Adams Paul: General Debates 
Adams Paul: General Debates 
[Volume:619;Page:15039] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 We have read a lot in the papers of late about people being programmed and I have just heard Jill Pettis trying to re-programme the Leader of the Opposition. I have been thinking about the programming of people and I have been thinking about us as lawmakers and whether we try to programme people. The answer has to be categorically: “Yes we do.” Let us take one simple example—a traffic light. Why do we stop at a red traffic light? The answer is that we are programmed to stop when the light turns red. I know that there is no greater power in the colour red than there is in the colour green. The light in itself has no power to stop a car. So we all operate in the knowledge that we have or in the light of how we have been programmed. 
Our parents taught us when we were very young—or they should have done—not to touch hot things. Some of us did and we got burnt. However we were still programmed. Our parents instilled us with values and we learnt the consequences of taking wrong actions. Therefore it is not so much the laws we pass but rather how we have been programmed that stops us. It is not the law that stops us at a red light; rather it is the consequence of what might happen if we do not stop. It may be that we imagine we would get a large fine. Maybe in our mind’s eye we see a horrific crash. So it is the consequences of our actions that prompt us to stay within the law. 
But what happens—and I want to challenge the House with this today—when the programming is wrong? What will happen to a society that re-programmes its people suddenly telling them that things that have proven to be wrongs in the past are now rights? 
Let us go back to my example of the traffic lights. What would happen if I taught my son to drive in a rural area which I actually did and he had never seen a traffic light and I programmed him to believe that when he finally came to a traffic light he goes when he sees it is red? I tell members that I would not like to be going through that set of traffic lights when they are green and he approaches his first red light. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Is your son colour blind? 
PAUL ADAMS 
: No he is not colour blind. However if no one else is at the intersection when he goes through the red light in reality would it make any difference? No it would not. But we must always make laws for the good of society as a whole. It is for those reasons that I encourage us to be generational politicians because unless we think of how the laws in this land will affect our children and grandchildren we will miss the plot. 
I have seen too much legislation in the 2 short years I have been here such as the Civil Union Bill and the Prostitution Law Reform Act where the focus is on only one generation and we do not consider the adverse effects these laws will have on our children and our grandchildren. For the benefit of those who use our roads we have traffic lights to tell us when to go and when to stop. Just because my belief system has been programmed to think that going through a red light will not harm anyone it will in no way prevent the reality of the major disaster that must eventually happen. 
Let us as legislators again understand that marriage is to families what traffic lights are to the smooth flowing of traffic on our roads. Instead of watering down marriage we should understand it and place a greater emphasis on it so that young children grow up in our society in the safety and security they deserve. I believe that all children deserve to have a dad who loves them and a mum who loves them—parents who care for them and who will train them in ways that will benefit both them and the society they live in. This will happen by giving marriage the green light and the Civil Union Bill the red light when we debate that legislation in this House. 
I really want to stand here today and say that yes we do programme people and we need to be aware of that as we pass legislation in this House because there will be a consequence to every law we pass. Today we have heard in the debate the ridiculous example of swimming-pool fencing around paddling pools. We do not want to pass ridiculous legislation; we want to pass legislation that makes sense. We hear the debate about the left side of the House and the right side of the House. Well United Future is down this end of the House right in the centre and we really want to try always to bring a sensible viewpoint to all of these things. 
We hear National saying that the light is red and we hear Labour saying that the light is green. The debate goes backwards and forwards which is great and encouraging. But let us get one thing right: marriage in this nation has to be talked about focused on and given a green light because it is the backbone of our nation.