Hague Kevin: Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hague Kevin: Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8274. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 One of the vagaries of urgency is that sometimes one is not in precisely the place one would like to be. It is with regret that I missed the second reading and Committee stage of the Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill. It was a huge privilege and pleasure for me to be able to stand in the first reading debate to make a contribution. I want to thank my colleague Paul Quinn for giving me the opportunity to collect my thoughts before standing here tonight. 
Te Ururoa Flavell spoke in the third reading debate of the fact that this third reading comes just one day after White Ribbon Day. One of the things we do on White Ribbon Day is comment on and take a stand against a culture of violence in our society. Today we have an opportunity to do just that again. A culture of violence is one that we should oppose and we must do just that in this House today. I know also that my colleague Catherine Delahunty has spoken about a culture of homophobia. Members may recall that my first reading speech referred in the strongest possible terms to that culture and the requirement and duty upon all of us to take a stand against homophobia also. It is a great pleasure for me to note that this House chooses to do so on this day. 
It sounds as if I have missed some great speeches and to my colleagues who have made those I am sorry about that; I will read the  
Hansard 
 and watch the tape with the greatest of interest. One of the interesting things for me about this issue is the culture change that has occurred. I spoke about that culture of violence and culture of homophobia but I well recall that it was not so long ago that raising this issue would have met with the fiercest resistance. In listening to what I have heard of the debate tonight and the discussion around this law change in our wider community over the past few months I draw a clear conclusion that there has been a sea change in culture on this issue. That is not only a sign of hope on this issue and in our capacity to challenge homophobia and violence but it is also a wider sign of hope for other changes and for the possibility of holding out for important change even when it appears hopeless. 
I started my first reading speech with a toll of those gay men who have lost their lives and whose assailants have been found not guilty of murder because of the reprehensible defence of provocation. Tonight I again pay tribute to the memory of those men. I also want to thank some members of the select committee and some other members of this House who have campaigned on this issue. In particular I think of my colleagues and friends Lianne Dalziel and Charles Chauvel who have led the way on this issue. 
I also pay tribute and give thanks to other members of the select committee in particular Chester Borrows. It was kind of him to allow me to participate in the select committee proceedings and I found him to be an excellent and fair-minded chair one who has justice in his heart. I also want to say thanks to the other members of the select committee from all parties. I note in particular Simon Bridges’ contribution on the select committee which I found to be really helpful and I acknowledge Paul Quinn’s comments just now. I think the stories of those of us who have listened to arguments and changed our minds are great stories and they are stories that should give hope to this House and to our nation. I also make what may seem a surprising acknowledgment of David Garrett. In the first reading debate I particularly appreciated the comments and the spirit that David showed in supporting the move to allow this to go to the select committee. I know that even though he has spoke passionately in this debate about his opposition to the passage of this bill he holds that view sincerely. I respect him for that albeit I profoundly disagree with that view. 
This bill removes one of the most loathsome provisions that stand in all of New Zealand law. It is a provision that provides for a charade in which the lives of gay men—and I unashamedly speak again about this one particular aspect of the law—are considered second-class and not worthy of the full protection of the law. It is a shameful law and it is a credit to this House that we stand tonight in its repeal. Thank you.