Second Debate Of Gay Law Reform Bill Begins (Press, 10 October 1985)

On 10 October 1985, the New Zealand Parliament began the crucial second reading of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill, introduced by Ms Fran Wilde, the Labour MP for Wellington Central. This legislation seeks to decriminalise consensual sexual activity between males aged 16 and over, while also protecting children under 16 and amending the Human Rights Commission Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Wilde spoke passionately about the "hot breath of hatred" that homosexuals had been facing from opponents of the bill, indicating that she, too, had endured personal attacks during the campaign for reform. The bill had recently been reported back to Parliament after a vote of 47-32, despite attempts to refer it back to a select committee. Wilde expressed that confronting deeply ingrained prejudices within society was a challenging but necessary process. She acknowledged the emotional intensity of the debate and remarked on the vicious nature of the attacks directed towards the LGBTQ+ community and their supporters. Wilde argued against the use of "destructive myths" about homosexuality by opponents, citing unfounded fears linked to cities like San Francisco. She clarified that her bill would not interfere with free speech and emphasised the importance of presenting real facts to alleviate public fears. She cautioned Parliament members against allowing a vocal minority to dictate the conversation surrounding this significant social issue. Opposition voices included Mr Venn Young, who did support the decriminalisation of homosexuality but advocated for raising the age of consent to 20. He acknowledged concerns about the age of consent while deferring to the concept of sexual orientation being as intrinsic as other physical traits. Young, along with others like Mr Geoff Braybrooke, expressed uncertainty about equating homosexual and heterosexual behaviours, asking for more research, a Royal Commission, and a referendum to gauge public sentiment before any legal changes were enacted. Braybrooke, a prominent opponent of the bill, argued that it lacked public mandate and insinuated that the mere act of consenting in private should not negate the importance of public morality. He further maintained that if the bill passed, it should not encompass the Armed Forces or police due to the necessity of strict discipline and the potential for morale issues in combat situations. As the debate evolved, tensions heightened, marked by interruptions and accusations of antagonism from opponents towards Wilde. The broader discussion highlighted a significant divide within Parliament and society regarding moral values, the understanding of homosexuality, and the legal implications of such reforms. The upcoming decisions would undoubtedly play a pivotal role in shaping New Zealand's legislative stance on gay rights and discrimination in the years to come.

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