M.P.s’ views on sex education clash

Press, 12 August 1985, Page 22

M.P.s’ views on sex education clash

PA Wellington New education legislation being considered by Parliament would be “ruinous” if introduced, according to an Opposition member of Parliament.

Speaking during debate on the second reading of the Education Amendent Bill, Mr M. L. Wellington (Nat., Papakura) quoted the eighteenth century philosopher, Edmund Burke: “A thing may look specious in theory and be ruinous in practice.” “That will be proved in respect of this piece of legislation,” Mr Wellington told the House.

“The bill talks all sorts of things about trials and evaluations,” said Mr Wellington, the Minister of Education in the last National Government. “What about

the kids who are on trial? What about the kids who are being evaluated? What rights do they have?” The aim of the bill was to introduce sex education in primary schools, he said.

“This is the Minister who wants to convert our schools into propaganda platforms for peace studies, trade unions . . .

“I say this out of respect for the teaching, training and upbringing of our young people which I believe is being deliberatly sabotaged by a Minister of Education who has the support of pressure groups and the press but precious few of the parents of this country.”

Mr Noel Scott (Govt, Tongariro) said the bill had tremendous educational and social significance. “I believe that the health

programmes envisaged in this legislation should be an absolute central, basic and integral part of all worthwhile learning. “I believe that schooling, learning, indeed much of the whole of the worth-while practice of long-term human relating for us as a nation is basic to all of our learning and to all of what we do,” Mr Scott said. Sex education classes have been proposed as part of the new school health syllabus in the bill. Mr G. T. Knapp (Dem., East Coast Bays) described the bill as a frontal assault on the family unit. “To impose upon every young person in our school system ... a sex education programme of this kind is inappropriate, totally inappropriate. “It is hitting a flea with a mallet,” Mr Knapp said. He asked who would teach the teachers. “How are teachers going to avoid imparting their own values? How are they going to avoid putting across their own view of, say, homosexuality or other issues that come up in the classroom?” He said it was inhuman to expect them to. Mr Knapp said National Party members had been conned into going along with the legislation. Mrs J. M. Keall (Govt, Glenfield) said home was the best place for sex education. “But even good families fail their children,” she said. Parents might feel shy. They might feel they did not have all the information they needed. ,r The Government’s' revised health syllabus emphasises the role that parents should have in health education.” It allowed opportunites for parents in local districts

to be involved in consultations about the programme. Mr G. E. Lee (Nat-Hau-raki) asked why there was a need for the sex component of the health syllabus.

He said the bill seemed to address a “minority problem.”

Quoting from figures he had received from Hawaii, Mr Lee said, “After they introduced the planned parenthood programme ... exnuptial births rose 284 per cent. Venereal disease went up 301 per cent. “Has the introduction of sex education overseas worked? The answer is unequivocally, no.” Mr Lee asked why the new syllabus was being introduced if it would not improve problems relating to sexual promscuity in schools.

Mr G. B. Braybrooke (Govt, Napier) said the bill was not going to lead to “a group of half-baked freewinding schoolteachers that are going to teach pornography. It is a very serious step and a very well balanced and timely step that we are taking.” Mr N. P. H. Jones (Nat, Invercargill) said it was time to tell the Government to “stop sticking its sticky nose into every facet of our family life.” “Where are we going to draw the line and say enough is enough?” He said while he supported sex education for secondary school children, he could not accept it for younger pupils. “I wouldn’t send my horse for sex education to some of the people supporting the bill,” he said.

In reply, the Minister of Education, Mr Marshall, said the bill sought to ensure that children grew up having an honest view about themselves.

“I only regret that those

people who concentrated on eight (sex education) lessons have not taken the trouble to think about and to read, to study, the rest of the health education syllabus,” he said.

There was a degree of emotion in the debate because of misinformation spread.

“I have not much time for those people who by misinformation and mischief have sought to shift the debate from where we really are,” he said. “Those people who give the impression that we have a bunch of people who are irresponsible in schools, who want to pedal a particular view about sexuality, are really quite sadly mistaken.”

It had been suggested that the bill was running down the family. “Anybody who is concerned for children growing up knows . . . that a feature of parenting is being able to answer questions of our own children honestly and openly when they arise. “It is also important for a good environment in schools for teachers to be able to develop an honest, sensible, straightforward attitude towards children,” the Minister said. The bill received its second reading after a 65-10 division. The members of Parliament who voted against the bill at this stage were Mr N. H. Austin (Nat, Bay of Islands), Mr W. R. Austin (Nat, Awarua), Mr J. A. Banks (Nat, Whangarei), Mr N. P. Jones (Nat, Invercargill), Mr G. T. Knapp (Dem, East Coast Bays), Mr G. E. Lee (Nat, Hauraki), Mr Maurice McTigue (Nat, Timaru), Mr N. J. Morrison (Dem, Pakuranga), Mr R. L. G. Talbot (Nat, Ashburton) and Mr Wellington (Nat, Papakura).