Homosexual Law Reform Most Speakers Oppose... (Press, 4 July 1975)

On 3 July 1975, a palpable consensus against the proposed Crimes Amendment Bill emerged during its second reading in the New Zealand Parliament. This bill aims to decriminalise homosexual acts between consenting adults. Four principal viewpoints were presented: some believe the existing law is unfair and wrong, others find it unworkable but unjust, while a few feel it is right and fair, and others see it as right and just. Introduced by Mr V. S. Young, the bill allows members to vote based on personal convictions, rather than party alignment. Many speakers commended Young for enduring significant pressure since he first brought forth the bill a year prior. Although it received Select Committee support, that backing was not unanimous. Young noted that, whilst the bill would not render homosexual acts socially acceptable, it might enhance community understanding of the challenges faced by a small minority. He argued that repealing sections 141 and 142 of the Crimes Act would alleviate human suffering and highlighted the discriminatory nature of current laws which do not penalise women for similar acts. Young stated that criminal sanctions have often deterred homosexuals from seeking necessary medical or psychological assistance, thereby exacerbating their struggles. He suggested that passing the bill would bring New Zealand in line with other English-speaking nations, even though it wouldn’t position the country as a leader in social reform. Essentially, submissions from individuals who directly faced the issues associated with homosexuality were predominantly supportive of the bill. Opposition speakers had varied motivations and tactics, although they were generally respectful towards their opponents. However, MP J.N. Kirk expressed a more aggressive stance, labelling supporters as engaging in a “scramble for publicity.” He argued that legislation should not condone what he viewed as weakness and claimed that the bill would only encourage more extreme activism from gay liberationists. Interestingly, despite both main political parties affirming support for some degree of homosexual law reform at their annual conferences, most speakers in the initial stages opposed this particular bill. Many held the belief that homosexuality is unnatural. A proposed amendment by Dr G.A. Wall regarding publicity for homosexuality gained no backing beyond Wall himself. The assembly was notably sparsely attended, and the audience remained silent throughout, contrasting with more vocal crowds for other legislation such as the Hospitals' Amendment Act. Proponents of the bill distinguished between legality and morality, advocating for equal treatment of homosexual acts for women and men, arguing that the current laws forced individuals into a choice between self-denial or legal infractions. Leader of the Opposition, Mr Muldoon, backed the bill by referring to notable New Zealanders adversely affected by criminal laws. Nonetheless, opponents expressed concerns about potential moral implications, equating the bill to a license for immorality. Additionally, Mr K.R. Allen raised alarms over the bill’s perceived lack of defined terms and safeguards. The debate highlighted a significant divide in opinions, particularly among older male members of Parliament. Only one member, Mr F.D. O'Flynn, indicated he would abstain, citing apprehensions about the bill's safeguards. Dr Wall, supporting the bill but cautious, sought assurances against proselytising minors, revealing the moral complexities surrounding the topic and the division within societal and legislative perspectives.

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