Closure Moved On ‘gay’ Law Reform Bill (Press, 3 October 1985)

On 2 October 1985, a Parliamentary select committee in New Zealand voting on the Homosexual Law Reform Bill decided against hearing any further submissions. The vote was 3 to 2 in favour of a motion for closure, which was proposed by the bill's sponsor, Ms Fran Wilde, and supported by Mr Trevor Mallard and Mrs Anne Fraser, all from the Labour Party. Opposition to the motion came from Mr Paul East and Mrs Katherine O’Regan from the National Party, who argued that excluding additional submissions was undemocratic and disregarded public input.

Mr Graeme Lee, a prominent organiser of a petition opposing the bill, voiced strong criticism of the closure, claiming it denied many individuals the opportunity to share their views, which he characterised as an infringement on their rights. He highlighted that he had received numerous calls from concerned citizens regarding the committee's decision. Ms Wilde defended the closure by asserting that the main submissions had already been thoroughly evaluated. The committee had heard 117 oral submissions and received 1,096 written submissions over five months and approximately 70 hours of deliberation. She claimed that only 85 submissions remained, of which 60 supported the bill, and argued for the bill to be returned to Parliament unaltered to allow broader legislative discussion.

Mr East described the committee's decision as “outrageous and cavalier,” stressing that a select committee should fully engage with public opinions rather than selectively choose which submissions to consider. He contended that the committee's focus had been too limited, underscoring that even technical points related to the bill still needed examination, as indicated by a Justice Department officer.

Despite the heated debate, Ms Wilde discouraged claims that her motion stemmed from governmental pressure, asserting her independence in the process as this was, in fact, a private member’s bill. Tensions highlighted the difficulties within the committee as Mr Norman Jones expressed his anger over not being able to present his submission orally, stating that all opposition members were against the closure motion, despite some supporting the bill itself.

The committee's chair, Mr Mallard, attempted to maintain order during the confrontation, but no action was taken against Mr Jones for his defiant remarks. The broader implications of the committee's decisions were anticipated, with the Chief Government Whip, Dr Michael Cullen, indicating that the bill would soon be reported back to the House, possibly as early as the following day. The ongoing discussions surrounding the Homosexual Law Reform Bill exemplify the contentious nature of legislative processes regarding sensitive social issues in 1985 New Zealand.

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