HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-09-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Motions

Decriminalisation of Homosexuality 50th Anniversary

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Workforce and Population Strategy) (16:06): I move:

That this house—

(a) notes that on 27 August 1975 South Australia became the first jurisdiction in the nation to decriminalise male homosexuality, with the passage of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1975, which commenced operation on 2 October 1975;

(b) expresses its regret to the many South Australians who were charged with and convicted of criminal offences simply for being their authentic selves;

(c) recognises that, in making these reforms, our state began a process which would be repeated in every Australian state and territory;

(d) acknowledges that in 2025 South Australia will commemorate this nation-leading legislation and mark its 50th anniversary;

(e) expresses its support for the community coming together to celebrate this anniversary and our state's role in leading the way on LGBTQIA+ law reform;

(f) celebrates the passage of other landmark LGBTQIA+ law reform in South Australia; and

(g) commits to continuing to work towards equality for all South Australians.

In two senses, this motion speaks to the extraordinary events that occurred when South Australia led the way in Australia in decriminalising homosexuality. I say 'extraordinary' in the sense that it is wonderful that we were the first state to do that. It is also extraordinary that it was necessary to do and, indeed, that it did not occur until 1975.

There is a profound moral view that I think we all share that we should recognise each other's human rights and that we should acknowledge that homosexuality or same-sex attraction is part of the human experience. That is something that is widely and perhaps almost universally accepted in our nation. That is a moral position that is important to who we are and what we say matters.

It is nonetheless the case that for a significant period of time it was against the law. It is astonishing in some ways that it was ever regarded as something that was to be the subject of criminal sanction. We often think, 'In the old days things were different,' but were they? Knowing how widespread the experience of same-sex attraction has always been, was it ever really acceptable that that made it into the criminal provisions?

By the time it came time to overturn that law, it had become self-evident in the community that this was an unacceptable element of our law, and yet it took enormous effort to overturn. It was not a matter simply of people recognising that to criminalise someone for their attraction to another was denying their human rights and denying our shared humanity. I want to pay tribute to the effort of the people on both sides of parliament, Labor and Liberal, who made it possible to overturn that law.

Social change takes effort, even when it appears to be so utterly necessary that one should not even have to make the case. It is also true that often when these big changes occur that are heart-wrenching and take that effort and that moral leadership that it does not take long before they are banked and just regarded as 'of course that is the position'. We almost forget that it was such an intense argument only 50 years ago, that it becomes something that is regarded as so naturally obvious that we find it remarkable to think that effort had to be gone to and that friendships were lost and people were pilloried and criticised for taking this position that we now almost universally regard as acceptable.

We therefore sometimes forget to celebrate those people who went through that experience and I think we also tend to overlook that it did not instantly stop homophobia, it did not instantly turn around people's attitudes. So this happened in the seventies. My brother—and I do not speak lightly that I have a family member who is gay. We all have loved ones, we all love people who are gay, we all know people, some of us are gay, so I do not mean to particularise and make special somehow that I have a brother who is. My brother and I are very, very close. We share a lot in this world and yet he experienced at school in the eighties and into the nineties homophobia even then and a feeling that perhaps it was not okay to come out, that it was not okay.

First of all, he had to come out. I never came out as heterosexual, but he had to come out as gay. It had to be something that was declared and, in doing that, it was a bit scary because there would be people, and there were people, who no longer were his friend after he did that. We should not forget that that is real pain, that is real suffering that occurred even after this big legislative change that exists still to this day in some parts of our society.

After this big shift occurred in at least decriminalising homosexuality, still there were changes that needed to be made and each time they occurred there was debate, hand-wringing and concern about whether we were letting go the morals of our society in recognising equal marriage. Because we were unable to get equal marriage done here at a state level, we had a relationship register and same-sex couples could adopt. It was a struggle that same-sex couples could have access to fertility treatments. We had the spent convictions that were recognised for those who had been caught up in the criminalisation of homosexuality. Each of these occasions, some of them very recent, nonetheless took effort from people to have to expose their personal stories, their experiences and to ask for the kindness of parliamentarians in overturning or changing laws in a way to recognise simply who people are and that we all share a common humanity.

So I am proud to be part of moving this motion, of it being recognised also equally in the other place. I acknowledge that we have the Hon. Ian Hunter in the gallery listening to us today. I am sort of ashamed to be an institution that had to make that change, that there were ever these barriers in the first place. But I accept that social change is often hard won, and then banked and forgotten and taken for granted. That seems to be the journey that we go on. So what I would like to do is not only acknowledge the cost to individuals in making this change in the first place but turn that into not just a celebration of that having occurred but a recognition that there is ongoing demand for us to treat people in their full experience of being human.

Whatever part of society we look at—whether it is women seeking to be treated equally in the gender pay gap, whether it is addressing domestic, family and sexual violence, as we did earlier today, and finally recognising coercive control as an indicator of future crimes to come and as a crime in itself, whether it is looking at the full variety of people's gender experiences and identity—we must lead with kindness and with generosity. We do not always in this place but, when we are at our best, we do.

The common theme is recognising not just our common humanity, but empowering the powerless that, wherever there are people who have been deprived of their power, it is our job to find room for them to be given it. If we apply that in every decision we make, then we can only ever make decisions that make our society better, stronger, more resilient and more loving. So I commend this motion to the house, and I thank everybody who has ever participated in this debate.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley) (16:15): Today, we celebrate the history of the progression of humanity, from the decriminalisation of homosexuality in South Australia, to national marriage equality under Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, and to the abolition of the gay panic defence under former Attorney-General, and Deputy Premier, Vickie Chapman. Each of these reforms reaffirm that love, fairness and dignity are universal and central to our society.

In May 1972, the tragic death of law lecturer Dr George Duncan in the River Torrens shocked South Australia into action. That anger gave courage to reform us. Liberal MLC Murray Hill introduced a private member's bill in July 1972, the first significant parliamentary attempt in Australia to decriminalise homosexual conduct. Though initially unsuccessful, it paved the way for further action. Ultimately, on 2 October 1975, the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Amendment Act 1975 (SA) fully decriminalised consensual homosexual activity—a world-leading reform outside Europe and North America.

Decades later, same-sex couples sought full legal recognition through marriage. On 7 December 2017, following a national postal survey, the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017 passed parliament. As a member of the Liberal Party at that time, and as a supporter of marriage equality, I was unsure of the reasons why the parliament would not make that decision without going to a ballot of the public.

On reflection, the result was so overwhelming—particularly in some of the safest Liberal seats in the country—that it has put this argument to bed forever. No politician in their right mind is going to raise winding back marriage equality because of that people power. It was not just the parliament that gave the permission and the ability for same-sex marriage to be normalised—it was the people of Australia who did that through that plebiscite. As Prime Minister Turnbull later reflected:

The Australian people have said 'yes' to marriage equality, 'yes' to fairness, 'yes' to commitment, 'yes' to love. The time has now come to make that equality a reality.

When the result was formally announced, capturing the emotion of the moment, he said:

What a day. What a day for love, for equality, for respect. Australia has done it.

These words, straight from Turnbull's speech, resonate as one of the defining moments on national equality reform. We then move to the abolition of the gay panic defence in South Australia.

Despite South Australia being the first state to decriminalise homosexuality, it lagged behind on removing the destructive gay panic defence—a partial provocation defence in murder cases. As South Australia's first female Attorney-General, Vickie Chapman declared in parliament:

The law as it stands in regards to the gay panic defence is downright offensive…The amendments of the Provocation Bill will bring the law into line with modern community expectations.

She emphasised that the law before its amendment was 'downright offensive' and out of step with community values.

On 1 December 2020, the Statutes Amendment (Abolition Defence of Provocation and Related Matters) Act 2020 (SA) passed, removing the defence entirely, making South Australia the last state to do so. These milestones, from Hill's 1972 bill to Turnbull's leadership in 2017 and Chapman's reform in 2020, paint a picture of principled, reformist leadership within the Liberal tradition. They demonstrate that progressive change can come from anywhere, even where inertia once held sway.

While the law has evolved, gaps remain. Religious exception still allows discrimination in schools and workplaces. Access to trans healthcare protections remains unequal. Mental health outcomes remain a pressing concern. But our history gives us hope. When Liberal leaders decide to lead, equality advances. Today, we commemorate key landmarks: the 1975 decriminalisation, the 2017 marriage equality vote and the 2020 abolition of the gay panic defence. We should all be proud of South Australia's willingness to lead and of those leaders who stood for progress, dignity and equality. Let us commit to continuing the journey, ensuring that every South Australian, no matter who they love, how they identify, live their lives, are free from discrimination and inequity.

The ABC did a piece some time ago about the history of the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Australia, and of course South Australia is there as the first state to do that on 17 September 1975. That was under the Dunstan government and Attorney-General Peter Duncan. The ACT, even before they had self government in November 1976, prepared a discrimination bill. Before Dunstan, Canberra did not have full government at the time, so they relied on the federal parliament to enact laws, which were not passed until after the laws in South Australia.

On 23 December 1980, the Hamer Liberal government decriminalised male homosexuality. Surprisingly, up until 1949, the death penalty was still on the statute books for sodomy in Victoria. The Northern Territory passed its law in 1983 without a campaign for change. It was Chief Minister Paul Everingham's CLP government that reformed the law on that occasion. Ironically, there was discrimination before decriminalisation. Despite having Mardi Gras and Sydney's largest gay population, Sydney was not a gay law reform leader. Anti-discrimination laws were passed in 1982 before decriminalisation in 1984. Theoretically, for two years, being gay in New South Wales was not grounds for dismissal but it was grounds for imprisonment.

The biggest story to tell is that of Tasmania. Twenty-two years after South Australia's historic move, Tasmania stood alone persisting in criminalising gay men. Previously, reform attempts had been blocked by the state's conservative upper house. Gay activists took the matter to the High Court, so faced with the state law being struck down Tasmania's upper house finally passed gay law reform by one vote. It came into effect on 13 May 1997.

In Western Australia, after four failed attempts during the seventies and eighties, the Labor government of Peter Dowding removed consenting homosexual activity from the criminal code in December 1989. It passed into law in March 1990. In Queensland, it again was 1990. Under long-serving Queensland Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen gay law reform was not on the Sunshine State's radar. Following the election of Labor's Wayne Goss in late 1989 the law was changed, in October 1990. A very close friend of mine who is a gay man moved to Queensland in 1984, I think it was, for a permanent move, a change of life, and he was very conscious of the fact that he was moving to a state where acts of homosexuality were outlawed.

When you think about it 50 years was not a long time ago. There are people in this chamber who were born at that time, and I was a few years old. 1975 was my second year of high school. But it did not take long for the many of those who had been active in social politics, or had aspirations to be involved in politics, to run for parliament. There were two openly gay men who were successful in the Australian parliament, in the House of Representatives. This is where the test is about the community's acceptance of homosexuality in the modern world. Tim Wilson, an openly gay man, won his seat in metropolitan Melbourne, he subsequently lost it and then he won it back. Another Liberal House of Representatives member, Trent Zimmerman, was elected and known as an openly gay man. I may have missed it, but I was not able to find any openly gay Labor men in the lower house seats in the federal parliament, and it would be great if somebody could put something on the record.

On that note, it is terrific to be in a parliament several generations down since this parliament was first in the country to decriminalise male homosexual activity. Of course, in this same chamber it was the first parliament in the world to allow women to run for parliament. So we have a strong tradition of being socially progressive in this state, regardless of what side of politics you come from. You can argue about the size of government and delivery of government services and the way we raise taxes or the way our services are run, but the one thing we agree on is that people have the right to live their lives as they wish without being ridiculed and without being unlawful. I dream of the day when the only time anyone is interested in someone's sexual preference is if they want to ask them out.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD (Reynell—Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Women and the Prevention of Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence) (16:28): Thank you to the members who have already contributed to this debate, and to our Deputy Premier for bringing this really important motion to this house, and to the Hon. Ian Hunter who, I understand, brought a similar motion to the upper house also.

As has been spoken about, in this year, 2025, we celebrate and mark 50 years since Premier Don Dunstan led South Australia to become the first state in the country to decriminalise homosexuality. It is reforms like this one, ones that absolutely are about promoting love, equality and human rights for all, that make a real difference in people's lives and that are so very important to the wellbeing of South Australians and South Australia and to the very strength and fabric of our South Australian community.

I think it is really important to note that this is a reform that was fought so very hard for by incredibly brave leaders who should never, ever have had to fight for what is a basic right, a basic human experience, to love who you love and to be absolutely accepted and able to participate safely and equally in community life with that. I know that many of those early campaigners faced terrible, terrible hatred and discrimination, and it is tragic that some people in our community still experience that.

Thankfully, we have come a very long way in the five decades since. As the member for Unley and the member for Port Adelaide, our Deputy Premier, spoke about, there have been extensive reforms to superannuation and to adoption, the abolition of the gay panic defence and of course, that beautiful moment when finally—finally—as a nation we advanced marriage equality, the recognition of the right that should have always existed to love who you love and to be respected and enabled to access all of the rights to marriage that come with that.

We recently saw important changes to sexual activity eligibility rules for blood and plasma donation, with Australian Red Cross Lifeblood making donation more inclusive and accessible to as many people as possible. We keep taking steps forward, and our progress is always made possible through brave people getting together with others, with a strong commitment to improve outcomes for those people who do not necessarily have access to all of the rights that they deserve and the preparedness to act collectively together to advance change.

It is so right and appropriate that we do take a moment to mark 50 years, to celebrate our considerable progress since then and to acknowledge that those rights were really hard-won by a courageous group of people. It is also important that we acknowledge that we cannot take the advancement of any rights for granted and that we are not done. I say that because, sadly, here and across the globe the fight continues.

The US Supreme Court has just been petitioned to overturn landmark same-sex marriage rulings. There are those in our community who continue to attempt to erode trans rights. Discrimination in particular quarters persists, and in communities across the globe there are still barriers to accessing particular health treatments. I know that so many are determined to maintain rights and continue to advance them and that they will continue to do so in the face of those who seek to divide, who wrongly refuse to include and empower all people to live with dignity, those who are determined to roll back progress.

Whilst we should absolutely celebrate, we cannot be complacent. We have to continue to act together to maintain rights and to advance rights. When I think about the continued advancement of rights, the continued work ahead to make sure discrimination does not exist anywhere, I think we can all reflect again on the incredibly courageous leaders who 50 years ago fought for this advancement that we celebrate today. We can honour them, and in honouring them we can all commit to continuing to act to advance change that ensures no-one is discriminated against ever for simply loving who they love. We can commit to making sure that we keep acting collectively, as they did so beautifully, to maintain those hard-fought-for rights and to make sure that we keep progressing others.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:34): I rise to support the motion and note, as I do, that it comes following not so very long after the house debated a private member's motion also recognising that this year is 50 years since the decriminalisation of homosexuality in South Australia. It is a significant anniversary, a significant milestone.

As I did on that occasion, and bearing in mind the contributions that have been made to the debate, including as to the subsequent historical actions that have been taken not only in South Australia but throughout the rest of the country and elsewhere in the world, I just want to reflect on where we are now and to highlight something that is perhaps not often thought about in the public debate of significant matters of public significance, and that is that this concerns, in so many ways, the most private of matters for individuals.

I am very much alive to the fact that in the course of this debate it is very important that we respect the privacy of those who are perfectly entitled, just like all of us are, to privacy in our personal lives, so I emphasise that fact in that respect. I might come back to it in a moment.

I also want to take the opportunity to point out, in the context of a motion that is focused on that milestone 50 years ago, which was decriminalisation, something that seems really extraordinary now in the circumstances of subsequent debates about important civil matters like entitlements to have relationships recognised, including marriage, in the context of decriminalisation, it is unsurprising that an event that is now a kind of party and celebration in Sydney, the Sydney Mardi Gras, had its foundations as a protest against police brutality. It had its foundations in protest by those who were starting it off as an inappropriate, unacceptable oppression by those who were responsible to enforce the law.

The criminalisation, while it lasted, had sounded in South Australia as well in an important distortion of public affairs. At the time, in the 1970s, a young, celebrated, innovative leader in global policing, Commissioner Salisbury, who was brought to South Australia by Premier Dunstan as a young leader of policing, found himself caught up in and at the centre of a storm in relation to the secret files that were kept by Special Branch and police.

Now, that story is told and the whole turmoil that led up to Dunstan's eventual dismissal of Salisbury and the really unfortunate series of events in South Australia's history. Insofar as it concerned those secret files, concern included that those secret files contained information about individuals who might have been homosexual and evidence of their homosexual practices.

A virtue of the holding of those files that was talked about at the time was that because such behaviour was criminalised, there may have been public figures who were exposed to potential blackmail and might have been vulnerable to being blackmailed for that very conduct. Hence, police had a role in monitoring that and you had this whole debate that went on in the 1970s around this whole universe of files being kept on people who, because of that behaviour being criminalised, were vulnerable and all the rest of it.

The decriminalisation of homosexuality was important in such a practical way that goes very much to the heart of all of those public functions. It served a very practical purpose back in 1975, not only to recognise what we all now would regard as uncontroversial—indeed, obvious—but in the circumstances of the time it had the effect of causing a whole world-changing approach to the way in which the police, the justice system, public affairs and all the rest were conducted.

It might be oversimplifying it to say that the decriminalisation at that time had the effect of sweeping away so much of what was wrong with what was going on at that time, but it had a really very significant effect. It is one thing to have the changing appreciation in the broader public—we have talked about South Australia being progressive socially, and all of that has been true in so many ways that have been exemplified—but the decriminalisation itself had such a very significant effect in terms of the application of the law and the behaviour of authorities. It is well that that aspect of the matter be really understood and emphasised—coming, as it is now, at this 50-year distance.

To return to where I started, here we are 50 years on from a decriminalisation. In the years since, the emphasis and the debate and the actions that have been talked about subsequently have indeed spoken to questions of social and civil measures to work towards actions against discrimination and so on. In my view, where we are now is a time when it may be an opportunity to emphasise that privacy is so very central to ways to progress forward. Not everyone wants to have their sexuality publicly demonstrated or shared, of course, and that is a matter that ought to be respected in the lives of individuals.

I hope that in recognising this significant milestone, 50 years post decriminalisation, we might have an ever-greater appreciation of the privacy, the dignity and respect for all people. That is not to take away from those who we ought properly celebrate for leading the way to making significant changes, but privacy is hugely important, and I do want to emphasise that on this occasion where we once again recognise this significant milestone.

Ms WORTLEY (Torrens) (16:45): I rise to say a few words, adding my support to the motion moved by the Deputy Premier that reads in part:

…South Australia became the first jurisdiction in the nation to decriminalise male homosexuality…[this house] expresses its regret to the many South Australians who were charged with and convicted of criminal offences…expresses its support for the community coming together to celebrate this anniversary and our state's role in leading the way on LGBTQIA+ law reform…celebrates the passage of other landmark…law reform in South Australia...commits to continuing to work towards equality for all South Australians.

The Dunstan government law reforms were many and made for a more humane society with South Australia often leading the way.

The 1975 reform was a significant victory. However, it was the beginning not the end for the fight for equality. The Hon. Peter Duncan, Attorney-General and member for Elizabeth, introduced in 1973 the Criminal Law Sexual Offences Bill in this house. Devastating for many, it was defeated. However, he reintroduced substantially the same bill on 27 August 1975. The bill was passed and on 2 October 1975, South Australia became the first state to fully decriminalise homosexual acts between consenting males.

I want to make mention of a few of the pieces of legislation. South Australia's pioneering legislation really did in fact serve as a catalyst, inspiring other Australian states to reform their own laws, leading to a national journey towards greater equality. It also set a precedent for future legal changes, paving the way for broader reforms in the following decade. The Hon. Peter Duncan said recently, 'That I say the world and South Australia is undoubtedly a better place for these law reforms,' and I wholeheartedly agree with him.

In recent times governments have passed laws including hate crime laws, which were passed here in 2021, that explicitly include sexual orientation and gender identity with its hate crime legislation, and more recently the ban on conversion therapy that the state passed, legislating banning gay conversion therapy.

Of course, we have equal rights for same-sex couples and, at a national level, marriage equality. These law reforms make for a much more humane society. I wholeheartedly agree with the words moved by the Hon. Mr Duncan when he said that it made South Australia a better place.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Workforce and Population Strategy) (16:48): I thank everyone for their very sincere contributions and I commend the motion to the house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I put the motion I would like to very quickly make a few comments. It is an important motion and I would like to make some comments. First of all, if my memory services me correctly, there was a private member's bill by the then Hon. Peter Duncan which gave rise to it, so I think we should acknowledge that, even though he was part of the Dunstan government. I must confess that I have known Peter for many years. In his days in government he was quite a leading reformer not only in this area but also in consumer law and a whole range of other areas.

The member for Heysen made reference to the Special Branch files. I think we should be careful about what history tells us about that, in the sense that Special Branch files contained a lot of files about people who had committed no offence, and that was the offence for which he was actually dismissed. A lot of them were about ALP members, trade union officials, community activists in a whole range of movements, whether it was the women's movement, the gay rights movement, etc., all those people; in fact, there were over 25,000 different people on the files.

I think we need to put into context that, even though that may have led to some other changes, that act in itself was one which was not helpful to a democratic society. The royal commission later proved that it was inappropriate, and based on that—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I am old enough to remember those days. In closing, I would like to make a comment which I made last sitting week. I think that any act which diminishes the dignity of another person should be unacceptable in our society, irrespective. It does not matter what it is. Anything that diminishes a person's dignity—I prefer not to use the word 'rights' because that is often a legal term, but the human dignity which goes beyond rights. I think we should always be mindful to deal with others with compassion and understanding. Even when we differ, when we have differences, it does not mean you have to diminish someone else's dignity to get your view across.

Motion carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT