carry on her shoulders for the rest of her life. And she can, uh she can pretend that all the evidence which she has heard thus far is not what it suggests. [01:15:00] That is where liberality in this matter has been visited upon various states in the United States, they have the highest incidence of AIDS that they have the highest incidence of aid. There is no law in, uh, San Francisco preventing, uh of the type of which we have in this country existing today. And, sir, that has not seen an educational process leading to a downturn in the incidence of aid. Nothing of the sort. Rather, sir, it has now become the number one problem for young men in [01:15:30] New York. The number one medical the cause of death of men in New York at this point in time, and she would have that visit upon this nation. The fact of the matter is, sir, on the percentage of increase if one member in this house had it had AIDS today on just as an example of the community, something like 15 or 20 will have within three years. That is the speed with which it is growing overseas. And that's the speed at which it may well grow in this country. We have a chance here because of our geographic isolation to turn back. Uh, [01:16:00] this this is what has been described as a plague. And she pretends, sir, that it is a cause. The plague itself is a cause to support this bill. It won't stand up. It just won't stand up on any of the evidence. And the opponents of this bill tonight, sir, want to make that very clear. They can go on their own hedonistic way and pass this bill. Uh, we will not have it on our conscience as to the consequences and the results. We know full well, sir, that it'll be us so that the taxpayer will have to pay for the cost of it. [01:16:30] We'll be the ones that she will call upon shortly to provide all the educational funding, all the medical backup, all the research necessary to try and fight this dreadful disaster. She will call upon us the taxpayer to do us and the rest the rest of the community to pay the cost. And yet, sir, the passage of this bill, the way it is framed at this time, will be one of the principal causes for that disaster expanding and increasing in our in our country. And it's a sad day when a person [01:17:00] who may be thinking of getting out of politics decides that they will put their stamp on the legislative process by passing this sort of legislation. That is precisely what is happening here, isn't it? That is precisely what is happening is it, isn't it? We've got a member who is advancing two or three significant chairman just to get the record straight. I'm not thinking of getting out of politics. I'm going to be around for a few more years yet, I'm afraid, member, for [01:17:30] I think we should also get the record straight on the Who are in fact the homosexual law reform. And of course, the head of that organisation currently is Jim Robb, a highly respected elder of the Presbyterian Church academic in Wellington. And I understand happily married. Yes, he is. Somebody says over here who apparently is a former colleague of his. Yes, he is. I would say the Minister of Justice is the judge of happy marriages [01:18:00] from my experience observing his own marriage. Um, Mr Chairman, the member for I I must be corrected on one claim that he made he talked about the incidence of AIDS in San Francisco and New York. Uh, and, um implied that the reason why they have a high incidence is because they do not have laws such as we currently have, um, making it a criminal offence to engage [01:18:30] in homosexual activity. What he forgot to mention as usual, he has only provided half. The information Is that in fact, the highest incidences of AIDS in the United States are found not just in New York and San Francisco, but in the state of Florida as well, which has quite punitive legislation which has quite punitive legislation which has quite punitive legislation regarding homosexual behaviour and so I think it seems pretty clear. And when you look around [01:19:00] the world as well that in fact the disease of AIDS is no respecter of the law. And it is there are quite other conditions removed from the state of the law which act upon whether or not there will be a high incidence of AIDS in one city or a low incidence in another city. And of course, one of these characteristics is just the simple state of internal migration with an country to populations of demographic changes. The other thing is, he said, that no noticeable decrease in the growth [01:19:30] of the incidence of AIDS in San Francisco. That is quite wrong, too. I have not got the figures on me tonight, but I will send them to the member tomorrow. The member will be sent them tomorrow in the mail and I would ask him to read them very carefully and also perhaps he might be interested in hearing what was told to me by the San Francisco health authorities when I visited there late last year, when they when they said by the married couple that took me out for dinner. The man happens to work in the office of the director [01:20:00] of health in San Francisco, and he told me that in fact, we must have this bill passed in New Zealand. If we are going to be able to in any way deal with the AIDS we need it to be, we need it to be able to run properly and effectively the public health education campaign, which is the only way you deal with AIDS. It isn't curable. The member knows this. The member for Tarana knows that we have to stop [01:20:30] people getting AIDS, and we won't stop them getting AIDS while they're still in the closet. To hear that the member and the chair treat this debate tonight is just an academic kind of an exercise. She stands up with her clever arguments in her opinion, hands in pockets, refuting any argument that's put up concerning this bill or attempting to refute it. Mr. Speaker, I would imagine [01:21:00] it must be time when we spend the whole of this evening talking about rights. It must be time for the constitutional expert to enter the fray and give us his his opinion. I believe uh, I believe there's probably few in this house more equipped than the deputy prime minister to give us the wisdom and benefit of his long skill and knowledge. I would hope that he may take a call, [01:21:30] and that may encourage the prime minister of New Zealand to also tell this nation what he thinks about these issues when he's finished his supper. Why can't the prime minister of this nation also give us his academic background and the reasons why this bill should or should not be passed? I find it quite incredible that the member for Wellington Central would look to clever little points to refute the medical facts. If we were debating [01:22:00] the, um, the prospect of banning smoking or encouraging smoking, would you tell us that the evidence doesn't show that smoking contributes to cancer? Is that the kind of evidence that she would bring forward? Or would she resort to telling everyone else in the house that they can't read as well as she does? What a hopeless, stupid, innocuous, nonsensical way to treat the matters of [01:22:30] this moment. The people of New Zealand view these matters very seriously. 830,000 of them of them to start with, signed a piece of paper to say they didn't want this nonsense. Now, I don't know how many more than that would have signed had they had the opportunity or had they known about the implications of this bill. Now I want to ask the members on the other side, and I want to hear from the Deputy Prime Minister some time in the course of these debates and the prime minister of this country, [01:23:00] what they think about these issues. Surely the nation has got a right to hear from those two individuals. They lead this country, they represent this nation overseas. And I believe that we should hear from those particular individuals, particularly Deputy Prime Minister, because of his background. A point of order. Mr. Wellington, we're back to the chair, conversing with the Deputy Prime Minister. I can't Sorry, I can't hear them speak up again. [01:23:30] My point, sir, is that there is the potential for disorder in that the member in charge of the bill Oh, well, amongst other things, amongst other things, is standing with her back to the chair, conversing with the Deputy Prime minister when indeed the member for Moana is asking of the member for Wellington central proper questions about the bill. Now the member should be seated. As indeed she now is [01:24:00] Tell us what's the point of audit? Well, that you should keep a little bit of order, Mr Chair. Well, I'm I'm not sure. I'm not sure that I've got anything to rule on here. The, uh, the member was having a conversation with another member. She's in charge of the bill. Um, she she would she would want I'm sure to be attentive to to important points. She assures me that she's listening. I think, uh, I think we've got to take a word. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I would value [01:24:30] the opinion of the deputy prime minister. And I would want to know from him, for example, whether it's true that the implications of part two of this bill mean that giving special rights to homosexuals takes away the rights of others. Now, this is part of the tonnes of reading material that have been given. I want the opinion of the Deputy Prime Minister, not the wimp that's sitting in the whip's chair. I want to hear from the deputy prime minister who has some background knowledge in these [01:25:00] matters to do with rights and human rights and unbridled or bridal power or whatever the name of the book was. Can you tell me that it can even make those others guilty until proven innocent? Once the homosexual makes the accusation? Is there some implications there? Or truth of that matter? I would value the opinion of the deputy prime minister or the prime minister. This shifting of the pro the burden of proof once the statistic statistical showing is made [01:25:30] is a typical privilege given to classes protected by human rights laws. And I want to know if that's correct. Perhaps the member in the chair can give her opinion, but I don't actually have much regard for her opinion. Having observed and listened to the way in which she's attempted to answer questions put by members of this Parliament, both government members and opposition members, I find the matter raised by the member for Hauraki since we are discussing human rights tonight a very serious one. [01:26:00] He tells me that if the particular young lady who, uh, had this occur to her when she applied to become a teacher's training college student. Uh, if she is willing, he will present the evidence. It may well be that she won't want to do it, and I can't blame her if she doesn't. But I'm not gonna share the view expressed by way of interjection by some on the government side that the member for cannot be believed. He genuinely put forward a fact as related to him by a young woman [01:26:30] that at the selection panel for training college entry, she was asked this question as to whether she would be willing to teach the subject of the normality of homosexual Helen Orientation chairman. It's hard to know where to begin in refuting the nonsense, which has come from some members opposite in the debate on part two of the bill tonight. But if we start with one the later points or what passed for [01:27:00] a point made by the member for Waara Moana let it be said straight away that the bill is not advocating any special rights to homosexuals. The bill is about equal rights. It is about giving homosexual people equal status in the eyes of the law as they practise their sexual orientation. There is nothing special about that. It is a bill about equality. I come to another point which the member for wakana made. And I must [01:27:30] say that I'm one of many members who is tired of the continuous liturgy about AIDS and its connection with this bill, because a totally false connection is being drawn. Mr. Chairman, the only logical connection which you can draw between AIDS and this bill is that this bill will be a very valuable component of the fight against AIDS because it will bring the subject out of the closet. And we will be able to combat the spread of that disease in an atmosphere where the stigma [01:28:00] of criminalization of homosexual practise exists, sir. And when we take away that illegality which surrounds homosexuality, the moment we have a far better chance of combating the spread of AIDS than we do at the present time, Sir, I support part two of the bill. I am opposed to discrimination against New Zealanders because of their sexual orientation. I support the extension of the Human Rights Commission Act to cover [01:28:30] sexual orientation, and I must say that I can see no rational grounds whatsoever for people wanting to discriminate in matters such as employment and housing against persons who have a homosexual orientation. And I think so that when we discuss the bill, we should deal with the points that it actually raises and not the fantasies of a number of members who speculate on the wildest and most improbable [01:29:00] of consequences which will never flow from this bill at all. The member for Paara said that this provision of the bill struck at New Zealanders basic beliefs. Well, I don't agree with that, sir. There are certainly a number of New Zealanders who have a basic distaste for dislike, abhorrence of homosexuality and they are free to believe that in a democratic society party. But sir, because you believe something [01:29:30] does not thereby imply that you have a right to carry out that belief in a way which infringes the freedoms of others. It doesn't apply a right to discriminate against whoever you like. If you happen to be a landlord or happen to be an employer and I, sir do not support the continuing right to discriminate against people because you don't happen to like the sort of person that they are the member for Paara also claimed [01:30:00] that some homosexual people who had been poor employees might claim that they had been dismissed from their jobs on the grounds of their sexual orientation. Well, of course, they could make that claim. But you have to go a very long distance from making a claim to having a claim substantiated under the provisions of the Human Rights Commission Act. Any claim made to the Human Rights Commission about having a person having been discriminated against [01:30:30] must go through a very lengthy period of investigation. Conciliation, where there's a dispute about the matter, referral to the Equal Opportunities Tribunal and there really, sir, is not room for frivolous complaints to be lightly dealt with in the way that some members opposite have suggested. I know that provisions similar to this have been in the law in New South Wales and Australia for some four years now. I do not know of evidence to suggest that there have been frivolous complaints [01:31:00] under that law, nor that the law there has had a bad effect on local society. It's worth pointing out, sir, that the Human Rights Commission itself has supported the extension of its powers to deal with discrimination against the sexual orientation of persons. The Human Rights Commission was fully aware that this would bring its work into some greater controversy because it's entering a new area, [01:31:30] but it's worth pointing out that in the public statement they made on the bill in May last year, they said. Nonetheless, the commission considers that discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is wrong. It was the normal procedure that, whilst [01:32:00] the member and the chair may have some rights to take the chair more often or may take the call more often than others, in fact, surely the turn is for those who would be opposing the bill. At this stage, it's not a matter of one side or the other, but in terms of the physical setup of the house. But it must surely be the turn of those members who are opposed to this bill. And if it's a matter of how many calls have been taken by the member for Inver, I'm very happy to take another two or [01:32:30] three calls.
This page features computer generated text of the source audio. It may contain errors or omissions, so always listen back to the original media to confirm content.
Tags