The title of this recording is "Parliament: second reading debate - Homosexual Law Reform Bill (9 October 1985) - part 1". It was recorded in Parliament buildings, 1 Molesworth Street, Wellington on the 9th October 1985. This is a parliamentary recording and features the voices of Fran Wilde, Geoff Braybrooke, Margaret Shields, Robert Muldoon and Venn Young. Their names are spelt correctly, but may appear incorrectly spelt later in the document. The duration of the recording is 1 hour and 1 minute, but this may not reflect the actual length of the proceedings. A list of correctly spelt content keywords and tags can be found at the end of this document. A brief description of the recording is: Audio from parts of the debate during the second reading of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill, 9 October 1985 (part 1 of 2). The content in the recording covers the 1980s decade. The audio recording begins:  National level because I believe that the process of learning about this issue and of consequent attitude change which I myself had undergone over a period of years, would be able to occur in the community as a whole only if the facts were presented clearly stripped of the emotional clap trap which usually accompanies discussion of homosexuality. In retrospect, it was a forlorn hope. When the ingrained prejudices of a community are examined when the conventional mythology is challenged, it is an unsettling experience for any society confronting your own ignorance, Misconceptions and prejudice is no less difficult for a group than it is for an individual. The debate has been an emotional one, and it has been from many quarters a vicious attack on the very beings of 10% of our citizens and on the families and friends who give those citizens their love and support. After being the object of a bitter hate campaign myself and experiencing some of the hot breath of hatred which is breeded on the gays and lesbians of New Zealand. From the extreme homophobes in our midst, I have come to accept that there are a minority of people in our community who do not wish to discuss the facts. They are not interested in seeking social justice through truth. They have a personal and political agenda which deliberately plays on genuine concerns expressed by many New Zealanders who deserve better than to be used as pawns and kept an ignorance of information which will delay their fears. I hope that during the second reading of debate, members of Parliament and the public will take advantage of the opportunity they will get to listen to factual information. I mentioned challenging the mythology on homosexuality, and tonight I'll address some of the more destructive of those myths, in particular those on which the select committee was given evidence by credible and qualified witnesses. There's been much discussion about the possible effects of the decriminalisation measure, which I am proposing without exception. Those who have opposed the bill either publicly or at the select committee used as their ominous example of social decay. The city of San Francisco. I don't wish to dwell on the arguments they put forward, but I must say that if some of the most vociferous opponents of the bill would take the trouble to visit that place and speak with senators, congressional representatives, public health officials and doctors. As I did recently, they might speak a little more sense and a little less garbage. Mr. Speaker, what I am really curious to know is why we do not ever hear this sort of talk about other places where decriminalisation has occurred. The fact is that New Zealand is one of the few countries left in the Western world where men who engage in consenting homosexual activity in private are able to be imprisoned. Why do we not hear these cries of outrage and horrific examples from Scotland or Spain or Italy or Germany, or any of the other states of America such as Alaska or West Virginia, where this change has already occurred and the sky has not fallen in? I know that many members of this house accept the need for reform and decriminalisation but are concerned that the age of consent of 16 is too low, Mr Speaker, I understand their concern because a long time ago, when I first started looking at the possibility of initiating some legal reform, I too had many questions to be answered on that issue. One of the first issues members should examine is that of the formation of sexual orientation. The select committee heard evidence from a number of professionals in the medical and psychiatric field who told us quite categorically that international opinion no longer views homosexuality as a disease, but as a psychosexual variant, one of a number of possible sexual orientations. The New Zealand Health Department has drawn attention to the frequent observations made in clinical practise that the major causes of mental distress found among persons of homosexual orientation derive not from the orientation itself, but from the attitudes of the wider society and the laws which give them expression. None of the reputable professional groups who have any interest in this issue, either here or overseas, except that there is a cure for homosexuality. Of course, people can be persuaded to modify their behaviour and to choose celibacy or perhaps heterosexual activity, and others who are perhaps bisexual or basically heterosexual can give up homosexual activity. But basic sexual orientation is as much a part of us as is the fact of whether we are left or right handed or in some cases, aide, dexterous. Opponents of the bill have made much of a so called ex gay movement in the United States. What I discovered when I was there a few weeks ago is that a number of the prime examples still touted as success stories by the ex gay movement have found it too difficult to maintain the self delusion and are now gay rights activists in the USA. Also published recently was a booklet Mr Speaker, purporting to describe the social effects of homosexuality in New Zealand, and some of the members of Parliament will have this little grey book. It draws heavily on sources such as Henri Grader, a priest who is so rapidly homophobic that most major Catholic bookstores in the US refuse to stop his work and an organisation called Is I the brainchild of an American called Paul Cameron, who was expelled from the American Psychiatric Association for his obsessive campaign against homosexuals. He actually manufactured cases and used lies and misinformation to back up his extravagant claims. Fran Wild Wellington President Johnson, whose highly questionable methodology involved claims of cures amongst a group of married bisexuals who had presented with marital problems seeking to repress their homosexual tendencies and some of whom had managed to remain celibate or solely heterosexual for a period of six months, I was interested to see that the book actually begins with the testimony of a so-called former homosexual, Mr Gavin Johnson of Christchurch. Members may like to know that Mr Johnston appeared before the Select committee in Christchurch. I presume it was the same person, and, in response to questioning from committee members, said he actually thought that homosexual behaviour should be decriminalised with an age of consent. He suggested of perhaps 18 or 19. He was uncertain about that, Mr Speaker. It's clear that basic sexual orientation is formed in the early years of life, usually by the age of 12 or 13, a young person has realised that he or she is different from the peer group. In many cases, the feelings are not explicitly identified till much later on because of a lack of access to any points of reference where they are identified, they are almost invariably suppressed because youngsters know that our society is aggressively heterosexual, and they fear being the victims of so called queer baiting, which is evidently not uncommon amongst teenagers With their desperate desire to conform. Many teenagers and older people do, in fact, have homosexual experiences, but this does not affect their basic heterosexual orientation. Social research has indicated that as many as 25% of all men have significant homosexual experience over three years. Point of order, Mr Speaker, we have just had an important debate terminated by government pressure. The people are tired of this garbage under the guise of a private member's bill. Mr. Speaker, I suggest this house get on with the important business of the country. If the member abuses, if the member abuses the point of order system like that, he will, undoubtedly there will be repercussions for it. Would the member continue? Mr Speaker? As I was saying, Social research has indicated that as many as 25% of all men have had significant homosexual experience over three years between the ages of 16 and 55. But not all of these men, of course, are basically homosexually orientated, nor do they wish to be so, nor are they pushed into a homosexual orientation. Through this activity, I want to tell the house what Dr Hall and Dr Dobson from the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists said when questioned by the committee, and I quote verbatim what they said. Evidence is strong that the direction of sexuality in almost all people is determined pre school. The suggestion that seduction of adolescence is likely to be a major factor in determining subsequent sexuality is not supported by evidence. It is one of the common popular myths and does not fit in with other information on the determining of sexuality. We do not see any medical reason for having a different age of consent. Of course, members will realise that a legal age of consent is a pretty arbitrary thing. In Catholic Spain, it is 12, whereas in other countries it ranges up to the age of 20. In New Zealand that was originally 12, was then raised to 14 and is now 16. Most countries have an age of consent to protect young people during what is considered to be a vulnerable stage of physical and emotional development in New Zealand. There is currently technically no age of consent for males. We accept that by 16 years of age, females are old enough to determine whether or not they wish to engage in sexual activity, and that both men and women can decide whether they wish to undertake the responsibilities of marriage and parenthood by the age of 16. Over the last few years, I must admit, as my own Children have grown into teenagers, I've realised that the more removed one gets from that age of 16, the younger it seems to be. But I have to say that as one who was married at 19, I can hardly have cause to say that it is too young. The question we must decide is whether or not a community has a right to say that although some people can make those sorts of decisions at 16, others cannot, with the deciding factor being not the psychological maturity of the individual but his or her sexual orientation. Some people have suggested that girls are more mature than boys at that age, but the law allows young men to engage in heterosexual activity again. I would like to quote from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, who said there is no significant evidence that at age 16, young women have more ability to distinguish the consequences of their behaviour than do young men at a younger age. Females may advance more rapidly, but this is more in terms of social competence rather than cognitive ability. Mr. Speaker, there are simply no arguments for a discriminatory age of consent. I ask members to look beyond their own vague anxieties, conditioned over many years to scrutinise carefully the anecdotal and undocumented stories presented as evidence against an equal age of consent. I ask you to listen to the social research to the clinical experience and knowledge of professionals, and also, and most particularly to the voices of thousands of gay men and lesbian women who lived in misery and fear throughout their early adulthood. The other major issue I wish to address tonight is the proposed amendment to the Human Rights Commission in Part two of the bill. Some very extravagant statements have been made about this proposition. I have heard people say that clergy will no longer be able to preach, that homosexuality is wrong, that parents will be prohibited by law from passing on their own moral values to their Children and that teachers will be obliged to promote homosexuality to youngsters. None of this is true. Many opponents of the bill have also claimed that although they love homosexuals, they simply hate what homosexuals do for them. Such generosity of spirit is is catered for by this bill. Firstly, I want to say that the Human Rights Commission act, unlike the Race Relations Act, does not intervene in the area of speech. You will still be able to say what you like. It is concerned with actions such as the provision of jobs or housing or goods and services. Secondly, it is important to note that the proposed addition to the act would forbid discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Members should read the definition clause very carefully. They will find in it it talks of a person's affection or preference, whether it be homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual, and includes any characteristic generally imputed to a particular sexual orientation. Members who are uncertain on this critical issue would be well advised to read some of the excellent submissions made on the bill. The Justice Department report summed them up. Thus, the weight of current medical opinion, as indicated in the submissions, is that sexual behaviour in the younger adolescent years? Well, I'm sorry, Mr Chairman, I've reverted to a previous part of the speech at 16 years old. Does not perhaps the opposition. Perhaps the opposition would be quiet, and they might actually hear something instead of trying to deliberately provoke me, as they have been doing throughout the bill. Mr. Speaker, the best exposition of the probable effect of the Human Rights Commission amendment is in the submission presented by the Law faculty of Victoria University. This submission was signed by all but five of the 30 odd lecturers and professors at the law school. It gave unqualified support to the bill and explained very carefully the legal ramifications of Part two. A supplementary submission requested by the committee went into even more detail. It compared the proposal with human rights legislation of this nature which has been enacted in other countries. It said The law, if amended, will not coerce people into accepting behaviour or activities of which they disapprove. The law faculty members went on to say that Clause nine of the bill was much less far reaching and its potential impact than corresponding provisions and legislation they had studied from elsewhere. I strongly recommend that members read that particular submission if they are having difficulties with part two of the bill. My belief is that this provision will serve as a trigger to start a major attitude change in the community. For example, employers will no longer simply be able to say, I'm not employing you because you're a lesbian and I don't like lesbians even if that individual employer manages to find another excuse for not employing a person. And we've seen with other provisions of the Human Rights Commission Act that it's not always too difficult to do that, he or she will nonetheless be forced to face up to that prejudice to have to make an excuse about that attitude to other human beings. Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to part one of the of the bill and finish the quote I started from the Justice Department, which said that the weight of current medical opinion, as indicated in the submissions, is that sexual behaviour in the younger adolescent years, much less at 16 years or older, does not result in heterosexual boys developing a homosexual orientation or vice versa. Fran General, Wellington Central 16 Sexual experiences tend to confirm an existing sexual orientation evidence given to the committee by a number of homosexual men, both young and older, almost without exception, confirmed the above medical and academic opinion. Mr Speaker, as for the supposed connection between homosexuality and paedophilia and applied threat to younger boys of homosexual activity is decriminalised for adult males. No evidence at all was supplied to the committee to support this assertion. But there is plenty of evidence to show that paedophilia and homosexuality are distinctly different phenomena with no provable link. Mr Speaker. In the end, it is attitudes towards one another which count in making a plural society work. Legislation can only go a certain way towards making our social system work properly over the last six months have shown a steady and consistent increase in support for this legislation. Support now running at around 62% of the population members, should not be misled by a vociferous minority who claim that the people of New Zealand are opposed to this measure or that the claimed 800,000 signatures to a petition against the bill represents an informed, considered and freely offered expression of support from the adult community. Many New Zealanders, living quiet and productive lives in the towns and cities of our nation, are relying on this house to vote to give them their basic rights and law members who are considering voting against these people amongst who may well be numbered. Family members, friends and workmates unknown, perhaps as homosexuals should consider very carefully the impact on our community and on those friends and family members. If this bill should fail, wants to be young. Mr. Speaker, I have little enthusiasm for the manner in which the mover of this bill has put her arguments before the house. She knows that this is a sharply divisive matter that has been considered by the house. She talks about the entrenched opposition. To her point of view. She derides unnecessarily the opinions of those who are opposed. She minimises the fact that this House has had presented to us a petition with 800,000 signatures to be of little account. And Mr Speaker, I believe she goes far too far with her proposal. Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset, as far as the opposition are concerned, all members of the National Party will speak and vote on this measure exactly according to their consciences. The matter has not been considered by the National Party caucus as a caucus other than to consider and criticise the manner in which the select committee was cut off at the knees and was not allowed to complete its task and make a report to this parliament in what would normally be the proper way. That being the case, Mr Speaker, the measure is before us, and as individuals, we have to determine according to our consciences which way we will support or oppose the member's proposal. I want to say this to the house, the question of reform of the laws that pertain to homosexual acts in private deals with the criminal code, and not with the morality or the public principles or attitudes. This parliament can legislate no more for private morality than it can for public acceptance of conduct that the public in general finds unacceptable. The present law in the Crimes Act is criticised because it is seen to do the former. While I submit that the proposal of the member for Wellington Central to change the law attempts to do the latter by seeking to equate the law on homosexual acts with those with heterosexual acts. I believe the member and those who support her are in error. In addition, Part Two in our measure obviously seeks public acquiescence for the argument that homosexual lifestyles and heterosexual lifestyles are the same and acceptability except for the sexual orientation of the people involved. I would advise the house that I do not believe that that is the case, and we're very foolish as members of this house. If we do not recognise the sharp division of opinion in the community over that matter, I do not accept that there are large numbers of New Zealanders, many of the so called gay community, who live in that state of mind. In fact, the word gay is a far cry from the problem that a number of people a large number of people have regarding sexual orientation. These people need our understanding and we should not. I believe, as far as adults are concerned, place upon them the additional burden of the fear of conviction and criminality. And I want to say, Mr Speaker, I limit my support for decriminalisation contained in mismeasure to the adult homosexual. I will support only the legislation that provides for an age of consent at 20 Noah. I want to inform the member that I am not a prejudicial or a prejudiced person. But I cannot accept part two of the bill. I believe that in presenting a measure that is so, why, in its implications, the member for Wellington Central has indeed made her task so much more difficult in bringing homosexual law reform to this parliament. And in a way in which the Parliament would accept Mr Speaker, let me reiterate all members of this side of the house and speak individually according to their consciences and will vote similarly accordingly. I have indicated my attitude to this bill. Uh, yes, Mr Mr Speaker, it is with some reluctance that I rise to speak on this bill. Yes, The groans and moans have started in the years already. Mr. Speaker, this bill without a doubt, has divided this chamber. It has divided the whole of this nation. It has divided churches. All Christian churches have been divided upon it. Some churches have come out with fixed statements and have met anger and dismay from some of their parishioners. It has divided communities. It is even divided families. So it is a very divisive bill, indeed. And I don't think anybody would deny that this bill was suddenly just launched upon this house because at the last election, nobody went to have a mandate to introduce it. I cannot recall any mandate or any member of this house as a candidate stating that he or she would introduce this bill if they did. I certainly had no knowledge of it. And I'm certain that the voting public when the casting their votes, never thought of homosexual law reform as one of the reasons why they should or should not vote for a particular candidate. I listen very carefully to the member for wait. I believe that the bill he introduced a few years ago would have been far more acceptable had that bill been introduced today or a similar bill. The attitude of the average New Zealanders of Live and Let Live is well known. I believe that overwhelmingly, the citizens of this nature are prepared to live and let live. But Mr Speaker, this bill goes far, far beyond that far beyond it. Indeed, my own research has shown that the majority of the constituents who I represent in this house bitterly resent the cloak of respectability, which this bill attempts to give. They also resent the fact that Part two of the bill, which I personally Mr Speaker, consider to be the most awful part of the bill. Most animous part is what they find objection to to try and suggest to the average New Zealander, not all of whom profess to be practising Christians in any way to try and profess to them that they must accept homosexual attitudes and values and the same value as heterosexual will just not be accepted. And I don't care if the law is passed. You will not in my lifetime, I believe, change public attitudes because many people they are not religious bigots. They are not right wing fanatics find the actions of homosexuals repugnant and they do not want to know them at all. And to have it by law with a cloak of respectability to claim that they are equal rights to heterosexual values is just not acceptable. I know that some gay communities do not agree with that, obviously, but my own electorate has shown quite clearly how they feel. They reflect, quite honestly, my own opinion. I must admit a random poll of over 500 was carried out not by me but by a reputable person and organisation. And over 72% of them rejected the bill. I realise in fact, that probably provincial New Zealand is more conservative in the main than the main four main centres. I accept that fact. Yes, well, I agree with you. May I say that? The mere fact, Mr Speaker, that something is done by consenting adults in private, in my view does not remove the matter from public morality. Because if you use that argument and take it to its logical conclusion, you might as well say consenting adults over a certain age can go away in private and practise incest because it is their sexual orientation to do so. That is totally unacceptable, Mr Speaker Jone, Since this bill first came into this house, I attended several public meetings. I want to say that possibly my conduct at the beginning of this bill was not the best. I am a human being. I felt intense anger at it and disgust. I realise now that they are not the attitudes of responsible politicians. We must listen to all parts of an argument and then not let our own prejudice Blind us to it. I went to those public meetings hoping to learn something. Mr. Speaker, I must tell this house that those public meetings were in utter shambles. The hatred on both sides of the argument had to be seen to be believed. Anybody who genuinely thinks that the gay community are passive. Quiet, gentle people should have been at those public meetings. I was absolutely disgusted to see Salvation Army officers who, when they stood up to lead a meeting in prayer, were called fascist pigs. They were insulted and blasphemy. Blasphemies were free and flown around chanting here. We're not even given the courtesy of a hearing. They may have thought that they were being hard done by. Well, so be it. On two of those meetings, Mr Speaker, we actually allowed representatives from the gay community to come up. The incredible thing was that they were heard in absolute silence. Mr. Bray Government, their activities tried to give their point of view. They were drowned out time and again with absolute volumes of filth and abuse. Mr. Speaker, Putting aside the rights and wrongs of it, the gay community has shown that they are out to get their own way come hell or high water. I do not believe that they did their cause any good whatsoever, Mr. Speaker, a lot of discussion concerning this bill has been around the petition which was launched. I was one of those people who was active in launching that petition. Attempts have been made to discredit it. Let me just say that I do not know whether the 800,000 people who signed it were over 16 of sound mind and limb knew what they were doing. How could you? But even taking it into the fact that half were wrong and let's I don't think they were. But let's just take that for the sake of argument, it still makes it Mr Speaker, the largest petition ever presented in this electorate in this house, my own electorate. For the first time, I think in living memory, members of the National Democrats and Labour Party joined forces to go out and seek genuine signatures on that petition. And I am very certain in my own mind that those signatures collected in the electorate of Napier were indeed very genuine. So it just shows you that this bill even reaches across party affiliations. Mr. Speaker, enough of criticisms for me. I now want to say what I think is wrong with the bill and why it should not be allowed to proceed. There are many moral reasons which Christian folk far better than I can put forward. I do not in any way ever pretend to be a paragon of virtue. I will leave that to others. Why? One of the reasons why this bill and some members smirk, I notice. But let me be serious and say, Mr Speaker, this bill must not in any way. If it is passed by the majority of this house be allowed to be applied to the armed forces that is both the Army, navy and Air force. It would have a very detrimental effect upon the discipline of the New Zealand Armed Forces as a member. And I think I share it with the members for Oahu, Tamaki and Invercargill who have all had military experience. Let me just say to you that strict discipline in the armed forces is an absolute necessity for their effectiveness. Soldiers, sailors and airmen are led with their concurrence into an acceptance without question. the command of a superior authority. Discipline, Mr Speaker, is a fragile thing. And to have it affected by the affection or otherwise of people who go into a gay relationship in the armed forces could be absolutely disastrous. Not only that, of course, within the armed forces, there is a lack of privacy. All of us have been in large barrack rooms with 30 odd people packed in or on a ship in which they're slung from hammock to hammock. This Mr Speaker, in close packed communal living could lead to very serious breakdown in discipline because many people in the armed forces rightly or wrongly, despise gays and their activity. And I can tell you now, I have seen many a fight in a barrack room because a person wanted to commit a gay activity with somebody else who resented it. One of the other factors why this bill must not in any way apply to the armed forces is that in combat, every soldier is a walking blood bank. The Falkland Islands proved beyond all doubt that the medical services which are now right up in the front line when they require blood, every soldier knows his blood group. He has a tag with it on. Here is a walking blood bank, Mr Speaker. The effect on morale would be devastating if soldiers went or sailors or airmen required instant blood transfusions on the battlefield. Because you haven't got time to check for AIDS, believe me and your fear of contacting that disease through another soldier's blood, it is absolutely essential that this bill does not apply to the armed forces. It should not apply also to members of the police for very similar reasons for the disciplined force and law enforcement that that force has to maintain. Nor should it apply to prison officers. It could be absolutely disastrous if it was allowed to be applied to prison officers as well. You know, if it's applied to the armed forces, Mr Speaker, kiss me. Good night. Sergeant Major could well become a reality. Mr Speaker, One of the things that this bill has highlighted it really has. And I believe the member for Wellington Central just touched it in her address. And that is the urgent need for extended research into all aspects of homosexuality. If this bill becomes law through this house, any chance of conducting proper scientific medical research into the causes or the effects or the needs of homosexuality will be brushed aside. What we need, I believe, Mr Speaker, is what other countries have done before They changed the law in the United Kingdom, they had a Royal Commission of Inquiry named the Wolfenden report. Before this bill becomes law, it is absolutely essential from my point of view, Mr Speaker, that we have a Royal commission of inquiry into all aspects that this bill tries to create. It is not beyond the wit to select men or women to sit upon that royal commission. They can be drawn from a wide variety of the community. They should be given the broadest terms of reference travelling, if necessary, overseas to see what has happened to other nations are similar to ours that have changed the law. When that royal commission has then deliberated, Mr Speaker, it should then publish its reports. We can all learn every one of us. No one in this house knows sufficient enough to cast a valid vote in favour of this bill. Therefore, after the commission has published its in its findings for the betterment and the education of us all. There should then be a general referendum. Nobody. As I said in the beginning of this speech, Mr Speaker has a mandate to introduce or pass this law this bill into law. That referendum should be held at the next election. We've got approximately give or take a month or so, I suppose, two years to do it. I believe that that should be enough. Let the public of New Zealand, after an education report from the Royal Commission, decide. And the reason I say at the next election is not so. To scare the hell out of every member here who probably or may or may not feel a cold draught around their majorities is because it is much simpler to hold a referendum in the general election. We already hold one every three years now on the liquor report, whether we have Prohibition, national continuance and so on. I believe that this is a topic for New Zealand to decide. I know that people will say that they've come here to govern and that you can't have a referendum on everything. I know that the arguments will come out, but no, no. Bill has divided this nation such as this one has. I believe that if we do not do that, Mr Speaker, there will be a backlash from the community. This bill will not go away. A repeal to overturn this bill will come into this house. No question about that. It won't go away. And the only way to overcome that, as I said, is to have a referendum. Mr. Speaker, if we look overseas, we can see what has happened. Let me just enlighten the house on something which I don't believe many people realise in the United Kingdom. It is not an offence for two consulting male adults in private to commit homosexual activities. But the house may be surprised to learn to know that it is offence if there are three now, I just wonder if we are going to amend it. And this is some surprise looks on your faces already. But let me just remind you that will this bill allow three or four or five together to commit homosexual acts? Because the British law does not. And I think that it should be the same here. Mr. Speaker, as I have said at the beginning of the speech. It's a bill that has divided us. Many people have on both sides of the argument have been extreme. No question about that. I freely admit it, Mr Bray Brook. But one of the fears that have surfaced is that this is the thin end of the wedge. They believe passionately. And I've even got a cutting from a Hawke's Bay Herald Tribune here of the Fourth of June, where a gay church pastor is waiting for this bill to be published to be passed so that he can then apply for the possibility of gay marriages. I know that a lot of people reject that, and they say it won't happen. But who knows? Here is a newspaper report in which a gay minister is already waiting for it to happen. I find that repugnant. I do not want to see New Zealand pass into law anything which says that males or females may marry one another. It is unnatural. It is immoral. Mr. Speaker, can I just in closing appeal to the house for reason? I appeal to the house not to show hostility, not just have a shout and scream and match at one another. we will achieve nothing. There has been too much heat and not enough light on the subject already. And I'm as much to blame as anybody. But I say I appeal to you in my final words. Do not pass this bill. Send it to a royal commission of inquiry. Let us all learn the facts. Then let New Zealand judge it in a referendum. The right honourable Sir Robert Muldoon. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak not at great lengths, but to put a point of view which I believe will be slightly different from that of those who find themselves strongly on one side or the other of this issue. I'm one of those who supported the bill introduced by the member for Wait Tora back in the early 19 seventies. I do not support this bill, but it would give me no great cause for concern if these acts were decriminalised, because that was the attitude that I took at that time in supporting a much simpler bill and one that was not nearly so far reaching. I find myself, however, entirely on the side of the member for Napier, although perhaps I wouldn't use precisely the same expression in opposition to the suggestions and indeed the effect of Part two of this bill, which makes what I believe to be abnormal behaviour normal. And I think that there would be many thousands of New Zealanders who would take the same view that I take, namely that it may well be unfair and indeed unreasonable to in today's world put a jail penalty on these acts. But to regard them as as normal goes far beyond what New Zealand society is ready for At the present time, I'm going to vote against the whole bill and I do that because in the time since the earlier bill was introduced, we've seen a curious phenomenon that of the homosexual and lesbian communities deliberately creating for themselves a high profile in this society. I believe that it is unnecessary. I believe that it is damaging to our society and I believe they have in fact damaged their own cause by this activity. Certainly they have as far as my vote in this house is concerned. We have seen outside this building not once but many times, and indeed quite recently, behaviour that would alienate the sympathy of many new Zealanders who otherwise would have been quite objective in their approach to this issue. I just say one word of criticism of the member for Wellington Central and I don't object to her taking a great deal of time tonight to put forward her analysis of evidence that's been given to the select committee and material that's been put in the hands of members of Parliament. But I have to say to her that I do object to her comment when a considerable number of people came here to parliament buildings to present a petition, sang hymns on the steps and prayed, regardless of whether you agree with them or not, they came in the name of Christ and they were not, as she called them, obscene. And I think that she did her cause harm when, on that and other occasions, she criticised people and I, I must refer to the Salvation Army. I could not do what the Salvation Army does every day in caring for those at the bottom of our society, and I don't want to go any further into that matter, except to say that I do hope that in this debate we have respect for the opinions of those who behave, respectively. I come back to the essence of the matter and I ask myself whether New Zealand society is yet ready for this bill and I say to myself, I think No, I think no, I think New Zealand Society would perhaps accept the first part of it. The decriminalisation. I don't think New Zealand Society would accept the second part. And then I have to say that my own attitude to the bill is one that I've had on issues such as this, certainly ever since I came into this house and one that I've preached to new members in recent years when, as leader of the party on this side, I've talked to new members about parliamentary representation, the right honourable Sir Robert melding opposition Tamaki, whose wisdom I'm fond of. And that's Edmund Burke. That and it was he who said. But you don't come here to do the bidding of your electorate. You come here to exercise your judgement. They've selected you because they believe you have that judgement. And I'm not looking at 800,000 signatures, and I'm certainly not looking at the kind of threats that you dealt with earlier today. I am simply saying that as far as I'm concerned for the reasons I've given, I'll vote against the bill. The only ones. Margaret Hill. Mr Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the very many arguments that have been presented on this matter. And I must say that I am disappointed and hope that the member for Tamaki will reconsider his position, because I feel that one of the great dangers in this debate has been to succumb to being negatively influenced by people who have become so frustrated in this debate that their voices have perhaps become a little shrill. And I think we have to understand how those voices became shrill and to understand even more that there are many thousands of New Zealanders behind them who are relying on this house to exercise the kind of judgement which he himself referred to. It is indeed a topic that has created enormous concern from the moment that this bill was brought into the house, the same kind of concern that has arisen on the two other occasions that bills have been considered. And like many members of the house, I have read as widely as possible on the topic before making up my mind. And it is my view that there is no good purpose to be served by the retention of criminal sanctions against a significant group of the population who are gay. The reasons that I've come to this conclusion are several. Firstly, having looked very carefully through all the reliable literature that there is, there is no evidence to suggest that homosexuality is a choice or even a lifestyle into which one can be seduced. Secondly, there is much evidence to suggest that sexual preferences are established very early in life, as was suggested by the member for Wellington Central. Thirdly, although the determining factors are very poorly understood as yet and there is a need for more research, there is no evidence to suggest that the process is reversible. The best that can be achieved is the suppression of homosexual behaviour. Fourth, we know from all sorts of other literature that there is much evidence to show that most human beings need stable, caring, loving relationships and in fact, to deny that is to encourage the kind of promiscuity of which homosexuals are too often accused and of course, promiscuity is not restricted to homosexuals. Any person who is denied the opportunity for stable relationships is at risk from that. However, prior to the last elections, I pledged to my electorate that should a contentious moral issue arise during this term of parliament, I would consult them by means of a referendum. And I therefore arranged for the Cabinet electoral role to be updated at my expense and conducted a postal referendum with the help I must acknowledge of a small army of volunteers. I didn't believe it would be honest to conceal my own opinion from the electorate and therefore at all times I have made my own position quite clear. In fact, at the time of the referendum and when I sent out the letter that accompanied the ballot papers, I urged those who disagreed with me to take particular care to fill out their ballot papers and return them. In fact, the results show that 30% of those polled in my electorate oppose the legalisation of homosexual behaviour that is a minority of less than a third. This this result is in fact completely consistent with the numbers. Who signed the petition validly that is the petition of Keith and others from my electorate because although the petition has actually claimed 10,649 signatures for carti, careful checking against the role and the habitation index for the carpe electorate resulted in the verification of only 2442 signatures. However, I am prepared to accept that some some of the petitioners would not have reached all of those people who would have supported their case. And I also must acknowledge that there must be some Carty signatories on other electorate lists. And so I'm quite prepared to accept a threefold increase on that number, which would take us right back to 30%. Similarly, at about the time that the referendum was run, the Hale organisation polled the electorate and the results from that poll showed at that time that just over 33% of my voters were opposed to decriminalisation the honourable Margaret Shields Government poll result and the referendum make me very confident in asserting that when I come to vote, I shall be representing not only my own view, but just as importantly, the view of the majority of the voters in my electorate. The other matter which was addressed in the referendum was the age of consent. Unfortunately, some people 17% in fact of those responding chose to give no age at all, so they forfeited the right to determine the outcome of those stating an age at all. By far the greatest number preferred 16 in fact, a far greater number than stated. No age. I did not ask a question on the human rights aspect of the bill. I'd now like to turn my attention to some of the arguments which have been advanced by the opponents of change. May I refer members to the booklet, which was put out by the Coalition of Concerned Citizens and which the member for Wellington Central has already referred to? It was circulated. I understand to all MPs very recently, and this booklet is the source of the points I shall address myself to, although not I should hasten to add the source of my conclusions. The first point that is raised is I argued in this book is that the typical homosexual lifestyle is harmful to the individual and to society, and as such, should not be encouraged to support. This argument is, as further suggested, and I am quoting directly. Homosexual behaviour is different from being single and celibate because it is an active force against marriage and family life. Mr. Speaker, I believe there can be few people in this house who do not know of at least one tragic marriage, which has been the consequence of a homosexual trying to go straight to play out the heterosexual role. The results of such unions are commonly devastating for all. I would remind the member for Whangarei that I happen to know of one of his constituents who is in just that situation. Uh, perhaps they feel unable to tell him about it. The Nonn homosexual partner and the homosexual partner and most of all, the Children are traumatised by such an event. The experience is quite shattering for all concerned, and I feel that that is a travesty of the kind of family life which we all say we believe in. The second point, which is raised in the booklet is and I quote again. If homosexual behaviour is declared by law to be legal and valid, it will result in a growth of homosexuality in this country. This is a wonderful example of double think. On the one hand, the opponents of Decriminalisation have railed against what they call the repulsive and unnatural character of homosexuality, and on the other they would have us believe that if it is made legal, we'll all be doing it. The truth of the matter is, as I've already suggested, that sexual preferences are laid down very early in life before we are consciously aware of them. They are not a matter of choice. To outlaw homosexuality is simply to cause immense human misery. For some, the effect of removing potential legal sanctions will not result in any change in any individual sexual preference, but it will remove the source of misery and potential persecution. Again, I would suggest that the acceptance of homosexuality as a reality will reduce the incidence of some of the aspects of homosexuality, which people criticise in particular the forced promiscuity of those who must conceal this part of their life from their family, from their friends and from their workmates. Of course, again, promiscuity is not confined to homosexuals. Thirdly, opponents suggest this bill will and again allow for homosexual acts upon young boys who are at an impressionable age, and it will compel acceptance of declared homosexuals under all circumstances. Despite a broad level of public agreement to the contrary end, this is simply not true. First, the law relating to consent is here in the bill brought into line with the law relating to heterosexual acts. Secondly, there will be no change in the laws relating to indecency. And thirdly, the broad level of public opinion is according to all the measures that we have been able to take in favour of the bill. The fourth point which has been raised by the concerned citizens, is that homosexuals are typically unhappy people who often hate themselves and society, so that if homosexuality is accepted as valid and of no concern to the rest of society, it will tend to eliminate hope and motivation for those homosexuals who would really like to become normal. This is perhaps the most damaging and confused proposition of all. First, a condition that is present in 10% of the population can only be classed as abnormal. In the strictest statistical sense, it is much sounder to suggest that it is a normal variant in human development like left handedness and just as immutable to suggest that hope of normality keeps homosexuals with the prospect of happiness is nonsense. Acceptance and self knowledge is a necessary prerequisite for happiness, and I ask this house most seriously whether we have the right to deny legal acceptance to our brothers who are different from ourselves. Only in this respect I'd like to share with the house a personal story. The story of a family that were neighbours of ours some years ago. The mother of the family is still a very close friend of mine, and she had a son of whom I was very fond. We got to know him when he was still at primary school, and we started to worry when, as a young teenager, he started to worry from his early teenage years, it was quite clear that something had gone wrong for him. He had inexplicable accidents. First of all, he went away and tried to starve himself. Then he had a shooting accident, which nobody quite understood. Then he had an accident on his motorbike, and then he overdosed. He couldn't tell his parents what the problem was because he tried once and his mother, who is one of the wisest and most sensitive and certainly the most honest person I know will tell you this the self. And when this young lad tried to talk to her about homosexuality, of course he didn't come out and say, Hey, Mum, I'm a homosexual. He asked her what she thought about it and what she thought about homosexual law reform, and she replied that she knew nothing about it. She didn't really understand it, and she went on to say even more painfully that she really didn't think it was all that important. And he just managed to say he thought it was and she thought it was another of his causes. But he never brought that subject up again or not for a good number of years, and he tried desperately to change. He went to Ashburn Hall. He sought psychiatric help. He even tried to get married. But being the kind of fellow he was by then and understanding the dangers that he was placing others under, he called it off a week before the marriage. But the attitude of society at that stage on somebody who had been brought up as a Catholic who'd been brought up to feel that not only the church, not all the church but certainly the law was against against him, things got worse and to cut a rather agonising story short. In his suicide note, he said, I've come to the end of keeping on with keeping on. The audio recording ends. A list of keywords/tags describing the recording follow. These tags contain the correct spellings of names and places which may have been incorrectly spelt earlier in the document. The tags are seperated by a semi-colon: 1980s; Aotearoa New Zealand; Fran Wilde; Geoff Braybrooke; Homosexual Law Reform Act (1986); Lesbian and Gay Archives of New Zealand (LAGANZ); Margaret Shields; Parliament buildings; Robert Muldoon; San Francisco; Wellington; child molestation; equality; homosexual; homosexual law reform; homosexual law reform petition; human rights; law; pedophilia; politics. The original recording can be heard at this website https://www.pridenz.com/homosexual_law_reform_parliament_9_october_1985_part_1.html. Please note that this document may contain errors or omissions - you should always refer back to the original recording to confirm content.