The Week In The House Six Measures Passed (Press, 5 July 1975)

During the week leading up to 5 July 1975, New Zealand's Parliament experienced a busy session, marked by the passage of six significant legislative measures and the rejection of another. The week saw reduced antagonism between political parties compared to previous sessions, although there remained enough contention to keep members engaged into the early hours of the morning on Tuesday. With Prime Minister Mr Rowling attending the South Pacific Forum in Tonga, Deputy Prime Minister Mr Tizard expedited discussions on three financial measures. The Opposition contested the Land and Income Tax Amendment (No. 31-51), but after five votes and three hours of debate, the way was clear for subsequent standard Budget measures. The committee stages for the Land and Income Tax Amendment Bill and the annual bill concluded efficiently within 90 and 101 minutes, respectively, as they are typically debated together. The Opposition pressed on special issues, notably leading to a longer-than-expected afternoon adjournment debate regarding the Auckland Hospital Board's financial problems. Additionally, on Thursday, an urgent debate was prompted regarding the closure of Fletcher Bernard-Smith, with the Opposition demanding action against what they described as a “small but sorry canker” within the Boilermaker's Union. The Minister of Labour responded defensively, but the debate ultimately did not yield substantial results. A notable moment in the session was the surprising advance of the controversial Crimes Amendment Bill, which aimed to legalise homosexual acts between consenting males in private. Introduced by Mr V. S. Young in the previous year, the bill had been reviewed by a special Select Committee that received 150 submissions in support. The bill’s placement on the parliamentary agenda had fluctuated significantly prior to its second reading, and there was encouragement among members to allow a vote of conscience. However, the second-reading vote resulted in a defeat for the bill, with 29 members in favour and 34 against. This outcome was seen as a relief for many members who found the subject distasteful, and it effectively sidelined the proposed amendments, including one from Dr G. A. Wall. The rejection left Parliament members contemplating the future direction of the issue without the pressure of further moral debates ahead of the imminent election year.

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