This page features computer generated text of the source audio. It may contain errors or omissions, so always listen back to the original media to confirm content. You can search the text using Ctrl-F, and you can also play the audio by clicking on a desired timestamp.
I'm Bill Logan, And, um, I was, uh yeah, I was in the seventies. I was I was actually married, um, and living the life of a a political activist, Uh, and a supporter of gay liberation. But seeing that as as an outsider, really, but came [00:00:30] to awareness of myself as gay, really? In 1978 79 came back to New Zealand in 1980 um, was teaching politics at the, uh, and started to get involved with the gay community centre and, uh, the gay switchboard. Um, [00:01:00] in about 1983 I suppose it was the beginning of 83. I got a started. Well, I bought the remnants of a bookshop and rebuilt it as a bookshop. Capital books. Um, and, uh, that became a bit of a a bit of a community centre. Uh, which is good fun. Didn't make any money, but it was, uh it was good fun. [00:01:30] Uh, and it was from there, in a way, that part of my role in in, um, homosexual law reform again just going back to the seventies. And you you were talking about that you were aware of things like gay liberation and gay rights. What was happening overseas at the time? What? What? How How were you aware of it? I had friends, political friends. I was a Trotskyist. And [00:02:00] the branch of Trotsky is I was interested in were very involved in in, um, gay liberation. Um, we had a A a revolutionary attitude towards gay liberation. Uh, there was a, uh, an organisation called the Red Flag Union that the organisation I was involved with joined together with and fused with and became one [00:02:30] with, um and, um, so, you know, they were comrades. Um, so there was a a sort of AAA mix of ideas and a and a an understanding that, um there was the possibility of learning something about the way human beings worked and the way society could change, uh, and develop through an understanding of [00:03:00] sexuality and the possibilities inherent in sexuality And, uh, things like the limitations of the bourgeois family and things all you know, all sorts of ideas like that which were reemerging in the 19 seventies, which, of course, had been thought through in slightly different ways by Frederick Engels and Marx in the 19th century. Um, but they were sort of bubbling [00:03:30] up to the surface again at that stage. And so it was an exciting time in the in, in in the ideas world of Trotsky is at that stage and for gay liberation. What were the fundamentals of gay liberation to be released from the the, um, heterosexual patriarchy, I guess. Um, yeah. So in the late seventies, you were based in New York for part of that time. Yeah, [00:04:00] and we're thinking of things like Stonewall the Stonewall. Riots happened in 69. What was the kind of gay political scene in in New York in the late seventies? Like, I wasn't involved in it myself, but I had friends who were, um I couldn't talk about it. Really? Except that we're talking small groups. We're talking about a tremendous sense of change. Uh, [00:04:30] we're talking about consciousness raising. We're talking about a lot of things which were coming out of feminism and, uh, also out of, uh, black liberation being sort of transformed into into gay politics. Uh, a lot of the personal is political. Um [00:05:00] uh, a lot of, uh, trying to fight against stereotypes. A lot of, uh uh, wanting to live stereotypes and not having to hide gayness. Uh, so you know, both both sides of it. You know, um, not not not hide the fact I'm gay, but not have any assumptions that I'm going to be a particular way because I'm gay. Uh, [00:05:30] and a lot of the the beginnings of things that we find normal now, but perhaps perhaps exaggerated a bit because, you know, you've got to got to exaggerate in order to make a point. So what would be an example of a normal thing that we would consider normal now? Well, just that, um, I'm not going to hide the fact that I'm gay at work. Um, So people would be [00:06:00] flamboyant at work, uh, and lose their job sometimes. Um, well, often, Um, and we have an argument about that, but of course, that would be pretty rare. It'd only be in special workplaces that you could do that, but there'd be big discussions around those problems in deliberation. Collectives. So where [00:06:30] is it safe to come out? Whether it's wise to win the situation, what risks is it worth taking? Can you compare what? Not sure if you can. What? What? Uh, New York in the late seventies was like to then coming back to New Zealand in the early eighties. Well, surprisingly similar in a way. But the numbers are different. The scale is different. You know, um, there was a gay liberation group here. [00:07:00] Um, but you're talking about a smallish group rather than lots of groups. Uh, you're talking about being able to get at the most 30 people on our A demonstration for a deliberation thing here, where if you get a few 100 in, uh, Manhattan, [00:07:30] but the same kinds of meetings and and, um, IIII, I suppose one of the things which became common in both places was, um, meetings about the process of coming out that would be very typical in both places. Um, lots of coming out groups and and and groups for people who'd been out for a while. A lot of people hadn't. [00:08:00] And coming out with a a lot of people who'd been out within a small group hadn't really been out. And so coming out with something which was new, uh, and people in the fifties, sixties and seventies would need to talk about coming out, and there'd be a lot of a lot of discussion about that in both places. So there were things like the gay liberation groups in in New Zealand. Were you aware of, [00:08:30] um, earlier attempts at at things like, um, homosexual law reform in New Zealand? Sure. And I guess even before I got away, um, when I was at university in the in the late sixties, Um, uh, I guess that I knew about the homosexual law Reform Society. Um, I wouldn't have known the details. Uh, but I'd heard of it. And, um, in the early seventies, uh, when I was back [00:09:00] here briefly, had a cleaning job. Um, you know, III, I could see notices up around the university for homosexual law, reform society, things and I. I wasn't gay then, but I was a bit interested because I believed in freedom. Um, and, uh, yeah, it was clear to any anyone, I suppose it was just part of the way [00:09:30] I was brought up. That you unnecessary laws to stop freedom were bad thing. Um, you know, not just a part of my communism, but just part of the way IIII I was brought up. Um, and and I think that there was a a liberal kind of, particularly in Wellington, perhaps, um, [00:10:00] group of people who, uh, professional group who Who believed that this was a silly law, Uh, that I would have identified with. And perhaps perhaps the fact that I was hiding from my own gayness was part of that identification. But perhaps it wasn't. Perhaps it would have, you know, it would have been. You know, I'm sure my parents would have had [00:10:30] the same view. And I'm aware, I think in 74 there was the then young, um, crimes Amendment bill, which was, I think, the first time that parliament had had looked at, um, law reform. I wasn't aware of that at the time I was overseas, but yeah, that was, uh, the first attempt that got very far. Um, then, [00:11:00] um, the Freer bill a few years later, uh, that and and then they they fell over for a variety of reasons, One of which was the, um, attempt to have an age of consent, which was unequal. Um, that the gay community quite rightly saw, would be, uh, dangerous [00:11:30] in entrenching a a discrimination that might be hard to to correct. So for you coming back in the early 19 eighties? What was it like coming into the groups that had obviously been kind of well established over a number of years or decades? I, I guess at first you don't come back intending to [00:12:00] particularly be political. I mean, I was a political creature, but, um, I didn't see the focus of my politics being around my gayness particularly. I saw gayness as Gayner. And I was going to be gay, and I'd be political about other things, But, um, clearly there was an opportunity to change the law. Um, that became very [00:12:30] clear. Quite well. No, not I mean you. You support anything that came along And I I made friends quite early on with a guy called Kevin Green who had been secretary of, um, the, uh uh, the National Gay Rights Coalition. Uh, which was an umbrella organisation, a national organisation that had had a lot to do with, [00:13:00] um, the free bill. He he was a a really bright, interesting guy, a nice guy. And, um, he tried to get me involved and managed to it, but, uh, and taught me a lot about the personalities and I got instead involved [00:13:30] in gay switchboard much more and made good friends also, with a lot of people coming out at the same time as me, who are a bit younger than me, many of whom were also involved in the gate switch board and also started the This Bookshop, which was [00:14:00] sort of community centre and then leading up to the 1984 election. I think it was John Mcdavitt came into the bookshop one day, and John Mcdavitt came from a Labour Party family. And he said that Fran Wilde had approached him. He was a gay guy, [00:14:30] and she wanted to talk to people from the gay community because she thought that she could be helpful to the gay community, Uh, in terms of law reform, and she wanted to talk to them before the election. And would I help facilitate a meeting and place it on? Yeah. And so [00:15:00] we had a meeting in the Gay Community Centre, which was in a building which is now demolished the basement of a building in street sort of where the majestic tower is now horrible and, um, big meeting with a lot of gay men and lesbians and Fran said she wouldn't promise anything. But if she got in, she'd [00:15:30] do everything she could to facilitate change in the law, both in respect of human rights and decriminalisation of gay male homosexual activity. And I think she probably got some votes out of that. But after the election, I thought, Well, we probably [00:16:00] should follow up on that. And, um So I got hold of John Mcdavitt and and Fran and said, I think we should have another meeting, shouldn't we? And we got more or less the same crowd along for for us, another meeting. There was a long debate at that meeting about because she said yes, she would try and do what she could and so on. And the question [00:16:30] then was, what were our priorities? What would we go for? Would we go for a criminal law change? Or would we go for the human rights change and the lesbians? And some of them came in, uh, the more politically correct came in, wanted just to go for the human rights law change, which is what went through first in [00:17:00] New South Wales. So you had human rights equality before you had decriminalisation and many of the gay men said, Well, it's all very well for you, but we're criminals and we want that dealt with first. And I listened to this back and forth for quite a long time and made the obvious [00:17:30] comment that we should go for both, um, and that of course we should get both, but we would have lost nothing if we got only one. And of course, that's how it played out. We in fact, got only the criminal law change, but it we didn't lose anything [00:18:00] by going for both at all. It it played out like a compromise, and we got the second, the the the human rights part a few years later. I think four years later, if I remember rightly so. I'm just trying to understand what the thinking was in terms of only the the the the group of people that only wanted the equality or or [00:18:30] discrimination legislation. Well, firstly, all the lesbians said there's nothing in it for us. The criminal law change men always get everything that we don't. Why would we fight for a a criminal law change which only privileges only helps men? So why? Why would we fight [00:19:00] that? Why would we fight for that? And I can see that their argument And, um, some of the men said, Well, look at the way it's played out in, in in, um, New South Wales. And look at the reality. No one's actually prosecuted under this criminal law, so it's not very serious. But of course, [00:19:30] the truth is that it was a threat, always right. It became a you know, something that that was a worry for people. And were people prosecuted? Not not, uh, in the last few years, Um, they had been, say, four years before, But it was There were all sorts of things which happened, which were which [00:20:00] felt like they were related to the prosecution thing. So people were prosecuted for sex in the bogs. The saunas were raided. Now, these weren't actually on the basis of the Crimes Act offence, but they felt like it. Um, [00:20:30] and they the Crimes Act defence gave, um, strength to the capacity to, uh to prosecute. And the truth is that the the change in the law was not the point as it happened, Uh, it was the huge public debate [00:21:00] which was the important thing. Uh, the the change in the law was symbolic. Um, and probably only a change in the criminal law could have done. It would would. It was only a change in the criminal law that could have been a sufficient symbol to to have a fight around. But I don't know that you know what? What would in fact, [00:21:30] have polarised and what you needed was a polarisation, and we got it. Do you know what was the impetus for Fran Wild to come in and have that first meeting with you guys? Yeah, Firstly, I think she believed in the reform. I think that I said before that, um, there [00:22:00] are in Wellington around the country, actually, but I think it's a It's a bigger group in Wellington, a professional cast of liberal people who believe in freedom, you know, and I think she's from that group. I think she doesn't believe in laws which oppress people. She also [00:22:30] was trying to win the most liberal seat in the country. You know, Wellington Central is liberal, and I'm not saying that, uh, it was automatic that having this view would lead to her winning if it was automatic, she wouldn't have needed to to whip up support for it. But she knew that if she whipped up support, there was a chance of, you know, getting [00:23:00] something going that would get there. And it's not a coincidence that it was the Wellington newspaper, the Dominion, that also was the newspaper that more than any other supported this bill. I know you read the Dominion, and you get a hell of a lot of support much so more than any other in the country. And you get sort of human interest stories right through that. 16 [00:23:30] months of campaign about gay people and their lives and so on. No, I'm not saying that happened automatically. We did a lot of work on it, but, um, they he he I'm sure they tried to do the work in Auckland. Well, they might not have done it quite as well, but, um, I think we were pretty good, but, um, you know, they they did try and, um, [00:24:00] we we we we we got a we we we we we managed to get it in to the to a newspaper which wanted to carry the stuff because they sold their paper and it sold their paper because it had a constituency here. I'm really interested in the impact of overseas events on the gay liberation movements in New Zealand. I've heard a number of different kind of, um takes on the idea, especially like [00:24:30] with Stonewall. How stonewall was such a significant event. It led to a lot of what was happening in New Zealand. But then I've also heard other people say that actually, um, we put too much emphasis on things like Stonewall in New Zealand that gay liberation was going to happen Anyway. Do you have any thoughts on things like that? Oh, oh, I think that we are very much a part of the world. Um, [00:25:00] I think that gay marriage is something which has spread around the world like wildfire. And it is not a coincidence that gay marriage has cropped up in New Zealand and and Ireland, of all places, a few years apart. You know, there are in I'm not saying it's stonewall caused gay liberation in New [00:25:30] Zealand. I think that there are independent of factors which affected both um and they they might be most complex. Um, what is it which requires gay sexuality to be repressed. So that second meeting, um, with with Fran after [00:26:00] the election after the 1984 election, how did you go about kind of planning the campaign? What? How How how did that all happen? I think different people will have different takes on that. Um, Fran will probably say that it was very well planned. Um, and different people will say different, different things about [00:26:30] planning. Fran certainly was talking to people in different places and she knew that money would be necessary. And there wasn't no money in Wellington. Um, and you go to Auckland if you want money. My take on it was that we we needed that that it was very, very close, that we had a chance that it [00:27:00] was gonna take a long time. It was gonna be a big battle that the Labour Party was an unreliable ally, that we didn't have the labour Party yet that the core need in parliament was the Labour Party women who were the most likely to whip the men into line and [00:27:30] the Labour Party women outside parliament were our most crucial strategic objective and that to get the Labour Party women in line. We had to solidify an alliance with the lesbians, which was not going to be easy because they had their own agenda and weren't necessarily going to be easy. [00:28:00] And a lot of men didn't respect them or like them. And we're downright misogynist. And there'd been a long history of bitterness between lesbians and gay men in all sorts of organisations. The best lesbians [00:28:30] were in some ways the most difficult. They were politically canny, they were almost separatists. Um, but they knew that all homophobia would also hurt lesbians and that actually the law again, that criminalised gay men [00:29:00] damaged the interests of lesbians, too. And so although they wanted to get the highest possible profile for women throughout the campaign, they knew that even if and when the human rights part of the legislation was defeated, they stood solid and supported the campaign. But there was There was some tense [00:29:30] moments there. So we're using, um, quite a bit of baggage from the people involved in these first couple of meetings from previous attempts at law reform, probably. I mean, there there are many different strands in different generations, but a lot of the men were new to politics. And I'm not saying there weren't a lot of people who [00:30:00] are old. But this was clearly an opportunity which was far more likely to get through than anything that had happened in the past. And also it involved grassroots organisation More than anything in the past, it wasn't something which was simply a creature of the politicians. [00:30:30] Uh, there were there was more mobilisation, uh, partly because the opponents of law reform mobilised with petitions and things, and our people mobilised against them. And so there was a felt ground swirl of organisation which, um, made people feel engaged and as it drew in [00:31:00] large numbers, So there was a sense of involvement. And these are people who had not been in a political process before in most cases, but it was people of different kinds. It was university students and and liberal types of people. And it was party boys and it was feminists, and it was housewives [00:31:30] mothers. It was it was a a huge range of of people. So you inevitably had things pulling in different directions, and sometimes, uh, I remember once people want demonstration and other people said no. A demonstration would scare the politicians in those big meeting to try and stop the demonstration. And [00:32:00] other people said, If you don't have demonstrations, we're pulling out of this entirely. And I remember trying to say, Look, we all need each other. We're going to have to compromise sometimes. And if we don't have demonstrations, some people are gonna throw away their toys. And And if we have, if we if we if we go over the top, other people are gonna so we're gonna have to we're gonna have to keep [00:32:30] respecting each other and making compromises and try to be nice to one another. And and people sort of got the point eventually. And it was sort of a matter of keeping this this thing sort of on an even keel and making compromises. And you had this incredible coalition which went through like the money came from rich, nasty, [00:33:00] misogynist old men and the political nous and the necessary alliance came from these militant feminist, almost separatist lesbians, and each needed the other. And I sometimes felt like I was in the middle. You you mentioned earlier on about, [00:33:30] um, the idea of actually having a a kind of a, um it was more about social changes. It was about having that discussion. And I'm wondering right from those early discussions, Uh, was it seen as a this as a political campaign or more, a kind of public social change campaign? I wonder if there's ever really a difference between those two things. I think that politics is ultimately about consciousness, [00:34:00] about social consciousness, and I just think that this one did it at a pretty deep level where so often it doesn't. We understood increasingly that we had to change people's minds and what really changed the way [00:34:30] New Zealanders live and the lives of gay and lesbian people much more than the law was the massive coming out that happened during that period. At the beginning of this time, you know, a very large proportion of the population would say, I don't know anyone who's gay [00:35:00] and at the end of it, most people would say, Oh, I've got a cousin who's gay He's OK and there wouldn't be many people who didn't know they had a relation as gay by the end of it, and that was an enormous change for the reality of of us a war, I think, uh, the law change can't be, [00:35:30] um, you know, it's important, but II I think that that massive coming out was was the more important thing. But it was expensive, you know. Each of those coming out was a a AAA traumatic process for someone. And it went on [00:36:00] for tens of thousands of people around the country. Were there significant numbers who didn't want to come out to be visible, and some didn't. And I think the suicide rate went up during this period. I know that I sometimes felt a bit torn or very torn by the whole process. So how was the debate framed [00:36:30] by by both sides? There was an attempt, of course, to use religion. But New Zealand is quite a secular country, and I mean, it's pretty difficult to pin homosexuality to it. I'm not saying it isn't Dan, but it isn't easily done. The Salvation Army stepped in early on. I remember going [00:37:00] down to argue with them. Yeah, uh, and they tried to mobilise the whole organisation against it, but I think we had a fairly successful although we didn't realise it at the time intervention into the Salvation Army. Um, Professor Rob had done a lot of training with them. Um, and [00:37:30] three or four of us went down and talked to them. And I believe that subsequently they had to arrange two morning tea rooms, one for the pros and one for the ante. Um, which, um, they just they couldn't keep a coherent organisation. Um, not that I've forgiven them. Uh, and I don't think many gay people have, because [00:38:00] it did us a lot of damage, what they did because they they they did collect signatures, and they gave a respectability, which was undeserved to, um, to the campaign against the bill. Then there was an attempt to use AIDS as, um, an argument against the bill, which is extraordinarily short sighted. In a way, [00:38:30] if you're going to stop aid, you've got to make it easy for people to talk about their risk factors without making them feel at danger of prosecution. And so you don't want to have a law that might get them into trouble for, um, putting [00:39:00] themselves at risk. You wanted them to be able to talk openly about risk factors. So, um, I guess those are the two main arguments that we used and then just it's unnatural. Just very, very simplistic stuff there. There wasn't anything very sophisticated in the in the argumentation against the bill. And the [00:39:30] argument for is simply we're here, you know? We're gay, and you gotta give us room. You gotta allow us to be. It's a waste. It causes great misery. It causes suicide. It causes miserable marriages. [00:40:00] It causes great suffering to make this illegal. Can you perhaps also speak about the international forces that were at work? For instance, um, the Reverend Lou Sheldon was brought out to New Zealand. Um, on the kind of anti reform side of things. Can you talk a wee bit about that? Yeah. I mean, I don't know that it did as much harm, [00:40:30] um, because New Zealanders don't really like that obvious, Um, use of, of, of kind of, of international influence like that. I mean, a certain amount of restraint, um, expertise is one thing, but this there wasn't anything particularly expert about these. These people, they were just mouthing off [00:41:00] rhetoric, uh, and religious prejudice. And so, II, I actually think that it was interesting that these people were sponsoring the the right wing the, um, the prejudice. But I don't think it did as much harm. And then there were several, and they used American sources in different ways. [00:41:30] And there were there were some local prejudice, too. I'm trying to remember the names of some, uh, church groups that were really possibly funded from overseas, but really very, very nasty stuff of the same kind that, um, falsified information about sexual practises, statistics, [00:42:00] uh, often from these American sources. And, uh, nasty, nasty stuff. But I, I really don't think it did us harm. It was the more the, um the people like, um ha. What was his name? I can't remember their name. Keith Hay And, um the, um the [00:42:30] number of these people who are the local ones who were part of the New Zealand furniture that seemed real in New Zealand terms that did us more harm. Well, and certainly in terms of the politicians, some of the names that kind of jump out to me are the you know, your Jeff Bray Brooks and your Graham Lees and your Norman Jones. Um, do you have any? Do you have any thoughts about those, Well, I I someone thought [00:43:00] that I should go and try and talk to Graham Lee early on someone, someone who knew him. I went and talked to Graham Lee, which was very funny, really and completely useless. And then Peter Sumner thought I should go and talk to Jeff Bray Brook because Jeff Bray Brook had been one of Peter's soldiers. And I went along and talked to Jeff Bray Brook, which was also absolutely [00:43:30] useless as we had a signature of Jeff Bray Brook supporting law reform for a few years earlier. It was quite good fun, but, um, interestingly, near the end, I happened to be on a small aeroplane between Auckland and Napier, sitting next to Jeff Bray Brook, and he said, Oh, you won. He was very sporty about it. [00:44:00] I was actually going to my Ex-wife's father's funeral, and I arrived in Napier and gave my ex-wife a hug, and you could see this puzzled look going across Jeff's face. You couldn't understand how I could be hugging a woman. It was really what were those, um, kind of anti politicians, [00:44:30] um, or anti reform politicians. I mean, what were they like in person, on a 1 to 1 level. With that, I mean, why varied? I mean, Jeff Bray Brook was just a politician. Um, what's his name? The mouth from the South. Oh, Norman Jones. Norman Jones. Bye. Probably was fun. Um, I think he's probably except [00:45:00] for the fact that he's a reactionary bastard and an opportunist. He he had a sense of humour and so on. I. I debated him once. He he he refused to debate me in New Zealand. Um, because he didn't want to give me any publicity. He said, Um, but he agreed to debate me for some Australian show. [00:45:30] Odd condition. It was never played in New Zealand, and so this was recorded at some hotel, and and, uh, I said he was obsessed by sodomy. He said, Oh, it's a magnificent obsession. Were there any, um, out politicians at the time? No. None at all. Um, [00:46:00] can I tell that story or not? No. Um, it's There are one or two stories you might be told at another stage. You've mentioned debating with Norman Jones, and I seem to recall there was an incident in Was it the lower hut meeting Where? Where you were, um, allowed eventually allowed to speak. That was fun. Yeah, that [00:46:30] was That was right, Right early on. Um, in the whole, in in in the Knox church hall. I was very nervous. These people were saying really nasty things, and we had a lot of people there and people getting really angry. And Norman Jones said, [00:47:00] If you go, if you want to talk, you know, you gotta pay for it. We paid for this war. You shut up. And then he said he was silly enough to say, you know, we paid so and so for this If you want to speak, you got to pay half. And she mentioned a figure, and I said, Done. I said, I. I didn't think about it at all. And then he said, What are you gonna pay now? I said, Oh, yeah. OK, [00:47:30] come on. Give us some money, guys. And it was a wonderful theatre, you see? So I threw my coat on the floor and people put money on it immediately, you know? And, uh, we collected, I don't know, 100 and $50 or something like that. Just like that. And uh, it was counted out on the stage, and Alison and I both got to speak, and, uh, yeah, it was good fun, and it sort of made them look so very silly. [00:48:00] And, um, we got our our point across nicely. And was it hard to to mobilise, um um Rainbow people to actually go to those anti meetings? On the contrary, I mean, I couldn't have stopped them. Um, it it it it it didn't require mobilisation. It just happened. Um, I at that stage, I think probably I. I was a bit worried [00:48:30] about what people would do, and I I was in two minds as to whether it was a good idea. Um, but I think it was, and it very quickly turned out that it was it it it made the the thing into the public debate. It needed to be, uh and it was psychologically important in that it allowed us to feel that we were participating in the in the debate. But I think [00:49:00] it was also politically important and that it, uh, showed us as not something to be trodden on. And I think that that I think that one element of the situation was that the the there was a traditional way of looking at gays as victims, and the breaking [00:49:30] of that picture was part of the of the politics that we needed. We had to transcend the victim mode and show ourselves as strong political actors. And that was part of what was going on in those things from the photos I've seen that that they actually look quite large crowds that were attending these these meetings. I mean, the the [00:50:00] Knox Church Hall was very full, and I think people standing at the sides, too. Um and it's not a small hall, you know, some hundreds of people there. Along with the anti gay meetings. There are also things like the the bigger busters rally, and, um, some of the pro marches and and events. Can you tell me about some of those? Well, I've had several. The rallies were good fun. [00:50:30] Um, and they were cheerful, fun events usually balloons, uh, and, um, usually pretty diverse crowds, Uh, usually some trade union presence, Uh, usually not just gay, but quite dominated by gay people. Uh, and similarly with the the bigger busters meeting [00:51:00] and and there was also some national conferences and things. Uh, yeah, they were good. Good fun. I mean, and and not obviously as serious or as scary as the Salvation Army Sunday Service, which we went to every week. And so was that a conscious decision in terms of the campaign to to make things look, you know, not [00:51:30] necessarily Take it seriously, make it lighthearted. Make it fun. Well, yeah, I think so. Um, there was plenty of serious debate, and we we went to a hell of a lot of rotary meetings and JC meetings, and, you know, all that kind of thing where you talk seriously and so on. Um, [00:52:00] and there would be constant pieces in the newspaper and interviews and opinion pieces in the paper and and and so on. So it's not as though there wasn't a hell of a lot of serious debate, but we were pretty conscious of the fact that we were trying to hold together a mass movement, um, which can't be sustained [00:52:30] on pure seriousness, you know, And in other words, singers. And, you know, all sorts of fun stuff, Uh, as much as we could. It'd be good to just touch on some of the organisations, Um, that that kind of made up that kind of mass movement. Um, Robin Duman interview said to me that the National Gay Rights Coalition grew into a membership of around 65,000 people. I mean, that's a huge [00:53:00] That's a huge amount of people. Yeah, I mean, I, I don't know what he would count there, but I would think, for example, that, um trade unions would have joined and and and and so on, and some of that membership would be pretty token. But that's not to be discounted, because when a trade union gives a a a formal [00:53:30] membership of something like that, their their membership feels it means something. Um, and it does, you know, it counts for something. So in Wellington, what were some of the groups that were involved in in the gay rights coalition? Well, it was informal. Um, but in in 1985 86 the [00:54:00] core organisation was the Wellington Gay Task Force, which met every week. The National Gay Rights Coalition had more or less dissipated by 1983. I suspect, um, start to develop in 1985. The campaign for homosexual equality had been going for some time but had [00:54:30] a sort of re emergence. In 84 85 the Gay Liberation Front had sort of faded out by 81. I think, um, I don't know anything about the homosexual electoral and legislative lobby. I think that was a special one from Robin Duff, Um, with an acronym of Hell. The gay switchboard, of course, wasn't theoretically political, but made [00:55:00] sure things happen. Um, and it organised the meetings, got people there, made sure they were meeting rooms. Um and, um, yeah, I think that it was responsible for much more than any of them in some ways. And And was the New Zealand Homosexual Law Reform Society still going at that time? And that, um, [00:55:30] was quite important early on, but sort of faded out. Um, but it still met right through. And so we're kind of members of the communities across a number of organisations, or were they quite distinct groups of people? I think there was a lot of crossover with the gay task force and that I mean, a number of the lesbians belong [00:56:00] to one or two lesbian groups and the gay task force I belonged to, uh, the Gay Task Force and the Homosexual Law Reform Society. Although, you know, I would have seen the gay task force as my primary home. Um, some people would have gone to quite a lot of people had gone to both [00:56:30] and gay task force. Other people would go to both gay task force and homosexual Law Reform Society. So what was the difference? Say between, say, the gay Task Force and the Campaign for Homosexual Equality campaign for homosexuality. Equality was more narrowly focused and more left wing. And the thing about the gay task force was that it was open to everyone. Anyone, any gay person who wanted [00:57:00] to could come along. And you didn't have to believe anything had an agenda. Um was not entirely clear what it was, but it it was left wing, uh, was gay. Task force was really I mean, it was roughly in in support of the bill, but, um, even what that was exactly was was unclear. [00:57:30] And so something like the gay task force was that kind of responsible for a lot of the the events and the actions. And we regard ourselves as the Central organisation for it. I mean, we wouldn't have pushed that down anyone's throat, but we were regarded as that. You know, we we regard ourselves as the decision makers who could speak on behalf of the Wellington community on things to do with the bill where if there [00:58:00] was to be a a dispute that had to be decided on whether there was to be a demonstration or not. We regard ourselves as competent to make that decision, and we're regarded that way by other people. Um, it was to ask the press would come for authoritative comment on things to do with the bill. And you actually appeared quite a lot in the press. And I'm wondering, how did how did you feel about being the spokesperson? [00:58:30] I don't know. It sort of happened. Um, I guess that there wasn't much option at first. I mean, there weren't it. It was sort of for most people, you couldn't be because you'd lose your job or you might not get a job or something. And I had sort of felt I was already unemployable, so it didn't matter. Um, so II I kind [00:59:00] of had a bit of a philosophical attitude towards it. There were one or two other people who did it, but David Hindley did a lot of writing my press statements. Um, then he would have been good, but he had jobs that wouldn't kind of allow it. Really? So how often did the gay Task Force meet? Once a week, mostly in the Dorian Society. We stunk of alcohol [00:59:30] and beer and had a gooey carpet, and we haven't actually mentioned. So there's the Dorian Society and the Victoria Club, both social clubs who gave a lot of money to the campaign. Money was really important and we got money. I. I didn't have anything to do with getting the money. And James Slot ran the money and he was wonderful. He he was the treasurer of the gay task force and he he talked to the treasurers [01:00:00] of the these organisations and he had a little fundraising group and they would go to rich gay people and ask for money and and that money would that be used for the, um, the wider social campaign rather than the political be used for anything that was needed for but a lot of photocopying, um of and a lot of you know, of of information about rebuttal rebutting propaganda and [01:00:30] stuff for journalists and answers to, um, the scandals and, um uh, propaganda and bullshit. Um, and we had this, um we had an office, uh, in the in the community centre, staffed by volunteers. You and painter was volunteering there for a long time ago, called, um, Graham. Russell [01:01:00] did much more volunteering, and he he was amazing. He was our secretary, really? And and organiser for months and months and months, Possibly more, Possibly over a year. A young guy did a huge job, you know, acted as a secretary telephonist photocopier, and he talk cheap photocopying out of people and, uh, talk to journalists. [01:01:30] And, you know, was it hard to keep people motivated over that 16 month period? No, I mean, people came and get went, but, um, there was this this campaign and an objective, and, um, you know, it was it was exciting. There was a There was a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, and it was never very certain what the outcome would be. [01:02:00] Well, especially when you see things like the, um, the petition against law reform being presented to Parliament. Um, they have a quite a number of signatures. Yeah, Yeah. I mean, we the one of the things we did, of course, was was analyse that and work out that it wasn't quite as impressive as it looked on for it. So, uh, but, uh, the presentation of that of that petition was AAA really amazing [01:02:30] event. It was something I will never forget because, um, flags and these banners. I can't remember what it said, but it was so kind of Nuremberg. It was It was really weird. And, uh, these boxes of we started these charts. The boxes are empty, the boxes are empty. And it turned out they [01:03:00] were really We didn't know it at the time, but they just these little, little piles of paper at the bottle of them. Um, because it was the idea. So So this was, um, on parliament steps. Was the idea that there would be a box for each electorate. And so where were you out there in front of parliament, Um, amongst the the anti crowd. Well, we had our crowd, too. I mean, both crowds there, you see, um, [01:03:30] and the cops trying to keep us separate. People were sort of There's some really wonderful the story I forget to tell. But when I first got involved, Philip Healy was a hairdresser and he rang me up and said, Bill, thank you very much for going on television, but never, never again go [01:04:00] on television without first coming getting your hair done. Yeah, so I thought it was sweet. What were some of the other, um, main players on the gay task force? Well, Alison Laurie was really very, very key to it. Um, [01:04:30] there was Brett Raley, who worked closely with the homosexual with Homosexual Law Reform Society with Linda Evans. Uh, there's Tiggy Instone, otherwise known as Cynthia Bag Wash. Who, um, in that persona would infiltrate, [01:05:00] um, anti meetings and cause trouble. And, um, Phil Parkinson, of course. Uh, who was our information person? Pauline Simmons. You and painter for a long time, Des Smith, [01:05:30] And didn't Des form was a hug. Heterosexuals are afraid of gays, so if he didn't form it, he was certainly very much a part of it. And so why Why was that important? Why were why? Why was it kind of allies type thing important. Well, I mean, allies were always going to be important. Um, and he he It was later on that he identified as gay. Um, [01:06:00] I think that there was a time which some of us kind of had the feeling we didn't want allies, which would have been a bit bit silly, but, um, no, we needed our lives. I'm not sure there are lots of different ways we might have had allies, and but heterosexuals, unafraid of gays, was a useful and national thing. And it didn't happen only in Wellington. [01:06:30] But there were also lots of unions, uh, lots of religious groups. I think I made in two categories, but many other types of organisations and support from, uh, some rotary chapters and JC chapters and things like that. So there are a variety of different groups supported [01:07:00] us, and we got support where we could I think it was really important to try to get that kind of support. And that was part of trying to show politicians that there was support out there that was beyond the gay community. Kind of reflecting back you. It's very easy to kind of, you know, chart the progress of the bill through the House and the societal change. [01:07:30] But I'm wondering, you know, were there points in the campaign where you thought, um, this is out of control? You know, you don't know where it's going. You don't know what's going to happen? Or did you always kind of feel that there's there's forward momentum, that it is going to happen? I never felt sure that it would happen. I thought from the beginning, we've got a real chance [01:08:00] that it's worth a fight and I never lost that that conviction. But even on the last day, although I was optimistic and I thought we had the numbers, I was very nervous. My reading of the passage through Parliament was that there were kind of two sticking points. One was the age [01:08:30] of consent, and the other was the, um, discrimination anti discrimination measures. Is that what were they, the two main things that Yeah, well, the anti discrimination measures went first, of course, and it was clear to me fairly early on that they were going to go and there was nothing to be done about it. And that was a sacrifice which had to be made, but [01:09:00] that we would pro that we should make a fight for it because the bigger and better the fight, the sooner we would win them in the long run and that we would win them in the long run. Yes, we did. The age of consent. We didn't really know till very near the end, what would happen over it. And there are all sorts of [01:09:30] weird amendments that were, um, raids, including one that the age of consent should be 16 except for anal sex and the age of consent for anal sex. But it should be 20. But for other kinds of sex should be 16. I remember writing a leaflet called on [01:10:00] the Equality of Orifices. In the end, that amendment didn't fly. Thank goodness that was a labour party. But, uh, it would be very difficult if they'd done a funny age. You can see, Was there any change in the, um, kind of lesbian involvement once, you know, part of the bill had [01:10:30] not No, they were. They they stood by us. I've heard some of the parliamentary debates, um, from homosexual law reform, and some of it is just absolutely vile. And I'm wondering, did any of that kind of viol either, you know, in the parliamentary debates or even at public meetings? I mean, did any of that kind of seep in and and get to you? Not me, but it did some people. But I remember the [01:11:00] different times we were a bit used to violence. And when I say didn't get to us, we we were used to screaming with rage. And we did. I suppose, another reaction to that that some of that violence is things like the, um uh, gay and lesbian fear being established in 1996. I think so. That whole visibility, the whole positive [01:11:30] attitude. Um, can you talk about about the the fear and some of the other things, like II? I also note the, um uh, the gay task force had a store at the trade fair. Well, and and and in a way, the the things like the the things we were talking about before about balloons on demonstrations and the lightheartedness and so on is a way of reacting to the violence of of of, you know, we're not [01:12:00] going to to we we don't want to give them an excuse. We don't wanna We we're gonna If necessary, we'll answer their vileness. But it's not our mode. It's not our preferred way of addressing life. Um, we we want to do things right and have fun and make the world a better place and a more fun place. And so the [01:12:30] gay and lesbian fair and the stall at the in the show and the balloons and so on. We're all a part of that you mentioned right at the very start about having the bookshop capital books and and, um, that also had involvement with the law reform. Tell me, Tell me about that. Well, I mean, I closed capital books not long after the campaign began, because it was never a very profitable enterprise. [01:13:00] Um, but it did play a role early on, and, um, yeah, there's not much more to be said. It was a gathering point. And, um, it, uh, we sold some gay books and magazines, and people came in and out, and yeah, we've also briefly mentioned David Hiley who, um, has who took some, um, amazing [01:13:30] photographs around the time of homosexual law reform. And I'm wondering if you could maybe, um, comment on on the importance of kind of documenting, um, the reform. Well, of course, at the time, I wasn't noticing him taking photographs. Um, I was noticing him as a public relations advisor [01:14:00] and assistant, and actually, more than that. Manager, um, in a way, he managed me, Um, but, you know, looking back on it. And I think he was very aware of it as he was doing it. He knew that he was documenting history being made. And, um, it's It's a superb record, isn't it? [01:14:30] Uh, that, um, was very nice to have because yeah, we couldn't, um, you couldn't. You couldn't live that in the same relive that in the same way without such a record. So the third reading of the homosexual law Reform passed on the ninth of July 1986. 41. 49 votes to 44. [01:15:00] Where were you? I was in parliament, um, sitting directly looking at the speaker. And could you tell before he said it? Um, I could I got a I. I re Mallard had the numbers, and I looked at her and he ordered. And what did it feel like? Very very good. Very good indeed. [01:15:30] I was with Jerome and I kissed him. What do you think changed for gay people? I guess. I guess it's a matter of standing a bit taller. It's very difficult to to make it concrete because it isn't very concrete. It's not as if [01:16:00] you get a get anything that's very tangible. Although there are lots of tangibles, you you do get the possibility of being open about your life. And, um, you know, you can talk about all sorts of tangible things. Um, I suspect I suspect that gay [01:16:30] people live longer. Actually, I suspect they, uh, have much less anxiety. I suspect that, um, they are much more open about their lives with their families and friends and at work. So I think there probably are all sorts of tangibles, but it's it's it's some Some something that's less tangible is perhaps [01:17:00] as important as just a a AAA sense of being more themselves. How do you think it's changed you mhm. I don't know. I mean it. It's certainly been a a pretty fantastic experience, I I. It's not something that I would [01:17:30] have missed for the world. You know, it's nice to win a battle. The sort of person I am. You don't win many. Um, let's face it. The world was going to change any way one way or another, it wasn't gonna change automatically. But it these things, someone else at some different time [01:18:00] other than Fran other than the gay task force, there would have been some other framework of change. Um, but the idea of criminalising gay male homosexuality forever is sort of unthinkable, Really, I suppose it could have been delayed 10 or 15 years, but it could have been [01:18:30] It could have happened in a a, a kind of more subterranean or bureaucratic fashion that could have led to a less radical change in the culture so that it could have left more remnants of homophobia in the culture. And so we could have a more conservative society [01:19:00] than we have now if it had unfolded in a different way. And I think we can take some credit for the depth of the change and so I, I think that I think that I think that all our lives are better for having been able to take a bit of control of the way in which it happened and [01:19:30] to have made sure that it did happen in a in a deep cultural way. And I benefit from that enormously just in the fact that you know, I don't mind that the neighbours know that I'm gay and the shop keeper knows that I'm gay and my clients probably know I'm gay and they might or might not, and I don't care. [01:20:00] You know it it it's just my life is a lot easier for for that, um, And then there's a personal benefit that I get from having personally been involved. It's in such an intimate way, and, uh, a pretty important historical kind of thing. There was a lot of a lot of fun in that, and a lot of [01:20:30] a lot of, uh, you know, Yeah, a lot of gratification and and and and thinking, you know, I had a bit to do with this. It's nice, you know? I like that. Hm.
This page features computer generated text of the source audio. It may contain errors or omissions, so always listen back to the original media to confirm content.
Tags