Nats Knock Poll Remit (Press, 26 July 1977)

At the National Party conference held in Dunedin on 25 July 1977, a proposal calling for a referendum on abortion and homosexual law reform during the 1978 General Election was defeated. The proposal, brought forth by the Nelson electorate, faced a significant rejection, with the vote approximately two to one against. National Party president Mr G. A. Chapman informed delegates that discussions would revolve solely around the referendum process rather than the substantive issues of abortion and homosexuality. The proposal was further challenged when an amendment suggested by the party's retiring women's vice-president, Mrs Julie Cameron, which aimed to make the referendum's outcome binding on Parliament, was also refused. Proponents of the remit argued that it would allow New Zealanders to participate meaningfully in significant moral debates through a conscience vote. Mr Dim Cable from Nelson highlighted that New Zealanders have a history of voting on various issues, including compulsory military training and prohibition, asserting their capability to decide on these contentious matters. Mr Cable expressed that the report from the Royal Commission on abortion had only served to complicate an already convoluted issue, and he argued Parliament should take the public's views into consideration through a referendum. He claimed that this would help alleviate the pressure surrounding the sensitive topics. In contrast, Mr D. J. More from Dunedin North suggested that a simple yes-or-no answer in a referendum would not suffice to address the complexities of the issues at hand. He emphasised the role of MPs in gauging constituents' opinions directly rather than relying on a public vote. Mrs J. Tait-Jamieson from the dominion council raised concerns about the level of public awareness regarding the Royal Commission’s report, stating that among a group of 20 women at the conference, only four had read it. She warned that this limited exposure would lead to an uninformed public vote should a referendum occur. Similarly, other speakers noted apprehensions about the potential outcome of a referendum based on a possibly uninformed electorate. Mr T. Hunt from Pakuranga argued against fears surrounding the referendum, pointing out that uninformed individuals had been allowed to vote on prohibitive measures without requiring knowledge of the liquor industry's Royal Commission report. Mr Michael Watson from Tamaki expressed his disbelief at the arguments against the referendum, highlighting the potential positive engagement it could foster within the community. Overall, the conference revealed deep divisions within the party regarding the handling of these contentious social issues, culminating in the decision to reject the call for a referendum.

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