M.P.s’ attitudes tougher on homosexual law

Press, 8 May 1985, Page 38

M.P.s’ attitudes tougher on homosexual law

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

in Wellington

Attitudes among the 94 members of Parliament are hardening on the issue of homosexual law reform. All 94 members will have a concience vote, on the legislation when it returns to Parliament from public consideration of the hundreds of submissions made to the Parliamentary select committee hearing public concerns on the legislation.

The bill was introduced in Parliament by Ms Fran Wilde (Lab., Wellington Central) in a very liberal form. Her legislation seeks to do three things:-® Decriminalise homosexual acts between consenting adults. • Define an “adult” as a male 16 years or older. • Alter the Human Rights legislation so discrimination against adult homosexuals becomes illegal. A clear majority of members agreed that Ms Wilde’s legislation should be introduced in Parliament so the law could be reformed.

But it is becoming increasingly unlikely that the legislation in the form that she introduced it will be acceptable to a majority of individual members. There are two main reasons for this:-

First. a national petition has been circulated opposing the legislation. It has drawn tremendous public support, and also acted as an agent to strengthen positions within society on homosexual law reform of any kind.

This is bound to have an impact on members of Parliament, many of whom have no firm convictions for or against reform.

Second, Parliament seems to be dividing down party lines on the issue, even though all parties in Parliament have agreed to waive party discipline and vote on individual consciences. The Prime Minister, Mr Lange, has come out strongly for some reform and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr McLay, strongly against any reform. In this, both men reflect the majority view of their colleagues

in Labour and National, respectively, in Parliament.

Because there are more Labour members than National, simple arithmetic suggests that if most Labour and some National members support reform, and if most National and some Labour members oppose it, then a majority will be available to ensure some reform.

This reform is unlikely to be as liberal, extreme and all-encompassing as that envisaged in the legislation Ms Wilde introduced in Parliament.

It is unlikely to include altering the Human Rights legislation to end discrimination against homosexuals; it is likely to raise the age of consent from 16 to 18 or even 20 years.

But it does look as if there will still be a simple majority to decriminalise homosexual acts between consenting adults, above the age'agreed to.

These trends are apparent in the replies a Christchurch man has received from letters he wrote to members of Parliament on the issue.

It is clear from these that most National members oppose any reform, and that most Labour members favour some reform. National members of Parliament who indicated an intention to oppose any reform included Mr Doug Kidd (Marlborough), Mr Robin Gray (Clutha), Mr Bill Birch (Franklin), Mr Roger McLay (Waikaremoana) and Mr Bruce Townsend (Kaimai). Others gave no indication which way they would vote.

But there were others who indicated support for some degree of reform, including Miss Ruth Richardson (Selwyn) and Mr Simon Upton (Waikato). The same ratio, only the other way round, was evident in the replies from the Labour members. Some, like Mr Mike Moore (Papanui), were not convinced that any law or change in the law would make much difference. Those who oppose reform include Mr Geoff Braybrooke (Napier) and Mr Allan Wallbank (Gisborne).

But a majority of Labour members supported reform, some supporting Ms Wilde’s bill, but others expressing doubts about the age of consent and altering the Human Rights legislation.

Mr Jonathan Hunt (New Lynn) supported reform, but had doubts about the age of consent; Dr. Michael Bassett (Te Atatu) also had doubts about the age of consent; Mr Peter Neilson (Miramar) and Mrs Ann Fraser (East Cape) said they would poll their electors before making up their minds.

Mr Trevor Mallard supported all the proposed reforms, and said he was urging as many other supporters as possible to make submissions to Parliament on it.

Mr Ken Shirley (Tasman) said he was concerned about the general lack of knowledge and misinformation surrounding the bill, showing definite confusion between matters of individual morality and matters of constitutional legality.