The title of this document is "Personal Explanation - Warren Freer (20 June 1980)". It is described as: Hansard - Personal Explanation - Warren Freer (20 June 1980). The proceedings occurred in Parliament on 20th June 1980. The main text body is sourced from Hansard, the official written record of the New Zealand Parliament. A brief summary of the content is: On June 20, 1980, Warren Freer, a member of the New Zealand Parliament representing Mt. Albert, delivered a personal explanation regarding his involvement in attempts to reform the country's laws related to homosexual activity. In 1979, Freer had engaged in discussions with the Homosexual Law Reform Society and other influential individuals, which led him to propose a bill aimed at updating the legal framework concerning consensual sexual acts between males. His proposal sought to align New Zealand’s laws with those adopted in England more than a decade earlier, reflecting progressive views on homosexuality. Freer had initially received substantial private support for his bill, which gave him confidence that it would secure a majority in Parliament. However, opposition emerged unexpectedly from radical groups. These groups were not satisfied with merely amending the existing provisions of the Crimes Act; instead, they sought the complete elimination of legal distinctions between males and females in the context of sexual conduct. This opposition created a backlash that hindered Freer’s efforts to move the reform forward, ultimately leading him to withdraw the proposal. In 1980, Freer revisited the idea of introducing a revised version of the bill. He circulated a draft among selected members of Parliament and other stakeholders, incorporating slight modifications, including changes in age-related provisions. His intention was to generate discussion and obtain feedback. Once again, he received encouraging responses and several constructive suggestions. However, the situation took an unfortunate turn when a forged version of Freer’s draft bill began circulating. This fraudulent document, which purported to bear Freer’s name, had altered the ages referenced in certain sections of the proposal. It was distributed to members of Parliament and possibly others outside the legislative body, apparently with the aim of creating confusion and inciting anger. Freer believed that the individuals responsible for this forgery were aligned with the same "all or nothing" groups that had undermined his previous attempt at reform. These groups, he asserted, were committed not to reforming the law but to abolishing all legal distinctions related to sexual acts. The dissemination of this falsified document significantly misrepresented Freer's intentions and led to unjust hostility toward his genuine efforts at reform. As a result, Freer informed the House that he had no intention of proceeding with the bill. He expressed regret for any embarrassment or concern caused to his parliamentary colleagues due to the actions of those outside the legislative process. Despite the gravity of the situation and the clear breach of parliamentary privilege, Freer chose not to pursue charges against those responsible for the forgery. In response, Prime Minister Robert Muldoon briefly addressed the matter, acknowledging the seriousness of the breach and its implications for parliamentary privilege. Muldoon urged Freer to reconsider his decision not to press charges, particularly if any evidence could be provided to identify those responsible for the forgery. The main text body begins:  20 June 1980, New Zealand Parliament. Hon. W. W. FREER (Mt Albert): With the leave of the House, I want to make a personal explanation. In 1979, after discussions with representatives of the Homosexual Law Reform Society and other people of responsibility and integrity, I agreed to introduce into Parliament a Bill designed to adapt the law relating to sexual acts between consenting males by establishing general principles similar to those accepted in England more than 10 years ago. I was assured privately of strong support, which led me to believe that the Bill would command a majority in Parliament, though undoubtedly the consciences of some members would have required them to vote against it. At that time I encountered opposition from a surprising quarter: radical groups who were bitterly critical of the existing provisions of the Crimes Act, but were not content merely to amend them. Their objective was to remove from the law all differences between males and females in respect of the constraints it places on sexual acts. This created a backlash that worked against my proposals for reform, and I decided not to proceed. Further talks this year with a number of members of the House encouraged me to try again, and I privately circulated to them, and to some others, a draft of a Bill similar to my 1979 proposal, but with some age difference. The object of this was to solicit comment and stimulate discussion, and, as before, I received much support and several helpful suggestions. Unfortunately, the draft appears to have come into the hands of the “all or nothing” groups who wantonly torpedoed my last attempt. This time they have gone further, and I find that a paper bearing my name and purporting to be a copy of the draft Bill, which many people knew I was preparing, has been distributed to members of Parliament and probably to an unknown number of others. In this forged document someone has altered the ages applying in certain sections of the Bill, and it is clearly intended to confuse and anger members and others. This clear and serious breach of parliamentary privilege has misled many members as to my intentions, and generated a hostility to my true purpose that, although totally unwarranted, is again calculated to kill the Bill. I have chosen the word carefully as I believe it is the calculated intention of those who have, in effect, appended my name to a forged document to brook no reform of this area of the law; rather they are dedicated to its abolition. Therefore, I tell the House that I have no intention of proceeding with the Bill, and apologise to members for any embarrassment or concern that may have resulted from the actions of persons outside the House. It is not my intention to press a privilege charge against those responsible for this forgery. Rt. Hon. R. D. MULDOON (Prime Minister): With the leave of the House, I want to comment briefly on the member's statement. The matter disclosed is a serious one, affecting the privileges of the House. I urge the member for Mt Albert, if he has any evidence as to who is responsible, to reconsider his decision not to press a charge of breach of privilege. The main text body ends. The original document can be accessed at this website address https://www.pridenz.com/hansard_personal_explanation_warren_freer_20_june_1980.html. Please note that this document may contain errors or omissions - you should always refer back to the primary source material to confirm content.