Opposition Decries Bill (Press, 9 March 1985)

On 9 March 1985, a significant discussion took place regarding the proposed homosexual law reform in New Zealand, led by Ms. Wilde. She emphasized that all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation, are part of families and generally value family life. She highlighted that homosexuals, like heterosexuals, can parent children, and many are married, although not necessarily happily, due to the repression of their true identities. A key point she made was to challenge the stereotype associating homosexuals with child molestation, asserting that statistical evidence does not support these claims. The backdrop of the conversation was New Zealand's emerging challenges with AIDs, which Ms. Wilde identified as a reason for necessitating reform legislation. However, opposition figures, including Leader of the Opposition Mr. McLay, expressed concerns about the timing of this bill, suggesting that it was a diversion from more pressing national issues. Various members of the National Party questioned the motivations behind the bill and whether it reflected true government policy or merely the stance of certain individuals within the government. The discussion within Parliament saw a division among the MPs. Some were categorically against the reform, while others were in strong support, with a middle group seeking modifications. A particular point of contention was the proposed age of consent, set at 16 years, which some members deemed too young. Mr. McLay suggested that no age would be entirely free from contention but felt 16 was inappropriate. Supporters of the bill, such as Mr. Trevor de Cleene, argued for equality of consent age between homosexual and heterosexual activities, though Mr. Venn Young and others raised concerns about the maturity levels of younger males compared to females. Further complicating the debate, some MPs like Mr. Paul East insisted that no decriminalisation should occur below the age of 20, arguing that establishing a legal equivalence between homosexual and heterosexual lifestyles was problematic. Other opposition included the stance that associating the need for law reform with the rising AIDs crisis was misplaced. Voices of support praised Ms. Wilde for her courage amidst public backlash, while opponents described homosexuality using negative terms, undermining its legitimacy. Many expressed that they could agree on reviewing the law to prevent punishment of consenting adults in private settings. However, staunch opposition from some MPs like Mr. Braybrooke signalled intentions to pursue a referendum if the law was changed, suggesting overarching public disapproval of the proposed reforms. Ultimately, the parliamentary discussions highlighted the complexity and sensitivity surrounding the issue of homosexual law reform, with significant moral, social, and health-related conversations interwoven into the legislative process.

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