Motions

Gay Law Reform Anniversary

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier) (10:33): I move:

That this parliament—

1. Remembers with pride that South Australia was the first jurisdiction in Australia to decriminalise homosexuality;

2. Records the special parliamentary leadership of Murray Hill, Don Dunstan, Peter Duncan and Anne Levy in this achievement;

3. Records the commitment of gay rights activists and other concerned individuals and organisations who fought to have a basic human right recognised; and

4. Acknowledges the ongoing and vital contribution to our community by members of its lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer community.

I rise to mark a defining date in South Australia's history. A week from today is the 40^th anniversary of our state becoming the first jurisdiction in Australia to decriminalise homosexual acts between consenting adults.

In September 1975 under the premiership of Don Dunstan South Australia initiated one of many legislative 'firsts' in our state and, indeed, in our nation's history in the fight against discrimination. We have a proud history, being the first to initiate legislation against all forms of discrimination. In 1894 we were the first jurisdiction in Australia to end the gender discrimination against women having the vote and the first place in the world to end discrimination against women standing for parliament.

Also in 1975, following on from a private member's bill previously introduced by Liberal member Dr David Tonkin, the Dunstan government passed the first Sex Discrimination Act. In 1976, in another first, Premier Dunstan appointed Ms Mary Beasley as the first commissioner of equal opportunity. Her focus was to implement the act against discrimination based on gender and marital status.

Such groundbreaking reforms were not easily won. They took leadership—but they demand leadership of a particular kind. Don Dunstan was a leader who championed the dignity of the individual and who promoted legislative and cultural reforms to ameliorate all forms of injustice, inequality and discrimination.

In the 1960s and 1970s he became Australia's foremost civil rights leader. His leadership was generated from an inner belief and force that compelled him to try to make the surrounding world, whether it be family, community, the state or his nation, a better and fairer place. This was the reason he entered politics. In 1968, Martin Luther King said these words:

There comes a time when one must take the position that is neither safe nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because his conscience tells him it is right.

King's leadership sprang from his ethical and moral authority and his ability to inspire others; so too did Don Dunstan's. King was fearless in his goal to end racial discrimination. Dunstan was fearless in his goal to end all forms of discrimination.

Why did he do this? He did this because these actions were grounded in his core beliefs. Dunstan knew that he was setting himself up for attack in both his personal and political life. He knew that he risked alienating voters. Fearlessly, he led the charge against homophobia and discrimination and fought for equal human rights for homosexual citizens. He refused to succumb to the climate of homophobic fear and distrust whipped up by his opponents.

Dunstan knew that if you set out to change the world you will always be attacked by those who do not want the world to change. His leadership model relied on bringing out what Abraham Lincoln called 'the better angels of our nature'. Great leaders must publicly stand up and speak out about what they believe. Don Dunstan was just such a leader. Let us not forget that attitudes against homosexuality during Dunstan years were extreme. In 1962 Max Harris, the South Australian journalist, publisher and entrepreneur, wrote in an essay entitled Morals and Manners these words:

Australian vernacular is rich in insults, but there is no insult quite so deadly and unforgivable as to call a man a 'poofter'. The word is loaded with more disgust, distaste and hatred than any other unprintable words…as if the homosexual were a mysterious non-human immoral aberration from outer space.

It was extremely difficult for homosexuals not to internalise these attitudes and judgements. These were the days when homosexual men could be sacked from their jobs, kicked out of their homes, disowned by their families and friends, and brought before the courts and gaoled for engaging in consensual sex with other men.

But it took Dunstan 10 years to achieve this reform. In 1965 he argued for decriminalisation, but was blocked by the Labor caucus. He tried again in 1969, but an election intervened. In 1971 he included homosexuality in the Mitchell Review of the state criminal law. Three private members' bills were introduced between 1972 and 1975.

In 1972 the Adelaide University law lecturer, Dr George Duncan, was bashed and ultimately drowned in the Torrens River. He was a tragic victim of the so-called sport of 'poofter bashing'. The broad South Australian community was, however, shocked and horrified at the extent to which homosexuals were being threatened and persecuted, and public support therefore grew for decriminalising homosexual practices between consenting adults in private.

An editorial in The Advertiser in July 1972 was headed 'Legalise Homosexuality'. In 1972, a private member's bill was introduced by Murray Hill, a progressive upper house member of the then Liberal and Country League Party. Unfortunately, it was one of his colleagues who introduced amendments that severely limited and weakened the legislation and the bill's original intentions.

But Dunstan did not give up. In March 1973, Peter Duncan, an idealistic young lawyer who had been a member of Young Labor in the 1960s, was elected to the backbench. His private member's bill for the full decriminalisation of homosexuality was introduced in the House of Assembly in September 1973. His bill established an equitable code for sexual behaviour, providing a uniform age of consent of 17 years for both males and females, regardless of sexual orientation.

Unfortunately, a public push by the Gay Activists Alliance for sex education in schools produced a media backlash and a loss of public support, and Duncan's first attempt at law reform was derailed. After the re-election of the Dunstan government in 1975, Peter Duncan reintroduced the bill, was successful in securing its enactment and went on to become a reforming attorney-general.

We are here today to commemorate and celebrate this historic milestone of 40 years ago. We are also here to remind ourselves that our state was the first jurisdiction in the nation to decriminalise homosexual acts. All the other states followed in our wake. It took Tasmania another 22 years to catch up. Ours was the first legislation in the English-speaking world to eliminate any distinction in the criminal law between heterosexual and homosexual, and it included an equal age of consent.

Anne Levy sponsored the final bill in the upper house. Gay activists worked hard to lobby both parliamentarians and the public, together with other forward thinking individuals. Organisations such as the South Australian Council for Civil Liberties and the Methodist Church joined the push to change the law.

It is important to remind ourselves in this parliament that premier Dunstan did not just change the law: he continued to monitor the application of the law. He worked hard behind the scenes to ensure that the old network opposed to the change did not bite back and stop it. As premier, he not only appointed the right people to enact and administer the change, he ensured that they were supported.

A belief in fairness and equal rights for all of our citizens is in our DNA. Let us be open in our celebration of this. Not only must we be proud of our history but of those who worked so hard to achieve it, and we must pass on this knowledge. We must pass on what happened to Dr George Duncan in order that homophobia will never again be allowed to raise its ugly head in our state.

Our history defines us. Our history tells us who we are and what we value. Events and celebrations are important opportunities for us to remember all of these matters. Murray Hill, Don Dunstan, Peter Duncan and Anne Levy must be acknowledged for their leadership. So, as part of the Feast Festival pride march on 14 November, there will be 100 marching Don Dunstans—

An honourable member: In pink shorts?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Absolutely—pink shorts, as well. On the day that Don wore those pink shorts to parliament, it was reported in new services all over the world, even in Zanzibar. Now, that is cut-through.

The day before this March, the 2015 Australian Homosexual Histories Conference will be held in Adelaide to commemorate our anniversary. On 17 September, one week today, one week from the anniversary of the day this parliament made history, Anne Levy will launch an exhibition at the State Library entitled 'An open and shut case?' celebrating 40 years of gay law reform in South Australia.

But the struggle is not yet over. We are still to pass the law for marriage equality and, despite the best efforts of the conservative forces in this nation to waylay this reform, support for this is enjoyed by 70 per cent of Australians.

In this past 40 years, with Dunstan's legacy alive and well, I am pleased that South Australian Labor has continued to lead the way. In 1984 the Labor government amended the Equal Opportunity Act to criminalise discrimination on the grounds of sexuality or assumed sexuality. In 2008, Labor introduced the Domestic Partnerships Act which gave equal rights to same-sex couples in domestic partnerships. In 2013, we amended the Spent Convictions Act to allow men with convictions for homosexual acts prior to the law reform in 1975 to apply to have their criminal record expunged.

In 2014, my government released the South Australian Strategy for the Inclusion of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex and Queer People. Earlier this year we announced, through the Governor's speech to the open parliament, that the government would invite the South Australian Law Reform Institute to review legislative or regulatory discrimination against individuals and families on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or intersex status.

The government has now received the institute's report on those matters on which immediate action can be taken. As a result, I will soon have an omnibus bill drafted for the parliament to consider. This bill will remove elements from up to 14 pieces of legislation that discriminate against members of our community who identify as LGBTIQ. Parliament will be given the opportunity to consider the second part of the South Australian Law Reform Institute report once it is received in the first half of next year.

Today, there is much to celebrate. Tomorrow, there is still much to be done. Mr Speaker, I commend this motion to the house. We remember with pride that South Australia led Australia to decriminalise homosexual acts; we acknowledge the important roles of Murray Hill, Don Dunstan, Peter Duncan and Anne Levy in this achievement; and we record our commitment to all those who struggled, often in difficult circumstances, to achieve this basic human right. Finally, we recognise the richness of the contribution that has been made to our state by members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer community.

Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (10:47): It is my great pleasure to rise in support of the Premier's motion, and can I just say it is a privilege to be able to speak on such an important issue.

It is often easy in the cut and thrust of politics to forget that we are united as parliamentarians in our love and pride for South Australia, and motions like these are a chance to reflect upon the achievements of our state. South Australia has a long history of social progression; much of it has been outlined in this house this morning by the Premier, from being the first state to give women the vote in Australia to being the first state to legislate for Aboriginal land rights. We have much to be proud of. However, we are here today to reflect and celebrate on that other great struggle that so typifies the quest for equality in the 21^st century: the decriminalisation of homosexuality.

Let me start by reflecting on the kind of place South Australia was back in 1972: William McMahon was soon to be replaced by Gough Whitlam as the Prime Minister; the Aboriginal Tent Embassy was erected on the lawns of the federal parliament; Olympic medallist Shane Gould was Australian of the Year; and here, only a few hundred metres from where we are now, the body of the Adelaide University Law Professor, Dr George Duncan, was found in the Torrens.

This single event cast a shadow across the state that would last decades. The noted professor was the victim of a hate crime: killed for daring to live his life according to the desires of his heart, rather than the forced, moral imperatives of his time. Following a manslaughter trial in 1988, the two accused were acquitted. Dr Duncan's killers have never been brought to justice. It was a truly shocking act, and one that not only tore at the very fabric of our legal and academic community but also at the heart of the gay and lesbian community—a community in hiding and a community under siege.

However, as so often happens, from great darkness comes great light. The death of Dr Duncan became a catalyst for gay law reform and, for the first time, turned the spotlight on the archaic laws that outlawed homosexuality in South Australia. Soon, a groundswell for change driven by activists and lobby groups was making waves throughout the wider community. Along with those parliamentarians already mentioned by the Premier, I would in particular like to pay tribute to the work of Liberal MLC the Hon. Murray Hill, the first parliamentarian in the country to ever make a serious attempt to decriminalise homosexuality.

Following the death of Dr Duncan, Murray Hill moved a private member's motion to amend the Criminal Law Consolidation Act to decriminalise homosexuality. In his second reading speech he noted:

I believe that there is now a tolerance and understanding of the problems facing homosexuals that were not apparent until recently…The greatest contribution that can be made to help is for society itself to be compassionate and willing to consider the opposite viewpoint.

However, the bill introduced by Mr Hill was not without opposition. The legislation was eventually passed, but heavily amended and watered down. The amended act changed the law to allow for the defence of a homosexual act committed with another male person in private by men over 21 years of age. Although the amended legislation was not in keeping with Mr Hill's original vision, it remained an Australian first and led the way for gay rights reform in South Australia. For a first step, it was surprisingly quick. The act was assented to in November 1972, not even a full six months after the tragic death of Dr Duncan.

As parliamentarians, it is easy for us to follow the Hansard debates and see the historical path of legislation in order to gain an understanding of the pitfalls encountered by those brave enough to fight for equality. It is much harder to truly understand the plight of those everyday South Australians who fought for justice outside of these walls. In my mind, it is the mother who refused to turn away from her child, the individual who set up a support group despite the potential backlash, the business owners who allowed their premises to be a safe space for members of the LGBTI communities and the passionate activists who would not stop yelling until their voices were heard. They are the true heroes.

One such hero was Adelaide City Councillor Mr Bert Edwards, who in 1930 was found guilty of sodomy and sentenced to five years' hard labour in South Australia. Consider how devastating this must have been for Mr Edwards. His court case was a public fascination. He was a professional man in his prime, a philanthropic man with a reputation for helping the needy, and here he was in gaol. He served three years before he was released on probation.

It would have been understandable if following an ordeal like this Mr Edwards faded away from public view. Instead, he was re-elected to the Adelaide City Council and continued his charitable work. Following his death, Premier Sir Thomas Playford said: 'Scarcely a good cause in the city did not receive some help from him.' It is people like Mr Edwards, who lived their lives in the face of such extreme brutality and injustice, and yet who still managed to contribute to a better South Australia who are the true heroes.

All people want to be able to live free from discrimination and criminal penalties, free from the threat of violence and free to express their own unique identities. If it was not for the dedicated campaigners for gay rights in our state, South Australia would not be the culturally diverse, inclusive and vibrant place that it is today.

Of course, it would be remiss of me not to mention the fantastic work done by a range of organisations in South Australia. In particular, I would like to acknowledge Let's Get Equal for their work over the past 15 years, as they have lobbied tirelessly for equal rights for same-sex couples. Many have given their time to grow Let's Get Equal. In particular, I would like to recognise in the Hansard the contribution by Mr Ian Purcell, Mr Matt Loader, Ms Liana Buchanan, Mr Scott Sims, Jo and Terri Mitchell-Smith, Ms Roxxy Bent and the late Mr Andrew Steinwedel.

I would like to make particular reference to Mr Tim Reeves and Mr Will Sergeant, who, along with Ian Purcell, are about to open an exhibition charting South Australia's history of gay law reform at the State Library. I look forward to seeing this exhibition and I hope many of my colleagues in this place will also take that opportunity. I would like to acknowledge the Director of the State Library, Mr Alan Smith, and his colleague Ms Jenny Scott for their work with the LGBTI community.

As we reach the 40-year milestone of gay law reform it is time to reflect on how far we have come and how far we have yet to go. I look forward to a time when gay, lesbian, intersex and transgender young people are not at an increased risk of bullying and suicide. I look forward to a time where 'gay panic' is no longer a legitimate defence for murder. I look forward to a time when a person's sexuality is not the first descriptor used to describe them and where the language around sexuality is no longer loaded with judgement. I have no doubt that in South Australia we will reach such a time. We have a proud history when it comes to gay rights and one that I am sure will continue.

Ms HILDYARD (Reynell) (10:55): I rise to speak very briefly in support of this motion. Our state has such a proud and rich history of tackling discrimination in our community and in our parliament. The very fabric of our community is enriched through our collective desire and drive to work together, to stamp out unfairness, inequality and discrimination in all its forms. Our history speaks volumes about what we as South Australians value. I congratulate our Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in choosing to speak together today about this history and indeed about our ongoing struggle for fairness and dignity for all.

Today in this parliament and shortly over morning tea, we rightly commemorate and celebrate 40 years since homosexuality was decriminalised in South Australia, and in doing so we acknowledge the many fearless campaigners who led the way in achieving this result. I often say that leadership is both deeply personal and inherently collective. The best leadership focuses on a collective outcome which achieves positive change for many, but to achieve it, individuals have to make often very personal decisions to speak up, to do something differently, to act.

Today I pay tribute to every campaigner and every legislator who made a personal decision 40 years ago to speak up and out in their refusal to accept discrimination. I also pay tribute today to the many people who are here in the gallery and many others in our community who generously and tirelessly continue to campaign to ensure the rights of all of our LGBTIQ brothers and sisters.

Every campaign to end discrimination or inequality takes a long time and often takes much from those who lead the way, those who speak up first, and those who speak up relentlessly in support of change. Thank you to you all for your courage, your perseverance, your wisdom, your big hearts and your open minds. We have come so far but there is still much to do.

I look forward to continuing to work and campaign with you all and our broader community to end all forms of discrimination against all members of our LGBTIQ community, and I certainly look forward to the day that together we celebrate the collective achievement finally of marriage equality. I do hope and am confident that we will not be waiting 40 years for that celebration. History shows us that when we work together on what we know is fair and right we win, and on marriage equality, win we will.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (10:58): I too stand to speak in favour of the motion. I congratulate the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Reynell for their comments, and I would like to reflect on generally what happens in politics. Regardless of what political party you are a member of, whether it comes to education, whether it comes to health, whether it comes to other sectors in the community, I think it is fair to say that people from both sides want the best outcome.

The politics is about how you get there, but I think when it comes to the progressive members of the parliament, and their view of, and support for equality, there is no politics about how to get there it is, 'Let's just do it. Let's do it. Let's make sure we support equality.' The South Australian parliament has a very proud history in how it was the first to move on equality, particularly in homosexual rights and, of course, women's right to vote and stand for parliament.

I would like to rely heavily during my contribution on some work done by Graham Carbery in his 1993 paper, 'Towards Homosexual Equality in Australian Criminal Law—A Brief History.' It is a paper about the changes to homosexual law in Australia, but South Australia features very heavily in it. So I will be reading some sections and I will paraphrase some other sections, because it does give us a history of just how the process got started here in South Australia:

The first step along the road to achieving homosexual law reform in South Australia was the decision of Don Dunstan, as Attorney-General in the Walsh Labor Government in the mid-1960s, to have a homosexual law reform bill drafted. Some years later Dunstan explained why his proposal was not acted on: 'I did not proceed with it then because the climate of public opinion was not such that I believed we could obtain a sufficient consensus of opinion to support an amendment to the law.

Dunstan became Premier of South Australia in 1967 when Frank Walsh retired, but lost the election in 1968. He became premier again when Labor was re-elected in 1970.

Dunstan maintained an interest in homosexual law reform, but chose to exert influence behind the scenes rather than be publicly identified with the issue. For example, in December 1971 the government set up an enquiry to review the operation of the criminal law in South Australia, and one of its terms of reference was consideration of decriminalisation of homosexuality.

It was the death of gay academic, Dr George Duncan on 10 May 1972, however, that was a major factor in bringing about the first…reforms of South Australia's anti-homosexual laws. It focused public attention on the widespread harassment of homosexuals in Adelaide by police. Dr Duncan and another man were thrown into the Torrens River by police at a spot well known as a homosexual 'beat', ie. a place where homosexual men meet, often for the purpose of having sex. Dr Duncan could not swim and drowned.

During the Coroner's inquest into Dr Duncan's death a group of people who were outraged at what had happened formed the Moral Freedom Committee (this was not a homosexual group) and wrote to members of the South Australian Parliament. The letter argued that had sex between males been legal more witnesses might have been willing to come forward and give evidence. On 1 July 1972 the morning daily newspaper, The Advertiser, published an editorial which supported the call for homosexual law reform.

It was not long before there was a political response to mounting public concern about the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr Duncan.

Within a week of the editorial in The Advertiser, an opposition member of the Legislative Council, the Hon. Murray Hill of the Liberal Country League—and, for those who do not know, the father of the Hon. Robert Hill, who went on to become a senator in South Australia and leader of the Senate in the Howard government—announced that he would introduce a private member's bill.

The newly-formed South Australian branch of the gay rights organisation, Campaign Against Moral Persecution (CAMP), had no role in initiating this bill, but met with Hill to offer support.

The paper continued:

Murray Hill's bill was limited to decriminalising homosexual acts in private between consenting males over 21. It defined 'in private' as involving no more than two people and not in 'a lavatory to which the public have or are permitted to have access.' Hill's reference to 'lavatory' was a reference to beats and intended to discourage homosexuals from meeting in, or congregating near, public toilets.

Even this limited reform proved too much for [some of] the conservatives in the Legislative Council and during the committee stage…Ren DeGaris moved an amendment that destroyed the purpose of the bill, ie. the decriminalisation of some homosexual conduct. Under DeGaris's amendment all male homosexual conduct would remain illegal, but a defence would be available to a person charged with a homosexual offence if the accused could show that the offence occurred in private between two consenting men over [the age of] 21.

That is quite extraordinary, really, when you think about it 40 years down the track.

The DeGaris amendment was adopted in the Legislative Council and after a conscience vote the amended bill was passed. However, the bill received a hostile reception when it was debated in the House of Assembly, and it not only removed the DeGaris amendment, it included an age of consent of 18 [rather than 21]. Not surprisingly, when the bill returned to the Legislative Council the DeGaris amendment was reinstated and [the] age of consent …was removed. The bill was sent back again to the House of Assembly and this time they gave in after a conscience vote, [and] it passed the Criminal Law Consolidation Act Amendment Bill.

Some of the media at the time was very interesting, as well, and I asked the parliamentary library if it could find some of the media. In July 1972, when the Hon. Murray Hill made his public announcement that he was going to introduce this bill, it was a very big story in The Advertiser. As the Leader of the Opposition said, he was the first member of parliament in Australia to do such a thing. The article, 'Homosexual Bill for S.A. Parlt.' by political reporter Eric Franklin, stated:

An LCP Member of the Legislative Council will introduce a Private Member's Bill to allow homosexual behaviour between consenting males in private.

It is interesting to note the language that was used. Mr Hill is quoted in the story:

To my way of thinking the society will have to accept that some individuals cannot resist this sort of behaviour.

That is a very interesting description of sex between same-sex couples. It was just a couple of months later that there was another story about Mr Hill's bill in the parliament, entitled 'Months of Vile Abuse But MP has no regrets over his homosexual Bill', which stated:

Mr. Murray Hill, the Member of Parliament who introduced homosexual reforms, said today he had been subjected to 'vile abuse' for the past four months. He said his personal reputation had, in some respects, been damaged.

It is a sad situation when this happens to those who express concern about injustices, and it happens to people in public office and those who are taking a public view on what society at the time might consider to be a controversial issue. Rather than a civil debate, we often end up having to deal with the sort of abuse that Mr Hill received in 1972.

I would like to acknowledge the work of the late Mr Andrew Steinwedel. I knew Andrew for a very long time. He was my accounts manager when I had my furniture business back in the 1990s, as well as being an active member of the Liberal Party. I met a young man, who was a cabinet maker, at the time I was doing my apprenticeship. He finally decided that was the way he was orientated and he shared that with me. I was the first person he shared that with. That was in 1980; I was 17 and I think he was 19. To think that that was just five years after it was legal to perform so-called homosexual acts in South Australia.

I did not think anything of it at the time. I was flattered that Peter had felt that he could share that with me, while we were down at the timber rack stacking timber actually, and we are still very good friends. He has been the same monogamous relationship for longer than I have been married to my wife of 26 years, and it is a beautiful relationship. I remember he said to me, 'Of course, David, I did not choose to be homosexual. Why would I choose to be outcast in society like homosexuals are? But I am pleased that I am because it has given me the opportunity to meet a beautiful man who I can share my life with.' I think that sort of relationship is missed in the whole debate about marriage equality and homosexual law reform throughout the world and, of course, here in South Australia.

The Premier mentioned Martin Luther King Jr in his speech. Martin Luther King had a dream and I too have a dream. My dream is that someone's sexual orientation should only be of your interest if you are going to ask them out.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (11:09): I will be brief because I appreciate there is a morning tea that many guests of the parliament are hoping to attend soon. Their interest in this debate, when it is adjourned, can be turned to that morning tea, and I thank those members who have organised it. However, this is a really important motion and I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on it this morning.

The motion has four parts: remembering with pride South Australia's history; the recognition of the parliamentarians who have contributed; and then the particular recognition of those activists, both historically and of the present day, who have made our past laws worthy of that pride and who will continue to improve the quality of life in South Australia for people who wish to not have laws discriminating against them. All four parts of the motion are important, and I just want to outline why briefly.

I feel privileged, as I know other members do, to have grown up in South Australia, a state that has, as the Premier, Leader of the Opposition and others have identified, led the world in so many ways in law reform that removes discrimination, ensures human dignity and provides freedoms wherever possible. It is important to celebrate with pride the things that have led to that, because through celebration we not only are able to feel good about ourselves, but we bring those along with us who will continue in the fight against discrimination wherever it may be found and, perhaps as importantly as that, will continue to look for ways that we can improve our freedoms and our dignities as citizens.

Every part of the way that government, society or the community intrudes on the freedoms that we have in our own individual lives to live our lives as we choose is something that we need to work against, because as lawmakers we do have a contribution to make there and it is an ongoing and continuing one. I have said in this place before that we must protect our freedoms jealously and fight for those freedoms jealously. They must be nurtured vigilantly and celebrated proudly. Hopefully we will continue to do that, and part of our endeavours will continue to be achieved through that celebration.

We have heard the history: on 26 July 1972, Liberal MLC Murray Hill was the first politician in the country to move to change the law to decriminalise homosexuality. For Mr Hill, it was injustice that needed remedy, despite the challenges that he faced that the member for Unley has particularly identified. I think that the second part of the motion, which identifies the contributions personally of Murray Hill, Don Dunstan, Peter Duncan and Anne Levy, is important, because it was not a universally popular thing. For four months, as the member for Unley identified, Murray Hill came under vicious personal attack for the work he was doing, and it was done for the benefit of the community and because it was the achievement of the principles for which Murray Hill wanted to contribute to the parliament. That is why he wanted to be here.

That is why we should celebrate him in retrospect, as well as the other members identified: because without that celebration, members of parliament should always be encouraged to act in such a way. The leadership must be dealt with. John Stuart Mill penned the principle that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals. It is a mark on our history that for too long—far too long—the law has imposed so many limitations on people within the GLBTIQ community.

I think a couple of members have mentioned Andrew Steinwedel. I was at Andrew's funeral a couple of months ago, and so many members of the community went down to Victor Harbor to share in his family's loss and the loss of his loved ones. There were a number of members of parliament, not just from South Australia, who were in attendance on that day, and I think all of us felt very much glad to be together. Andrew committed a significant amount of his life to pursuing these goals in the broader community and also within the Liberal Party.

I think that as we consider, in any of the matters of law that come before us, how to progress these matters, some of the things that used to not be conscience votes have become conscience votes through the work of people like Andrew, and it is important to note that community attitudes do change. In the federal parliament, there is legislation on which there is discussion about whether the government should have a conscience vote or not. I note that both sides of parliament did not have a conscience vote on the matter until very recently and that society's attitudes change.

The Premier and the Leader of the Opposition identified bigotry in school and the way that words can have an impact on people. The word 'poofter' that the Premier talked about, when I was at school, was handed around often in a way that one hopes does not continue to take place. It was a word used to emasculate and a word used to put down; it was the insult for which there was not supposed to be a response, and that cannot be allowed to go on.

We have heard a number of speakers talk about mental health issues, and I think that is why it is as important as anything else that we continue to celebrate the way that we have progressed, because in the 20 years since I graduated I know there has been a change in the community just as there has been a change in the way that parliamentarians have treated these issues. However, it must continue to be fought for and continue to be championed so that in the community where we show leadership, hopefully, there will be opportunities for those young people in schools not to be called a poofter and they are not going to be emasculated or treated in ways that are going to have impacts on their mental health.

I hope that, as the Leader of the Opposition says, we will reach a time where someone's sexuality, or sexual identification, will have absolutely no impact on their suicide rate. It is a tremendously important function of leadership that we continue this work. I note that this afternoon the member for Reynell will be progressing a bill that has already passed the Legislative Council on parentage presumptions; and I hope that, on a day like today, this parliament will take the opportunity at that stage to continue our proud history and pass yet another piece of legislation that will remove discrimination in South Australia.

I commend the motion to the house. I look forward to supporting that bill this afternoon, and I thank all members who have contributed to where we are now.

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (11:16): I think it is a very proud day today in parliament that we do make the acknowledgments that we have made, and I commend the Premier, in particular, but certainly the Leader of the Opposition and other speakers for their words. I would also like to acknowledge the people in the gallery who have been significant contributors to the long journey that seems to be ongoing with regard to human rights legislation and equality in this state.

I am also very pleased to acknowledge the work that has been done over many years, and I have had the honour of working with the Let's Get Equal group; and certainly I am a very proud member, as a number of people on this side are, of Rainbow Labor which continues to do excellent work, in my view, on a national basis as well as in South Australia, and also to acknowledge the work of the Premier's commission with Professor John Williams, who, I think, will be able to set a good agenda for us in the future about where we need to go with regard to legislation (and, let's face it, that is our work in here), and also set an agenda for some of the support and services that will be needed to make sure that those agenda items actually happen.

On coming into parliament I had a very strong view about what sort of progressive legislation was necessary, and I was very pleased—although I was quite surprised—that we ended up with domestic partnerships legislation. In hindsight I can see where that is actually very helpful to people who are in significant relationships or in household situations where there is a domestic partnership, whether there is anything else in that relationship is up to those people.

As much as I was campaigning (as were a number of people in this place) for same-sex couples to be recognised and those relationships to be recognised, I think what we have ended up with is actually very positive. As I said, the agenda, I think, is about a quarter of the way through, and it is important that we do actually move along—with the guidance of Professor John Williams' work—to make sure that people who have different sexual orientation to what is considered to be the 'norm' are not discriminated against, and that would include, in my view, parenting rights.

I think that there is a lot of work that needs to be done there. I do not think it is necessarily a difficult question, but it is something that some of us have been campaigning on in this place for about 10 years, and there has not been a lot of progress; so, it would be very good if that agenda item is seen fit.

Again, congratulations to all the campaigners who are here today and those who could not be with us. Also, I extend my absolute compliment to the campaigners both in this house and the other house to make sure that we do actually end up with a progressive agenda in South Australia and that we become the leaders again, not where we are at the moment, which is behind the eight ball as far as I am concerned.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.R. Kenyon.