Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: As honourable members know, the Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences) Bill is a bill for an Act to amend the Crimes Act 1900 to provide for the equal treatment of sexual offences against males and females, to increase the penalties for sexual offences against children, and for other purposes. I appreciate the comments that have been made by other honourable members tonight. I appreciate particularly the contributions made by the Hon. Dr Peter Wong and the Hon. John Ryan, especially as they have given us a Christian testimony of faith about themselves and about all that they believe. I appreciate the support that they have given for many of the scriptural positions, including family, children and the sanctity of marriage. Child protection is a Christian responsibility. But so also is the defence of sexual integrity within marriage.

For Christian people homosexual intercourse is not a Christian option. It is an option for people who are not Christian and it is an option for people who do not want to be an obedient Christian. But you cannot be a Christian who is in obedience to the scriptural teaching and live in anything other than a chaste, monogamous marriage of people of different sexes. The Christian Democratic Party recognises that you cannot legislate morality, and we would not try to do that. But we can defend the defenceless. We can care for those who are voiceless. We can speak on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves. We can provide guidelines for the uncertain. We can provide safeguards for those who find no other way out, as has already been mentioned by a number of people, apart from suicide, despair, mental illness, oppression, anxiety or any other issue.

Therefore, I raise a voice on some of these issues. Let me express some of my concerns. The first is a political comment. The Government brought the bill into this House and the other place as a matter of priority as a payback to the Greens for their support in the last election. It is a real scandal that the Premier did not notify the community that the Government intended to introduce the bill, in the same way that he did not notify the community that it would raise issues like the medical use of cannabis. They are important issues, and we will speak on them. But it is an absolute scandal that the Premier, in announcing and promoting these two issues within a matter of a few weeks after the election, should have kept silent right through the election process as if the opinions of the community did not matter at all.

The Hon. Michael Egan: The Premier made his views crystal clear.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: The attempt to hoodwink the community is an absolute scandal. If the Premier had some of the same concerns as the Treasurer then he would have raised the matter in public. It is not meant to be kept as a silent issue.

The Hon. Michael Egan: It was not a silent issue.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: It was not meant to be an issue not brought before the public. It was not to be an issue that was kept under wraps and then brought out only in the Parliament.
The Hon. Michael Egan: It wasn’t.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: The Treasurer should know, with his great experience in the Parliament, that in a democracy the people have a right to know and the people have a right to know early.

The Hon. Michael Egan: The Premier made his views crystal clear.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: On both of those issues the Treasurer was wrong and his Premier was wrong. There is no way that the Treasurer can defend the position.

The Hon. Michael Egan: The Premier made his views crystal clear.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: The Government was silent when it should have spoken. It was wrong when it should have been right. It kept hidden what should have been brought out into the open.

The Hon. Michael Egan: The Premier made his views crystal clear.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: The Treasurer cannot defend that. With all of his experience, which he tells us about constantly, the Government got the numbers only because it kept from the people the real essence of this bill. Shame on the Treasurer!

The Hon. Michael Egan: My view is on the public record.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: The Treasurer, with his experience, should have never allowed it to happen. However, we recognise that the Treasurer still has much to learn in spite of all of his experience. The Government was fearful of facing the people in an election. There is no doubt that the Government does not have a mandate to bring either this bill or the medical use of cannabis before the House. However, I am happy to debate the content of the bill now. The Christian Democratic Party is happy to consider the concerns put forward by the public. Concern about child exploitation and paedophilia is on the rise. It is something that hurts us deeply. On behalf of many people within the Christian Church we are deeply conscious of those parts of the Christian Church, Catholic and Protestant, in which members of the church have broken the law, abused children and brought shame upon us all. There is no sense in which we would exclude those, nor would I find one moment of comfort in trying to provide protection for such people.

As the head of the Wesley Mission I provide and am responsible for the employment of a large number of people. We have some 3,500 staff and employ about 200 additional staff every two months. In every introduction to our orientation program for new staff members, which we deliver every two months, we make the point that if they injure the vulnerable, if they hurt those who are children, if they make it more difficult for the disabled, if they steal from people who are defenceless, if they abuse people who are suffering from any form of illness, whether it be vulnerable women or children in care—in one year we have 5,800 children in care—they will be dismissed immediately and handed over to the police, and a chaplain will be appointed to visit and explain to their family. But they will be dismissed, they will be charged and they will be brought before the bar of justice. We will never conduct an inquiry, but we will hand over to the court processes anybody who abuses.

If that process had been followed the Governor General, Dr Peter Hollingworth, would not be in his current position and much of the Catholic Church would not be viewed as it is today. We have no support for paedophilia, paedophiles or those in positions of trust who abuse others. I will refer to this again later. However, with the rising tide of concern about child exploitation and paedophilia it is absolutely the wrong time to seek to lower the age of consent. The public expects the toughening of the law not an easing of it. The public expects protection of children and youth, not their increased accessibility to adults. Because of the increase in abuse against young females as well as young males we need stronger laws to apply to those who abuse children regardless of background and whether they are in family units. All abuse against children is abhorrent. The Christian Democratic Party welcomes provisions within the bill that will strengthen the penalties against those who abuse children.

Most honourable members would know that the most frequent excuse given by those who abuse children and others is that they thought the child was older. This will no longer be an excuse where the child is under 16 years of age. But lowering the age of consent to 16 will add to the age confusion. It will become more difficult to determine the age of such a person. Although we welcome increased penalties for those who would use this excuse, it will become much more difficult to determine the age of a person being abused. If the onus is upon shopkeepers to determine the age of a person to whom they sell tobacco products, or if the onus of proof is upon a hotelier to ensure that the person is of right age, the onus of proof ought to be on anyone who has sexual intercourse with a young person.

[The Deputy-President (The Hon. Christine Robertson) left the chair at 6.30 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [7.30 p.m.]: Before the dinner break I was saying I had concerns about the Government not announcing its intention to introduce this bill, or the bill relating to the medical use of cannabis, and that this was an attempt to hoodwink the community. The Treasurer then suggested that the views of Government members were well known. I contend that the views of Government members do not necessarily amount to policy. During the dinner break I noted in today’s newspaper the following comment by the journalist David Penberthy.

Having been less than candid with voters about two contentious social policies, Bob Carr yesterday seemed less than prepared.

On the age of consent and the cannabis reforms, the Premier has become tangled in the details of both proposals.

The implications of the retrospectivity clause in the consent Bill, and the confusion over the home cultivation of marijuana, are important questions hanging over these reforms.

They are likely to be the subject of flip-flopping by Mr Carr.

His former minister, Richard Amery, said in opposing the consent bill yesterday that neither party had mentioned the proposal during the election campaign.

A fair point. With an open debate ahead of the election, Mr Carr could have not only kept the voters in the picture, but sorted out the details of these proposals.

I agree with David Penberthy. Earlier I said there was growing public concern about child exploitation and paedophilia, which are more prevalent today than at any time over the 40 years I have been involved in public policy. It seems foolish to lower the age of consent at the very time when the public expects a toughening of the law. The most frequent excuse given by those who abuse children is that they thought the child was older. I am pleased that the bill will ensure that this will no longer be an excuse.

Lowering the age of consent will only aid confusion about age: it will make it more difficult to determine the age of a person. A number of members have said that the suicide rate among young gay men is higher than that for heterosexual young men. Indeed, one member sought to make the point that the suicide rate is 300 times higher in young gay men. That is not true. In fact, it is 300 per cent higher. It seems that the member may have been confusing figures with percentages. However, suicide by any young men, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual, is to be deplored.

Lowering the age of consent will increase feelings of confusion, uncertainty and guilt—which are the major causes of suicide—among those who have not yet emotionally matured. It will simply push those feelings back not to 16 years of age but 14 years of age. It is true that heterosexual youth are 300 per cent less likely to suicide. There is an uncertainty because heterosexual youth know what are acceptable standards, and by staying within them they are less likely to suicide. The key point in the argument about suicide is certainty of bounds. Lowering the age of consent will simply create greater confusion.

Obviously, no member of this House wants to see a lowering of the age of suicide. Yet, that will be one of the unintended outcomes of lowering the age of consent. If an age of consent of 16 creates confusion, guilt and uncertainty in 16-year-olds, imagine what it will do in 14-year-olds! We do not believe in lowering the age of suicide. I have been committed to eradicating suicide in the community. Over many years I have run a number of programs, including LifeForce, one of the largest community-based anti-suicide and suicide prevention programs. We do not want our officers working with low-aged suicide.

The Christian Democratic Party would affirm equality of age for male and female heterosexual and homosexual young people. However, because of the uncertainties at 16 years of age, we urge the raising of the age of consent for males and females to 18 years. Rather than lower the age of consent for boys having homosexual sex to that of heterosexual girls, equate them at 18 years of age. Eighteen years of age is the usual age for leaving school these days, it is the age at which young people are able to buy tobacco products, and it is the age at which they can buy alcohol. If 18 is the age at which young people can buy alcohol or tobacco or leave school, it would seem that 18 is a good minimum age at which a person can have a sexual experience. I will speak about the current practice in a moment.

We welcome the provisions that enable the prosecution of all authority figures—such as parents, teachers, step-parents, and church and club leaders—who abuse children. There can be no excuse for predators in a position of authority abusing young children. I am concerned about the term “consensual relationship”, a term that has been bandied around this House and the other place by a number of members. Anyone with experience in counselling young people who have been abused knows that many older people are able to coerce younger people and thereby claim consent. Manipulation is their methodology. The term “consensual relationship” is simply loaded with problems. I encourage honourable members to avoid that phrase in their discussion.

The Christian Democratic Party is concerned that those who are against lowering the age of consent are under attack both in the press and within some lobby groups, and are called, in a slurring and abusive fashion, homophobic. Trying to protect youth from HIV-AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases, and emotional and psychological confusion is far from being homophobic. I am very concerned about homosexual rape in prisons. I have a track record of being concerned for prisoners who are subject to sexually transmitted diseases and HIV-AIDS. Through the Wesley Mission I have placed staff within prisons to develop a system of support for prisoners who suffer from homosexual rape.

I note that the National Centre in HIV Social Research found that 81 per cent of all students show negative attitudes towards homosexuality. I would encourage students to learn more about sexuality and to never equate their views with violence, aggression or homophobia. I am concerned that some people want to lower the age of consent, and that that would create confusion with school age males. They are the ones who are less able to deal with some of the problems they already have to face, namely, some emotional, psychological and psychiatric issues. I believe that lowering the age of consent will increase the incidence of disease among younger people and will increase suicide among young males. LifeForce, the counselling and training service that operates in communities in regional areas throughout Australia, has been successful in training thousands of people in the community to note the signs of suicide in young people, to identify those who are most at risk, and to seek to put in place strategies that will help the community to support young men.

Most young men who commit suicide are aged between 16 and 24 years. In rural areas they mainly do so by using their father’s gun. Most of them are unemployed and live in small rural towns with populations of fewer than 10,000. That is why over past years I have been responsible with my staff for working in scores, if not hundreds, of small rural communities to train sporting coaches, high school principals, doctors, social workers, and local shire and community health service workers how to recognise the signs of sexuality that are causing people to be terribly confused or loaded with guilt which may lead them to commit suicide. I am pleased to say that this work has had quite a considerable beneficial impact. Honourable members may be aware that at long last, after successive years of increased youth suicide rates, in recent years there has been a levelling off of the gross numbers of young men who kill themselves, and now the beginning of a decline. I hope that will continue.

There is no provision in the bill for increased government support for counselling services, although mention is made in passing that counselling is extremely important. The organisation I have served for the past 25 years, Wesley Mission, runs Lifeline, which has 70 centres throughout Australia. Lifeline has taken something between three million and four million calls over 40 years. We literally take suicide calls daily and we have made quite a contribution to the improved mental health and wellbeing of the citizens of Australia. Yet I note that the Government’s bill makes no provision to support counselling services, despite the fact that lowering the age of consent will result in an increased demand on all counselling services to work with young people who are working through sexual identity crisis issues.

This week I listened to concerns of the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby. It was one of many occasions when I have sat down with gay and lesbian young people to discuss their concerns and beliefs, and I appreciated the contribution they had to make. They said that young gay men are less likely to seek information about sexual health, including sexually transmitted diseases and HIV-AIDS, because of the fear of prosecution. There is an easy way of handling that, but apparently that has not occurred to anybody on the Governments side. If young people are fearful about asking for health information, there is no reason why we could not pass a bill that excludes doctors, teachers, counsellors and health workers from prosecution for responding to requests for advice on health issues and safe-sex matters.

The fear of young people that they will be prosecuted or reported to the Department of Community Services, or that the doctor or health professional will be reported and prosecuted, is in fact baseless. No medical practitioner has been prosecuted for giving correct advice on health issues. Nevertheless, the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby persists in this belief. The Government could quite easily assuage this belief, not by lowering the age of consent for young people but by making sure that doctors, teachers, counsellors, health professionals and the like are excluded from prosecution if they respond to a request for advice on health issues and safe-sex matters.

The Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby also said to me that they believe that the current law contributes to low self-esteem among many gay young people. The intriguing point is that when we seek to protect their welfare, guard their health and protect them from exploitation, we would not think that would lower their self-esteem. It should raise their self-esteem because it means there are heterosexual people in the community who value them, who value their good health, and who want to protect them from exploitation.

I recognise that some people believe they are born gay. The incidence of that has been a matter of dispute over some years. Some years ago there was a belief that 10 per cent of people are born gay, but that figure is not accepted by researchers anywhere in the world. In fact, most of the research shows that the incidence is between 1 per cent and 1.7 per cent. I would not argue about a percentage point, but I want to say that while we believe that the role of legislation is to protect minorities—irrespective of whether they are 1 per cent of the community or slightly more—we believe also that that protection has to be based on truth. One of the representations perpetrated in this debate is that some of these issues purportedly affect far greater numbers of people than is the reality.

I wrote to honourable members of the Legislative Council to convey some very personal views. I place on record my appreciation of the number of letters I received from honourable members thanking me for being open and honest with them about my own background and understanding of this issue. In my note to honourable members I said I have three concerns. Whilst respecting their views and being what I regard as very gentle in my presentation to them, I urged them to vote against the bill.

I said I knew from my own experience what it was like to be approached by paedophiles. In my earlier life I was much slimmer and fairer and more athletic. The all boys government high school I attended had a number of paedophiles on the teaching staff, and a number of them had a very bad reputation for approaching boys. During my six years there, every single one of my group of friends was approached by one or more of those teachers. Two of the teachers were later convicted and sentenced to gaol, but not until after we had passed through their hands, if honourable members will pardon that terrible pun. I was also a member of an all boys community choir. Among the choir leaders and choir conductors were a number of paedophiles who, year after year, approached many of the boys for sexual encounters. A number of them were very effective in the way they managed to get young boys into their home and within the field of abuse.

Only one of those men was convicted. To my knowledge the rest escaped prosecution, despite the fact that to my knowledge they probably abused several hundred boys. Throughout my school life I was an athlete and a footballer. In both clubs there were older men who preyed upon younger boys for sexual exploitation. To my knowledge, none of them was ever prosecuted. I also went to a gymnasium where I lifted weights and did body building. Again, among the instructors were some paedophiles. Right through that early period in my life, in almost every significant area of contact between the ages of 9 and 17 years, I was aware that scores of boys were abused. I passed through that age group and left all of that behind, but the abusers continued, moving with every new generation of young boys who came into the school classes, the choir, the athletic teams, the football teams, those who attended the gymnasium, and the like.

Since becoming an adult I have worked in a number of fields. I worked for some years as a probation and parole officer. In my experience in that field, every single young man with whom I came in contact on parole in the prison system or on probation had been sexually abused. Most had been raped by men who were many years older. There was no question in my mind that boys over the age of 16 who had been sexually abused—and I refer to boys of 16 basically because they were the only people I came into contact with on parole or probation—had become antisocial as a result; they were not fitting into the community and they were not relating to their parents or to their peers.

Over the past 25 years I have been involved in lecturing counsellors. I have trained some 2,000 counsellors in that time, and I have found from lecturing on issues relating to sexual abuse people with psychiatric disorders and those suffering emotional and mental conflict, that the level of sexual abuse among clients rates very highly. In more recent years I have had the privilege and responsibility of running the largest network of psychiatric hospitals in New South Wales. Included in this network are public institutes that treat eating disorders such as bulimia, anorexia nervosa and others. Seventy-two psychiatrists work with us in this network, and in discussions with them I have found that that almost inevitably the problems of patients stem from the fact that they have been sexually abused—and not only as little children but also as teenagers.

My third area of concern is of a personal nature, and it arises from my experience as a young teenager, my professional experience as a counsellor and trainer of others, and in my role as a parole and probation officer. I realise that there are many people who want this bill passed, including a lot of people who want it passed most eagerly. Many people in good conscience support this bill. I respect that and I honour people for their point of view. However, there are some who support this view—I am not saying they are members of this House—and who want to support this bill for the most doubtful of all motives: they want homosexual acts with youths as young as possible. We must not do anything to encourage those who find enjoyment in abusing others.

I foreshadow that in Committee I will move an amendment seeking to split this bill so that members can vote on lowering the age of consent quite separately from issues concerning child protection provisions of the bill, which I know that all members of the House would respect and would be anxious to support. I also have received many letters and emails from people who want members to speak as I have spoken tonight. I note that Archbishop George Pell made the very interesting point that he believes the Parliament should not enshrine in law the fact that homosexual partnering equates to heterosexual marriage. He is not only speaking from his experience in Roman Catholic and Christian doctrines; he is also making a very significant point on community relationships as a whole. Homosexual partnering, no matter how loving or endearing, does not equate to heterosexual marriage. Archbishop Jenson has indicated the viewpoint of the Anglican Church. I will not read his letter because a number of members have already made reference to some of the points in it.

I conclude this part of my contribution by saying that Christians must not only believe in doctrine, they must also learn to behave. Every Christian is under this trust and obey concept. We must believe what is right and we must also practise what is right. There is no place within the Christian faith or belief for those who say they believe but do not practise the morality that is given to them. I personally have no time for those who say they are Christian but then behave in an unChristian fashion. I have not spoken about this matter to my esteemed leader, the Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, but I remind him that he was a guest some time ago on the television program “Hypothetical” presented by the lawyer Geoffrey Robertson. I recall that Reverend Nile was seated deliberately alongside a well-known lesbian who claims her Christian belief enriches her immoral behaviour, not restricts it.

Robertson asked Reverend Nile if he thought it would be desirable for Australia to have a Christian Prime Minister. Anybody knowing Robertson could see the trap in the question, and I am quite sure Reverend Nile was alert to it at that time. But it was expected that he would say, “Of course I believe Australia desired a Christian Prime Minister”. “Well”, retorted Robinson, “what about this lesbian Christian sitting next to you as Prime Minister?” He said, “Her example might make an additional 50,000 Christians; she might also influence 5,000 people to become lesbians—would you like that?” Robertson thought in his usual way that he had placed the Reverend Fred Nile on the horns of a dilemma—a logical trap. But Reverend Nile knows as well as I know, and as well as many others in this House know, that Christians are expected to balance beliefs and behaviour, and you cannot have a Prime Minister who believes Christian truths but who does not obey the demands of scripture. That is exactly the position that we take. We have not only to believe, we have also got to behave.

I take the view personally that 16 is not an adequate age of maturity for young males or females to be initiated in homosexual or lesbian behaviour, particularly if that initiation is done by predatory adults. The gay and lesbian lobby quotes the age of first intercourse for both sexes, heterosexual or homosexual, as 16 years of age. I believe that that statistic is true. If that statistic is true, then it is far too young for us to be legislating that that age should be the age of initiation. It is a value judgement—should it be 16, 17, 18? The safest and most responsible position is to have an equal age, but at the highest possible level. That is why I argue for 18 years of age.

People may be quite knowledgeable about the retention rates at Higher School Certificate level in our schools. Figures show we are increasing the average age of students in schools. At the same time the average age of marriage is increasing. It is interesting to hark back to the social conditions that existed when 16 was the age for young women. In those days young women had an average school leaving age of 15, and they had an average marriageable age of 21. Today we live in a totally different environment and that is why the age component should be raised in both cases. The law toughens penalties for adults engaged in sexual relations with under-age children, but it should include penalties for adults who have sexual relationships with children after providing them with alcohol or behaviour altering drugs. That is a lack in the law, and yet it is becoming a practice.

We have heard the excuses given by people for their behaviour—their drinks were spiked or they had been given drinks on Friday nights in various hotels around town, and so on. This has become quite a practice. The law should pick up the point that adults who engage in sexual relations with under-age children after providing them with alcohol or behaviour altering drugs ought to be severely punished. The law is lacking in this regard. Although there are severe penalties for paedophiles, there should be equally severe penalties for paedophiles who loiter in areas where children gather, to watch them, to film them, to video them, to seduce them. In a number of cases brought before the courts recently of men—teachers—who have been charged with paedophilia, the accused have been found in possession of videos taken in children’s playgrounds, on outings, in camps, at beaches, in video parlours, and the like. The Government should introduce law to make it an offence for someone to loiter in places where children gather with the express purpose of sexual exploitation.

A matter that ought to be covered by the bill but is not is the growing practice among paedophiles and others of encouraging under-age people to engage in group sex activities. Some paedophiles encourage children into groups, into camps, into weekends away, to engage in sexual activity in the presence of adults. I do not speak lightly about this, because on two occasions involving two separate teachers at the high school I attended, a teacher came to see my mother’s home—my mother was a widow—to tell her that because of good advances I had made in my school work the school had granted me a kind of scholarship, which was a week’s holiday with the teacher, travelling in his car, staying in his tent, travelling around Mount Kosciuszko. The purpose of that offer was to gather together a group of young students and to encourage them into group sexual misconduct, so that teachers could be gratified by their particular sexual propensities.

This bill should provide heavy punishment for paedophiles who gather children into groups and encourage them into sexual activity in the presence of other adults. My concern with this bill has been about the lowering of the age of consent, which creates the problem pointed out by Mark Skelsey in today’s edition of the Daily Telegraph. By lowering the age at which a male can have sex to 16 years, male teachers may now lawfully have sex with boys aged 16 or 17. That is intolerable situation. I am sure honourable members would be concerned that boys at school at the age of 17 are having sexual relations with their teacher. Teachers in positions of power and authority should not be allowed to get away with such behaviour.

Young people who choose to have any kind of sex outside marriage are unwise and ill-advised, but they are not criminals; they should not be subject to the criminal law. They need counselling; they do not need gaol. We are not into throwing stones, and we are not into throwing youth, or children, into gaol. We are into seeking to help people achieve better quality of life and better quality family life. Honourable members will recall the contribution of my colleague Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile to the Family Impact Commission Bill, which is a good bill because it emphasises the need for families in the community. I felt so strongly about this ideal that I have become the publisher of the quarterly journal Marriage Works, the point of which is to publish articles by psychiatrists and psychologists who have spoken with people in young or poor marriages, to enable them to improve the quality of their life. Sex within marriage is God’s intention, God says yes to sex but it in God’s way, with the partner God has chosen, in a heterosexual relationship that is permanent. Sexual maturity and happy marriage is the most significant and most difficult form of social relationship. There is abundant research that indicates how significant that should be.

I close with a very simple analogy. I was flying home one Sunday afternoon in a small aircraft travelling at 6,000 feet. Suddenly on the port side, less than 400 yards away, I saw two eagles slowly rising on the thermals. I was fascinated by them. Because the small aircraft was travelling relatively slowly I had the opportunity to observe the two eagles for some time. I was very interested in their behaviour because I realised that at 6,000 feet they were mating. I made a study of the Australian wedge-tailed eagle and discovered some very interesting things. For example, the great wedge-tailed eagles have a wing span of 2½ metres. I found their habits, their courting and the way they choose their mates of great interest. An eagle has a marriage that is literally made in the heavens.

Eagles court each other at about 5,000 feet and whirl about with displays of diving and feather work—which is what I was watching on that Sunday afternoon. The courting consists of the eagles diving and rolling high in the air, and when the moment comes the two mate. Once they have chosen each other, they remain together for the rest of their lives. They mate in a very remarkable way. They fly to about 5,000 feet, go into a steep dive and at incredible speeds at one point or other they become linked, with the female taking the underside position. They link talons. When they get close to 1,000 feet from the ground they break free from one another and fly back up into the sky. Now, some of you blokes might think you are good; but what I saw in the eagles was an incredible capacity for mating. Once they have mated they start to court. They find a tree and set about nesting. They build a nest on a large platform sometimes 10 feet wide and there the eggs are laid. Eagles never fight. When the eggs are laid the male and female take it in turn to hatch the eggs.

The male eagle will hunt and bring back food for his mate. Sometimes they hunt together and soar in the sky singing to each other. When the eggs hatch, immediately the male provides good things around the home and cares for the little eaglets. The male eagle has a very interesting habit. While the female is on the nest the male will take off and fly a long way until he finds some green plant. He will pluck it up and bring it back to the nest and place it in the nest. It is a love gift for his wife! He does that every day. Male eagles have been known to fly 400 miles to get greenery to bring home at night. The eagles feed together. I ask some of you guys out there: When was the last time you brought some flowers home for your wife? As the young eagles grow up they are taught to fly and eventually to leave home. But the two parent birds stay together for the rest of their lives. People often say that marriages are made in heaven. With eagles we have a good example of that.

I do not believe that we should define people by their sexual practices. To define people by a label that says they are of this sex, or that sex, or another sex, demeans them and limits their ability to rise above their current practices. As a Christian I believe that people can change, that they can live within boundaries, and can live creatively despite their tendencies and urges. In this bill I see some things I would commend but there is much more to be concerned about in it. As I said, I foreshadow that I will be moving some amendments in Committee.

Aforementioned amendments:

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I move:

That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole:

(a) that the Committee have power to divide the Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences) Bill into two bills so as to incorporate in a separate bill the provisions of the bill relating to offences against children, and

(b) that the Committee report the bills separately.

I will speak briefly as to why the House should allow an instruction to the Committee of the Whole. It is very important that honourable members be allowed to debate this matter. Although members have spoken on aspects of the bill, this motion will allow them time to focus on the two distinct aspects of the bill: protection against abuse and the reduction of the age of consent. The two issues should be divided. All members would want to support protection against abuse but may have differing views on the age of consent. If the House supports the motion to separate the issues in the bill, honourable members will be able to have a conscience vote on the issue of age. It is hypocritical for the Government to allow members a conscience vote on the bill, but not allow a free vote on the splitting of the bill.

Thursday, 22nd May, 2003, 6:18 pm | Articles