Society Opposed To Inquiry (Press, 10 December 1968)

On 10 December 1968, the New Zealand Homosexual Law Reform Society expressed skepticism regarding an official commission of inquiry into homosexuality and the law, which had been suggested following the Petitions Committee's report on the society's recent petition to Parliament. The society's President, Professor J. H. Robb, remarked that the supporters of an inquiry, including certain Parliamentarians and church members, may not have fully considered the potential limitations of such a process. Professor Robb pointed out the difficulty of formulating terms of reference for the inquiry that would not either replicate the findings of the Wolfenden Committee in Britain or set unattainable goals specific to New Zealand. He noted that committees are often utilised as means of delaying action, and their findings can remain unaddressed for substantial periods. He asserted that ample evidence already exists for Parliament to examine and determine the validity of the society's claims, eliminating the need for a lengthy inquiry. The statement from the society also highlighted that the Justice Department appears informed about the need for legislative change on the matter. The law reform movement has garnered support from a diverse array of professionals, including experts in law, medicine, and social work, as well as from organisations like the Jaycees and numerous churches. However, they observed that the general sentiment among Parliament members seems to lag behind public opinion, which is increasingly supportive of reform. The society indicated that existing research, both locally and from similar overseas communities, had been compiled and shared with the Parliamentary committee. They pointed out that while some local research had been pursued, it was limited due to the lack of medical and social work experts and the challenges of operating within New Zealand's small, closely-knit community, where individuals often fear identification. Moreover, one submission to the Petitions Committee had proposed that New Zealand homosexuals were fundamentally different from those in Britain, the United States, or Northern Europe; however, this assertion lacked support from professional publications or discussions among experts. The society raised concerns that disregarding the opinions of professionals might necessitate involving overseas experts in an inquiry, a move that would likely be costly and time-consuming. Professor Robb compared the situation to that of the Wolfenden Committee, which spent three years deliberating on similar issues, concluding that any expedited investigation would probably yield unproductive results. The original Wolfenden Committee had engaged with various professional associations and experts to gather comprehensive evidence, whereas the Petitions Committee appeared to have dismissed their conclusions and those from several church committees. The society ultimately argued that it would be unrealistic to expect homosexual individuals to provide the necessary firsthand insights for an inquiry due to fears of stigma, leading to an incomplete and skewed understanding. Instead, they contended that enhancing public comprehension of social issues related to homosexuality is as crucial as pursuing legislative reforms. They believed that the educational efforts of supportive organisations would be more impactful than an official inquiry.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand