Mr Jones Warns M.P.s Of ‘gay’ Repeal Bill (Press, 7 November 1985)

On 7 November 1985, members of the New Zealand Parliament were engaged in heated discussions regarding the Homosexual Law Reform Bill, which prompted significant public opposition. National Party MP N. P. H. Jones warned that should the bill pass, he would introduce a repeal measure. Jones proposed to computerise electoral rolls and organise community canvassing to build support for his repeal initiative. He stressed that the issue would remain prominent until the next election. The discussions were prompted by a report from the Justice and Law Reform Select Committee, which received numerous petitions against the reform. A particularly contentious petition opposing the bill had amassed 817,000 signatures, and since its submission, an additional 18,000 signatures had been collected, bringing the total to 835,000. However, acting committee chair T. C. Mallard stated that the committee would not recommend any actions regarding the petitions. There were concerns expressed over the authenticity of the signatures, with Mallard noting discrepancies in his own Hamilton West electorate, where claims of 17,000 signatures were found to have much lower valid counts. Minister of Social Welfare Mrs Hercus supported Mallard's findings, reporting a major overstatement of signatures from her Lyttelton electorate, as she could only verify 1,500 signatures compared to the claimed 5,139. The integrity of the petitions was further questioned by several MPs, leading to accusations of biased handling from committee members. W. R. Peters of the National Party accused Mallard of acting improperly in his management of the petitions, while G. E. Lee suggested that disregarding the petition was an attack on the sentiments of 817,000 people. Counterarguments were made by Labour MP Fran Wilde, who raised concerns regarding the credibility of the petition process and how signatures were allocated to electorates. This sentiment echoed across several MPs, all contributing to a narrative of confusion and controversy surrounding the bill and the petitions against it. Amidst the stark divisions in Parliament, Dr M. J. Cullen highlighted the importance of allowing members to vote according to their conscience on such moral issues, asserting that government stances could not be dictated by weighted petitions. Critics of the bill expressed frustration at what they saw as a rapid and dismissive approach to a serious societal issue, stating their concerns about the implications for Christian values and societal norms. Overall, the discussions represented a significant moment in New Zealand's history regarding the human rights of the LGBTQ+ community and set the stage for ongoing debates around homosexual law reform. The conflicting viewpoints showcased the deep societal divides that the bill brought to light, highlighting the complicated nature of legislative processes when it intersects with evolving social values.

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