Arguments Occupy Much Of 'gay’ Law Reform... (Press, 2 October 1985)

On 2 October 1985, the ongoing debates surrounding the Homosexual Law Reform Bill in New Zealand saw a significant clash between parliamentary members. Central to these discussions was MP Norman Jones, who represented Invercargill and vehemently opposed the bill. At a press conference, Jones publicly criticised the acting chairman of the select committee examining the bill, Trevor Mallard, for his conduct. Jones took issue with two press releases issued by Mallard, claiming they contained "unsubstantiated, uncorroborated attacks" against the petitions presented to Parliament. He had previously approached the Speaker, Dr Wall, regarding these matters, asserting they constituted a breach of privilege; however, Dr Wall ruled there was no breach. Further compounding tensions, Mallard stated that the figures cited for petitioners in his electorate were "grossly exaggerated" and "misleading." Jones expressed that, while any MP could voice such opinions, the chairman of a select committee ought to remain impartial. He anticipated the committee would reach a conclusion soon, with the bill being reported back to Parliament the following week, expressing his disappointment by calling the committee's proceedings an "utter exercise in futility." The select committee hearing was fraught with disagreements, with procedural issues causing significant delays in proceedings. The committee convened but took 50 minutes to commence witness testimony due to debates over the number of petitioners who could address the committee. Ultimately, it voted to allow four primary petitioners, including Jones himself, to present their cases, alongside six additional witnesses. During the proceedings, Mr Keith Hay, one of the major petitioners, criticized the committee's procedures, claiming that the petitioners would need more time to adequately present their submissions. Tensions escalated between Hay and Mallard as it became clear that the committee's management was causing frustration among the petitioners. Despite a lengthy submission from Hay and Sir Peter Tait noting that signatures against the bill were still increasing—totaling 824,114 by that date—the committee was unable to create a conducive environment for thorough discussion. Jones left the hearing in protest after learning that fellow committee member Fran Wilde was recording his responses during the cross-examination of his evidence. Upon clarification from the clerk’s office, Mallard determined that recording did not violate any Standing Orders. The hearing continued late into the evening, concluding nearly three hours after its scheduled end. Wilde announced her intention to move that the committee cease taking any further submissions on the bill, indicating a significant turning point in the legislative process surrounding this contentious issue.

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