1. Home
  2. Hansard & Papers
  3. Legislative Assembly
  4. 20 May 2003
Contact Print this page Reduce font size Increase font size

Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences) Bill

Printing Tips | Print selected text | Full Day Hansard Transcript         « Prior Item | Item 44 of 46 | Next Item »

About this Item
Subjects -  Child Abuse; Sex; Homosexuality
Speakers - Tink Mr Andrew; Nori Ms Sandra; Moore Ms Clover; McLeay Mr Paul; Burney Ms Linda; Stoner Mr Andrew; Lynch Mr Paul; Seaton Ms Peta; Kerr Mr Malcolm; Corrigan Mr Geoff; Page Mr Donald; Barr Mr David
Business - Bill, Second Reading


    CRIMES AMENDMENT (SEXUAL OFFENCES) BILL
Page: 735


    Second Reading

    Debate resumed from 7 May.

    Mr TINK (Epping) [7.52 p.m.]: On Tuesday 6 May the Attorney General indicated that this bill would be introduced into the Parliament. On that day the Leader of the Opposition indicated that Liberal MPs would be allowed a conscience vote , and that is our position. However, notwithstanding that, one issue I seek to revisit—it has already been raised once in the Chamber—is the proposal to split the bill to allow the age of consent and the increase in penalties to be considered separately. Coalition member have the strong view that those matters could and should be considered separately.

    I am sure that every member of this House would support increased penalties for people who commit sex offences against minors. However, I suspect there is a genuine and strong difference of opinion on the part of many members on both sides of the House in relation to the age of consent. If the bill is not split, there would be a considerable difficulty for members, who must, ultimately, consider the two issues together when it comes to the final vote. It would come down to a difficult choice for many members who are not prepared to support a reduction in the age of consent and would therefore have to vote against increasing penalties for people who commit sexual offences against minors.

    I regret the Government's decision to keep the two issues linked in this bill. I believe that it is unnecessary. When the Federal Parliament considered embryos and cloning there was a successful, reasonable, measured and appropriate splitting of two questions. That Parliament recognised that many members wanted them considered separately so there could be a conscience vote. While the Attorney said in his second reading speech that Government members would be given a conscience vote on this bill, I do not think honourable members thought that that conscience vote extended to, was directed at, or was necessary in terms of increased penalties for people who commit sexual offences against children. Many members on both sides of the House find themselves in a quandary about that matter.

    I repeat on the record that it is a totally unnecessary quandary from the Coalition's point of view. Honourable members should not have to face that quandary. If due regard was paid to what is the conscience issue for many members, as recognised by the Government in this bill, the proper, fair and reasonable thing would have been to split the issues. I trust that, should the bill pass, nothing will be said about the members who voted against it or about a member's bona fides on the other issue. That would be an appalling and dishonest outcome. I am sure the Attorney would not do that, but it is important to place that on the record.

    I happen to be speaking first as the shadow Attorney General and I shall speak about perhaps more general significant matters in a minute, but my position is that I have carefully considered the matter, as I am sure all members have. I have views on it. I have read the royal commission report and it is important that one recommendation of the royal commission is that consideration be given, with appropriate community consultation, to the introduction of legislation under which a gender-neutral approach is taken. I suppose that, to some extent, this bill gives effect to that. I think it is fair to say that the commissioner was also at pains to indicate that the age of consent should only be changed after community consultation. On page 1079 of the report the commissioner said:

    The question whether there should be any change in the age of consent is uniquely a matter for the community...

    Of course, it is a matter for us in terms of changing the law. It is a matter for us, having regard to what each of us believes is the community's view and the electorate's view. However, there are times when it is important for us to have regard to our own views and to stand accountable for those views in the electorate and in the eyes of the people we represent.

    In my electorate people in favour of the bill have communicated with me, as have people who are against it. I have no doubt that they have communicated with me in the utmost good faith and I take their communications accordingly. I refer to a view Mr Justice Wood canvassed in the arguments against change, and I am not suggesting it is his view. At page 1078 of his report he stated:

    The arguments against change turned upon the propositions that—

    There are a number of arguments, but the one that weighed with me so that I am unable to support this bill stated:

    physical and emotional development was said to occur about two years later in boys than girls, so that extra time should be allowed for boys to determine their sexual identity and preference.

    Mr Justice Wood put that argument as one of the views against change, and it happens to be my view. I understand that people in my electorate will support that view and that others will be opposed to it. I have to make a decision, and there it is. My decision is based on that point. As I read the royal commission report—the Attorney General will correct me if I am wrong—there is nothing to suggest that increased penalties as proposed by the Government should be linked with the age of consent in the bill. In his report Mr Justice Wood said that the age of consent is uniquely for the community.

    Therefore, I do not think this bill, in the form it has been presented to this Chamber, represents the question that the royal commission wanted put to Parliament. The age of consent question should be determined separately so that there is no overlay, no concern with people having to consider other issues that might lead them to vote differently. I am sure that all honourable members would vote in favour of an increase in penalties for people who commit sexual offences against minors. Clause 49, on page 7 of the bill, refers to previous consensual homosexual acts. The Attorney General in his second reading speech on 7 May made passing reference to it. He said:

    Under clause 48 of the bill—

    I think it is clause 49—

    consensual male homosexual acts that took place before the commencement of the amendments between persons who were not less than 16 years of age at the time will cease to be unlawful.

    That is the only reference made to that point. Subclause (1) of clause 49 reads:

    It is a defence to a homosexual offence that is alleged to have occurred before the commencement of the Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences) Act 2003 that:
    (a) both parties were not less than 16 years of age at the time of the alleged offence, and

    (b) both parties consented to the act concerned, and

    (c) the Act concerned would not, if it had occurred after that commencement, otherwise be unlawful.

    It seems to me that this provision has retrospective effect to make legal after the fact offences currently illegal. I looked to see whether there was a similar provision in the 1984 Crimes Amendment Act relating to homosexual intercourse, and I cannot see retrospective application of that Act. I have not been able to do an exhaustive search of the legislation in this State to find whether there is another example of retrospectivity to make lawful what is currently unlawful. If there is such precedence, I ask the Attorney General to indicate in his reply what it is. I cannot support the retrospectivity of this bill. For the benefit of all members, before the bill comes to a vote in the Chamber the Minister for Police should make inquiries of every local area command and every local area commander around the State to find out whether any matters are known to police that are offences as the law stands. Before a vote is taken the Minister for Police needs to indicate to the Chamber that he has made an inquiry and what the response is.

    The Minister then needs to go to every joint investigation response team—according to the Police Service Weekly of 18 November 2002 there are 21 joint investigation response teams around the State who assist the child protection squad—and make the same inquiry. The Minister for Police then needs to go to the Child Protection Squad—previously known as the Child Protection Enforcement Agency—to make the same inquiry and let every member of Parliament know whether there is outstanding any matter that could under current law lead to an offence having been committed. Every member of Parliament needs to have that information. It may be a nil return all round, but the Minister for Police needs to take affirmative steps to find out so we know before we make a decision on that provision. Next, inquiries have to be made of whatever material was left over from the police royal commission. I think the papers went to the Police Integrity Commission.

    Some inquiry needs to be made about whether any outstanding matters from the royal commission may be affected by this amendment. For the sake of completeness that includes, both with respect to the royal commission and with respect to the police, basically any file that is not closed. I trust that after a royal commission inquiry that dealt with paedophilia police are in a position to provide such information without delay. Those records should be readily available and their provision should not unduly hold up consideration of this matter.

    New section 49 provides that one of the elements that has to be satisfied in the defence is that both parties consented to the act concerned. The difficulty that is presented there—this is why I cannot support this provision and why at the very least inquiries need to be made and known to the Parliament—is that a person may have consented and subsequently still make a complaint. I understand that under the present law in that situation it would still be open to the police and the authorities to take action. So the mere fact of consent at the time is not an answer on this issue. As the law currently stands, because there was consent, that does not mean that a crime was not committed. The issue is whether the act took place, and that remains as the crime. Of course, there has to be a complainant. There may be a complainant; there may be more than one. We do not know what the position is in those circumstances, but we better find out.

    Perhaps we are anticipating debate but another bill currently before the House deals with the victims of crime. It makes some very reasonable changes to the law that we will support in relation to victims being better notified or consulted about a whole range of issues relating to plea bargaining and all sorts of other things. There is a growing recognition by Parliament that more work needs to be done with the victims of crime. They need to be better and more effectively consulted about a whole range of things. Therefore, it seems to me that if anybody is a victim of what is still a crime there needs to be consultation, at least in the sense of doing the audit I have just described. We should find out whether anybody is affected so that the House can know about it and make an informed decision on that basis. For Liberal members the way they vote on the issue is entirely a matter for them. No doubt, many views will be expressed. As with Government members and as with my constituents, all those views are honestly and strongly held. People have done a lot of thinking about this bill. It is not often that we have a debate such as this. I am sure the debate will be interesting and I await the outcome with interest.

    Ms NORI (Port Jackson—Minister for Tourism and Sport and Recreation, and Minister for Women) [8.14 p.m.]: I will not take up very much time of the House this evening, because this issue for me is very clear. For me the decision that needs to be made is very simple. It was 20 years ago that the then Premier of New South Wales, Neville Wran, first attempted to create an equal age of consent. New South Wales is the last State in Australia to discriminate in this way—28 years after South Australia and 20 years after Victoria amended their laws in this regard. The vast majority of jurisdictions in the Western world have a uniform age of consent. In the United Kingdom it is 16, which is what we are proposing here; in France, 15; Italy—surprising to me as an Italian—14; and Spain, 13. What does that tell us? I think that tells us that there is no obvious, logical age necessarily at which one might grant the consent to young people to first have sexual intercourse. What it tells me is that up to a certain point it is obviously culturally determined. It is obviously something that different people at different times have different views about. In other words, it probably comes down to how much courage you have.

    I was reminded of that great line in Romeo and Juliet where the Capulet parents are exhorted by a potential matchmaker that girls "younger than she are mothers", and she was 13. Quite clearly it is not something that we as a culture or a society have always had the same view on. It obviously is something that changes depending on society's mores at any one time. It is 2003 and it is very clear for me at least where we ought to go. In my view the current legislation has a detrimental effect for health programs that attempt to combat HIV-AIDS and provide other health information at a vital stage in the development of a young male. There are reports from doctors who are quite genuinely torn between the law and policy and the need to put the health of their patients first. What is the correct response to a 16-year-old gay male who walks into a doctor's surgery asking for information on safe sex from his doctor? One doctor quoted by the gay and lesbian rights lobby stated, "I always wanted to protect the health of my patients"—not surprisingly—"and had advised them to be safe but often felt that the law prevented me from doing so."

    The iniquity of the current situation also reinforces the prejudices of those who perpetrate discrimination and anti-gay violence. Growing up—whether you are gay or straight, male or female—is a difficult process for teenagers. Growing up as a young gay male must be very difficult indeed. And the law as it stands must reinforce the feelings of isolation felt by these young men. This leads to quite palpable and demonstrable detrimental impacts on the mental health of young men. Gay young men are 300 per cent more likely to commit suicide than their heterosexual peers. That is not a small statistical discrepancy; that is a huge difference that can be attributed only to the fact that coming out at a young age must be a difficult process at the best of times. The Wood royal commission found that the unequal age of consent could encourage corrupt law enforcement practices and possible extortion of young gay men. I believe it is time it was removed and New South Wales came into line with the rest of Australia.

    The bill provides a number of additional safeguards to protect children. First, the bill removes the existing defence of mistaken age against a charge of carnal knowledge. Second, it contains a new circumstance of aggravation for offences involving child sexual assault by people in a position of trust and where the alleged victim was under the influence of alcohol and drugs. The bill rationalises Crimes Act offences to bring greater consistency to penalties involving child sexual assault. These changes make it clear that we will not tolerate abuse of children. As the Minister for Women, I remind the Chamber that the majority of sexual assaults—80 per cent—are committed against girls. Removing the logical anomaly of different ages of consent will not affect our work in protecting children. It is through the criminal law and the protections provided in the Crimes Act that this is appropriately addressed.

    I am speaking early in the debate but I will anticipate some of the arguments that will be raised by other honourable members. We will undoubtedly hear honourable members ask what would happen if a young person were forced to have sex. If force is involved, the sex is not consensual and the act constitutes sexual assault. It does not matter whether a person is 19 or 90; if he or she does not agree it is sexual assault. The other point that will be raised is that boys mature at a slower rate than girls. I have a son and a daughter, and I know that that is correct. However, that does not make a cogent difference. Do we specifically make allowances for boys to sit the Higher School Certificate exam two or three years later than girls? No, we do not. If that were the case, surely we would have a lower age of consent for young heterosexual men and women, but we do not.

    Boys and girls are criminally responsible at the same age: that is, 14 years of age. If the two mature at different rates, should we lower the age at which girls can be dealt with under the criminal law? Of course not. Young people of both sexes can obtain a licence to shoot at 14 and a driver's permit at 16. The law recognises that young men are mature enough to undertake a wide range of adult activities at 16 and the alleged differential in maturity does not apply to those activities—that is, driving a car, shooting a gun, getting a job and a host of other things. Why should it apply to sexual activity? As the mother of two young children I would prefer the age of consent to be about 40, but that is a mother's point of view. We must recognise that young people are sexually mature a lot earlier than 16 years of age. We try to guide them, but at the end of the day the choice is theirs.

    This legislation is designed to correct two anomalies. The first is the difference between straight and gay men. However, the current legislation does not refer to lesbian sex. We are told that at an Executive Council meeting dealing with the law relating to the banning of homosexuality—it must have been a very interesting meeting—Queen Victoria refused to believe that women indulged in lesbian sex. That is the reason for the anomaly. This legislation addresses not only the difference between heterosexuals and straights but also lesbians and gay males. This is a very difficult area to legislate.

    We try to protect young people, perhaps from their own innocence and immaturity. We try to find a balance between protecting them long enough to make a rational decision and recognising that they must be allowed to determine their own sexuality and when they first become sexually active. Above all, the law must reflect reality. One can argue very strongly against the age of consent being 12, 13, 14 or 15. However, whether as parents we like it, by the time our children reach 16 years of age if they are determined to have sex then they will do it. Let us hope that we have given them the self-confidence to know that the choice they are making is one with which they will be happy and that they have the knowledge to observe safe sexual practices and not harm their health. However, we should not turn them into criminals for doing what young people will inevitably do.

    Ms MOORE (Bligh) [8.25 p.m.]: I welcome the Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences) Bill, as do gay and lesbian people across New South Wales. Reform of the State's discriminatory age of consent law was an important commitment I made during the recent election campaign. I suspended work on an amendment bill when the Government announced legislation to provide equal treatment before the law. This legislation is an improvement over previous proposals defeated in the New South Wales Legislative Council and will provided long-overdue equality, human rights and social justice. It is 19 years since this House ended criminal sanctions against consensual adult male homosexual activity. Although that was a significant reform, it retained an unjust inequality—an unequal and discriminatory age of consent. Neville Wran acknowledged that problem when he introduced his law reform bill in 1984. He preferred an equal age of consent but pragmatically decided that "half a loaf is better than none". He expressed the hope that a future Parliament would legislate for equality. This Parliament is not acting in haste by completing the job left unfinished 19 years ago. Neville Wran had been in office and introduced this reform after four election wins. This Government has acted after eight years in office.

    Equalising the age of consent is no longer a radical reform. New South Wales is now the only Australian State with an unequal age of consent. It stands almost alone among Western democracies and is one of the last Westminster parliaments to pursue this reform. In February 2000 the United Kingdom adopted an equal age of consent of 16 years after almost 10 years of community and parliamentary debate. Last year the Western Australian Parliament voted for an equal age of consent at 16. In Western Australia the equalisation of the age of consent was achieved through an omnibus bill—the Acts Amendment (Lesbian and Gay Law Reform) Bill. That bill not only addressed the age of consent but also systemic discrimination against lesbians and gay men throughout Western Australian law. It was a Government bill and represented the Western Australian Labor Government's commitment to equality, human rights and social justice. All Labor members of Parliament supported it.

    In the United Kingdom the move to an equal age of consent was supported by all major organisations concerned with health and welfare, particularly those involved in the health, welfare and protection of children. Those organisations included the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Save the Children, Barnardos, the National Children's Bureau, the British Youth Council, the National Coalition for the Homeless Action for Children, Childline, the Family Welfare Association, the Family Planning Association, the Health Education Authority, the British Medical Association, the National Association of Probation Officers, the British Association of Social Workers, the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Nurses. These are not gay and lesbian organisations, nor could they be described as radical organisations. Indeed, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children publicly supported an equal age of consent by saying:

    In our view, there should be equality because continuing discrimination in law against homosexuals stigmatises young people growing up gay, it hinders them from developing a positive self image and prevents them from seeking information and health in coming to terms with their sexuality.

    The United Kingdom's approach was similar to that being adopted by this Parliament. The legislation was a Government bill, but members had a free vote. Because of the opposition of the House of Lords, it took three votes in the House of Commons and the invoking of the Parliaments Act before an equal age of consent became law. The third and final vote was overwhelmingly carried with 263 voting in favour and 102 opposed. Several prominent Conservatives, among them the former Foreign Secretary Michael Portillo, supported the bill. Among those Conservatives who voted for the change was David Bercow, who represents Buckingham, a safe Conservative constituency in the shires. Southern Highlands is probably the closest New South Wales equivalent. According to the London Daily Telegraph, David Bercow entered Parliament identified with the hard right. In 1999 he voted against equalising the age of consent. In February 2000 he changed his mind, admitting to the House of Commons that he had been wrong. His explanation for changing his mind is worth consideration; it might help those honourable members who have doubts about opposing the bill but who are looking for reasons to support it. During the House of Commons debate several members of Parliament spoke about their gay constituents. David Bercow began by acknowledging that he had homosexual constituents and stated:

    The idea that they exist in every other constituency, but not in that of Buckingham, is preposterous. I have a proportion of homosexual constituents. They are human beings; they are civilised; they have rights and obligations as well. And I am duty bound to take account of their interests.

    They are salutary words for honourable members in this place. Members of Parliament who oppose this bill should also consider their gay constituents, particularly young gay constituents. Bligh may be the electorate with the highest gay and lesbian population in Australia, but many have come to my electorate to escape homophobia, which is supported by discriminatory legislation. Many lesbians and gay men in regional and rural areas, and in Sydney's outer suburbs, find it difficult to publicly identify themselves and express their views. Anti-gay attitudes, including the attitudes of some members of this House, are a strong deterrent. I say to my parliamentary colleagues: Your gay constituents' silence is created by fear of rejection, discrimination, hostility and ostracism. Their reluctance to advocate for their rights is not an excuse for you to deny those rights.

    In the United Kingdom, David Bercow gave three reasons for changing his vote, that is, for supporting an equal age of consent at 16. These are equally relevant to us, and they are: first, retaining the status quo is discriminatory but provides no benefit; second, many other countries have an equal age of consent, particularly in continental Europe; and third, there is strong support for change by people and organisations with expertise and experience in health and welfare, particularly the health and welfare of children. I commend those reasons to members of this House.

    When speaking about the United Kingdom, David Bercow suggested that there is no evidence that a discriminatory age of consent reduced homosexual activity, minimised the spread of infection, or increased protection for young people. This equally applies in New South Wales. In fact, there is evidence that the present law is damaging. Considerable research, including the most recent by Richard Roberts and Peter Maplestone of the University of New South Wales, suggests that the current law discourages young gay men from seeking information, counselling, advice or support, particularly about HIV-AIDS prevention or health matters. They are afraid to do so because they are afraid to admit that they are engaged in criminal activity.

    The current law impacts on the self-esteem and wellbeing of young gay men. The hostility generated by publicly expressed anti-gay attitudes and discriminatory laws contributes to the stress and low self-esteem in young gay, lesbian and bisexual youth, with serious and fatal consequences. One study for the United States Department of Health revealed that suicide is the leading cause of death among gay male youth. Gay males were six times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexual males. A majority of the suicide attempts by homosexuals took place at age 20 or younger, with nearly one-third occurring before age 17.

    Other studies found that a major factor in youth suicide is low self-esteem, brought about by feelings of being isolated, discriminated against and ostracised. The current law delivers a recipe for confusion, misery and fear. Those who defend the status quo must show what benefits it provides and what negative impacts would result from the passage of this bill. During the House of Commons debate, one of David Bercow's Conservative colleagues suggested that the law protected young, impressionable boys who might be pressured into homosexuality. No doubt we will hear this claim during this debate. David Bercow admitted that he had once been persuaded by this view, but he changed his mind. He said:

    There have been a plethora of studies, in this country and overseas, and the general conclusion seems to be that an individual is unlikely, as a result of an experience in his youth, to be propelled into a homosexual existence that would not otherwise have occurred.

    While the causes of homosexuality are still not precisely known, overwhelming scientific, medical, psychological and social science research suggests that a homosexual orientation is formed at an early age. The seduction or recruitment theory is a dangerous myth used to justify prejudice. Prejudice and homophobia are the only explanation for a discriminatory age of consent. That was the conclusion drawn by Adele Horin in an excellent article in the Sydney Morning Herald. She wrote:

    It is fear and hatred of male homosexuality that is behind NSW's discriminatory laws. And it is especially men's fear and hatred of male homosexuality that is an issue in the current debate. As the male-dominated NSW Parliament considers whether to equalise age of consent laws, it is salutary to recall that almost 40 per cent of Australian men think sex between two men is always wrong, according to new findings from the Australian National Sex Survey.
    Ms Horin continued:

    Dress it up as they will, homophobia is the real reason for the continued discrimination against young gay men. If the MPs were concerned about teenage sex per se, they would lift the age of consent for boys and girls to 18. This would turn about half the state's 16-year-olds into criminals, given the sex survey's findings on sexual initiation.

    Ms Horin exposes the inconsistency of those who have tolerated a situation where an older man can have a consensual sexual relationship with a 16-year-old girl, whereas a 16-year-old gay male supposedly needs protection from older men. It is inconsistent, hypocritical, offensive and insulting to young women that, for 19 years, they have supposedly not needed the same protection from predatory males as young gay men. The proposal to raise the age of consent is at least acknowledgement that young homosexual men should enjoy equality with young heterosexual men and women, but raising the general age of consent to 18 is no solution. No other country has achieved equality by raising the general age of consent. David Bercow, who describes himself as a Euro-sceptic, pointed out that many continental European countries have an equal age of consent of either 15 or 16. He challenged opponents of an equal age of consent to produce evidence of the damaging consequences flowing from this. He said:

    If they could show that the incidence of homosexual activity was greater, that the spread of infection was bigger, that the protection for young people was weaker, they would have the kernel of an argument. They have not been able, at least to my satisfaction, to demonstrate anything of the kind. The position is no worse in those countries, as far as I can discern. Indeed, arguably the position in many other countries is far better than it is here.

    [Extension of time agreed to.]

    Victoria has had an equal age of consent of 16 for two decades. In the Australian Capital Territory 16 has been the age of consent for several years. There is no evidence from Victoria or the Australian Capital Territory to suggest that those children are more at risk or that damage has been done to the social and moral fabric of Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory. Any damage arises from inconsistent and absurd laws. A 16-year-old or 17-year-old male who happens to be in Wodonga or Canberra can engage in consensual homosexual sex without any fear of prosecution. However, if he crosses the border into Albury or Queanbeyan, it is a criminal act.

    Justice Wood, in his final report from the Police Royal Commission, concluded that there was no rational reason for retaining a discriminatory age of consent. That report substantially dealt with issues relating to child protection. Justice Wood had available to him the best expert advice and research on this subject. His commission conducted a thorough examination into the relationship between child protection and the criminal law. It is perhaps the most thorough examination conducted in this State in recent times. At the end of that examination Justice Wood recommended an equal age of consent.

    In the United Kingdom, David Bercow found he could no longer ignore the overwhelming support for change from those organisations and individuals concerned with the health, welfare and protection of children. A similar range of organisations support reform here, including the AIDS Council of South Wales, the Australian Medical Association, Family Planning Australia, the Law Society of New South Wales, the New South Wales Parents and Citizens Association, the New South Wales Council for Social Services, as well as many gay and lesbian organisations. These organisations have the experience and expertise to understand the consequences of change and of retaining the status quo. Their conclusion is that change would be beneficial; retaining the status quo would continue to be damaging to young people.

    In 1993 the former member for Campbelltown and former Minister for the Olympics spoke to my private member's bill, the Anti-Discrimination (Homosexual Vilification) Amendment Bill. On that occasion he said that a person does not suddenly wake up one morning and say, "I think I will become a homosexual", as though it were a free choice, a choice made after considering the options and saying, "What is there? There is heterosexuality, celibacy, homosexuality, bisexuality. Homosexuality looks good today." The former member for Campbelltown went on to say:

    … the debate is not about whether people want to be homosexuals, whether it is good to be a homosexual, or whether one wants to bring up one's children as homosexuals. The debate is about the precise area of whether it is appropriate for people to bash homosexuals, to incite violence and hatred against homosexuals.

    This debate is about continuing a law rooted in prejudice and homophobia, a law which has no positive benefits and is damaging to young people, or supporting the bill, which will ensure equality of human rights and social justice.

    Mr McLEAY (Heathcote) [8.39 p.m.]: I have spent the past week or so, since the bill was introduced, wrestling with my conscience, discussing it with my family, consulting with my community and talking with my God. A couple of weeks ago in my first speech I made reference to my Catholicism. I did not think my religion would become in issue again in this Chamber—or at least so quickly. I am a Christian and I cannot take my Christian hat off when I am in this Chamber. I believe Christ is with me and lives through me in everything I do. That is why I support the bill.

    As a Catholic and as a Labor member of Parliament I hope people will find a healthy expression of their sexuality in marriage. Catholic teaching does not condone homosexual activity. However, the legal position in New South Wales is different to the church's position. Homosexual activity has been decriminalised in New South Wales, and this bill does not touch on those matters. It should be remembered—and this is an important part of the bill—that anyone under the age of 16 is a child. If anyone under 16 is sexually assaulted, whether consensual or not, that is an offence. The law is confused as it relates to those between the ages of 16 and 18. There are different rules for boys and girls—or perhaps I should say young men and young women. I want everyone to realise that all sexual activity under the age of 16 is illegal. Keep it at 16, keep it simple, make it stick. The bill provides protection for people between the ages of 16 and 18 who are involved in consensual relationships.

    The proposed legislation gives proper recognition to the seriousness of offences against children. Paedophilia is one of the greatest affronts to human dignity and the bill contains tough new penalties for paedophiles and for those who abuse positions of trust involving children. Those penalties must be enforced. Eighty per cent of sexual abuse victims in New South Wales are female, and it is unjust that a man who attacks a child is treated differently depending on whether his victim is a girl or a boy. That should not be the case. The bill will toughen the penalties for all forms of sexual abuse involving children.

    I believe in the Gospel message of God's love and I want to encourage a society in which young people are accepted and supported through their adolescence. Adolescence is a time when young people are struggling with a range of choices about education, careers and relationships. I am aware of Archbishop Pell's statement that parliaments should not enshrine the ideological claim that homosexual and heterosexual activity are morally equivalent. However, the bill does not make that moral judgement. It draws a necessary distinction between child sexual assault and homosexuality. The extra protection this proposed legislation gives our children and the need for clarity, consistency, equity and social justice are the reasons I support it.

    Ms BURNEY (Canterbury) [8.44 p.m.]: I do not want to speak at length on this bill. However, I want to be deliberate and to make my position clear. I speak in favour of the bill in its entirety. My reason for doing so is not because of ideology or an attempt to take a particular moral position. I do so for logical reasons based on the notion of equitable treatment of young men and women. The bill seeks to do two things: to bring about uniformity in the age of consent and to bring about equity in criminal penalties for sexual assault against children and young people.

    At present the existing penalties for male on male offences are greater than those for male on female offences. I am advised that the current penalty for consensual homosexual intercourse where one person is younger than 18 years old is about 10 years, yet the maximum penalty for sexual assault against a child between 10 and 16 years old is only 8 years. I find that to be highly unacceptable and unfair. In fact I would go as far as to say it is discriminatory. The object of the bill is to provide equal treatment of sexual offences against males and females. That is the question we are considering. It is not whether we agree with homosexuality or, for that matter, heterosexuality; it is about equal treatment.

    To achieve equality involves standardising the age of consent for both young men and women. The Crown Advocate has said that the rationalisation of child sexual assault offences can be brought about only by equalising the age of consent. The two are inextricably linked. One relies on the other, and it is critical that when members make their decision on this bill they remember how the two issues are linked. I am told that New South Wales is also the only State, apart from the Northern Territory, where there are no uniform laws for the age of consent for both young men and women. I find it incongruous. I do not pretend to understand the history of why New South Wales is in that position. I find it unacceptable. I am aware that many countries throughout the world have moved to standardise the age of consent. I know that previous speakers have spoken about this, but let me do so as well. In Belgium the age of consent is standardised: the age is 16; in Bosnia it is 16; Croatia, 14; Finland, 16; Georgia, 16; Germany, 16; Greece, 15; Italy, 14; the Netherlands, 12; New Zealand, 16; Russia, 16; Switzerland, 16; Ukraine, 16; United Kingdom, 16.

    For me the important matter is not the age of consent, it is the principle of uniformity. I cannot understand why people, including some members of this House, can accept that the age of consent for a young woman is 16 and believe that for some reason the age of consent for a young homosexual man is 18. Some of the arguments that have been put to me are just not logical. Let me run some of them past the House.

    Mr Kerr: Who are they from?

    Ms BURNEY: From letters I have received from interest groups, from church groups, from individuals. One of the arguments was this: why is it lawful for a 16-year-old girl to have a sexual relationship with an older man and, conversely, not lawful for a young man to do so? That is the point. One of the arguments was this: in a society of broken marriages, drug and alcohol issues, and teenage suicides, young boys need more protection. Let me read out a letter I received from a man I know, Frank Barnes.

    As a gay man fast approaching 60 who was arrested because of my sexuality over 40 years ago, while luckily not being imprisoned, I came very close to taking my own life a number of times as I felt demeaned by the attitude of my church, family, friends and society to what was seen as my "weakness". I also saw too many of my peers succeed in committing suicide and therefore denied the full life they deserved. I have been fighting for this inequity to be fixed for most of my life …

    I also received a letter from South Sydney City Council which stated:

    Recent research has found that suicide remains, by a wide margin, the leading cause of death for young gay men in NSW, particularly in rural areas and regional centres. Young gay men are, in fact, up to 300% more likely than their heterosexual peers to commit suicide.

    I shall dwell on that for a moment. I come from a small town, as do many other members in this Chamber. I have seen first-hand the effects of both homophobia and the present rules and laws on young gay men. Young gay men in rural New South Wales are isolated and afraid, unable to see any other way than to take their own lives. The statistics, the names and the crosses are all there—and that is because of the attitude of some in society towards homosexuality. I hope the debate is not influenced by the homophobic attitudes of some parts of our society. We cannot put our heads in the sand. Speaking of that, one church group that wrote to me said that sex should only take place within the confines of marriage. I think I have made my point.

    The big claim is that girls mature physically— and, therefore, by extension, emotionally—more quickly than boys. I am not sure of the basis of that claim. I refer honourable members to the 1994 report of the British Medical Association on the age of consent. I should like to quote the part of the report that relates directly to the opinion of the association about the claim relating to the slower biological development of boys. The report stated:
        Previously the BMA proposed that the age of consent of homosexual men should be set at 18 to reflect their slower rate of biological development. However, most researchers now believe that adult sexual orientation is usually established before the age of puberty in both boys and girls.
    The final conclusion of the British Medical Association stated:

        The purpose of the age of consent legislation is to protect vulnerable people from sexual exploitation and abuse, but there is no clear justification for a differential age for homosexual male activity and other sexual activity. Although homosexual experimentation may be quite common among adolescent boys, extensive research does not indicate that men aged 16-21 are in need of special protection because they may be "recruited" into homosexuality. Unwelcome sexual attentions of a seriousness warranting criminal prosecution are equally offensive whether the victim is a man or a woman: the same law should therefore apply to all.
    The final argument against support for the bill is that boys would be able to participate in sexual acts that they cannot watch at the movies. That intrigued me so I looked on the Internet for the definitions of the relevant classifications. Under the MA rating sexual activity may be implied. Depictions of nudity in a sexual context which contain detail should not be exploitative. Under the R18+ rating sexual activity may be realistically simulated; the general rule is simulation. Nudity in a sexual context should not include obvious genital contact. Verbal references may be more detailed than depictions. Those definitions do not advance the argument. I was touched and interested to read the position of AIDS Council of New South Wales [ACON] on the unequal age of consent. ACON states:
        [It] creates an environment in which young gay men are less likely to come forward for information about sexual health including STDs and HIV-AIDS for fear of prosecution;

        [It] reinforces the prejudices of those who perpetrate discrimination and anti-gay violence—particularly between peers in a school environment; and

        [It] contributes to low self-esteem among young gay men, with resultant homelessness, drugs, alcohol and tobacco use and a rate of suicide 300% higher than that of young heterosexual men.
    Young gay men are often isolated from the usual support, such as family, because of the stigma of being gay. Access to information support services such as ACON is even more important in circumstances when families or peers are unable or unwilling to assist. My concern centres on health and welfare issues for young gay men because of the unequal age of consent. First, inequality creates an environment in which young gay men are less likely to come forward and it reinforces prejudices. I spoke to some young women about this issue and, in fact, I spoke to my daughter just prior to coming into the Chamber. She was unaware that there was an unequal age of consent. Those who know my daughter would agree that she is not backward in coming forward. She was gobsmacked. She said:
        Mum, that's ridiculous. It should have been changed years ago. That's unbelievable. Young people, no matter what their sexual preference is, should have the same rights.
    The power of a conscience vote is that it allows us to be guided by the people our vote will directly affect and by our own conscience. I was touched by the comments of the honourable member for Heathcote, who, as a practising Catholic, has worked through this issue. He came to the conclusion that the bill is about morality and social justice. A conscience vote does not depend on the size of the Catholic constituency, ethnic groups or age groups. Honourable members must be able to come to terms with their decision and how it will impact on those it will affect. We do not often have the opportunity to exercise a conscience vote. I want the bill to pass in its entirety. Splitting the bill will defeat its purpose. By accepting the bill in its entirely we will bring New South Wales out of the dark ages. The bill should be supported for the following reasons, if on no other basis: first, it is about equality; second, it is about protecting the rights of all young people; third, it is about decency; and, fourth, we might even save a few lives.

    Mr STONER (Oxley—Leader of the National Party) [8.57 p.m.]: Now that the election is out of the way the Government has embarked upon an agenda of radical social change. I instance the medicinal use of marijuana, embryonic stem cell research, cloning and lowering the age of consent. They are all controversial issues that Labor was not prepared to take to the electorate prior to 22 March. The proposal to lower the age of consent for homosexual acts can only be categorised as left-wing social engineering for which the Government has no mandate. At no stage during the election campaign did Labor indicate that this proposal was on the agenda and now it is one of the first pieces of legislation introduced in this term of the Parliament. Based on feedback I have received from many members of the public I suggest that the Government has nothing like a mandate for its proposal to lower the homosexual age of consent. In an opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald dated 9 May, Al Stewart, chief executive officer of Youthworks, an arm of the Anglican Church that ministers to children and youth, stated:
        Do we really believe that on one day a 16-year-old is in need of protection, while he is still young and vulnerable and trying to sort out the issues of sexuality, and on the next day legislation could be passed to make the 16-year-old an adult?

        Sexual decisions or mistakes made at the age of 16 can have lifelong consequences for young people.

    I have worked in youth ministry in Mount Druitt, Liverpool and in the eastern suburbs. I also have four children of my own, three of whom are teenagers. I understand fully how vulnerable kids are in their mid-teens and their need to be protected.

    Anyone who believes that an age of consent of 16 will not be taken advantage of by predatory older males is living in a fantasy land.

    An email I received on 15 May stated:

    As a very concerned father of a 16-year-old intellectually disabled boy, I want you to be aware of my very strong disapproval of any moves to lower the age of consent for homosexual sex. I know my boy is still growing and is far from mature enough to make any sensible decision in regards to such an important issue that would have major ramifications on the rest of his life. In fact, when only 14, he was actually approached in a public toilet but speedy intervention fortunately prevented any serious abuse from occurring. Unfortunately, the feeble response from the police was to say that because my son, even though he kept saying "No", succumbed to continued harassment and put his arm around the other person and because he looks much older because of his height, the other person could claim it was "consenting" and therefore proceeded no further other than giving a warning to the other party—at our request! Under the proposed legislation, would the predator who approached my son now get away with abusing a 12-year-old using the same arguments?

    Mr Debus: Absolutely not! You know that's not true.

    Mr STONER: I am simply quoting from a document. The email further stated:

    The law considers a 16-year-old a child and as such is not permitted to:

    1. Buy alcohol or cigarettes
    2. Gamble (even a $2 Scratchie)
    3. View an R-rated movie
    4. Enter into a financial contract by themselves
    5. Vote
    6. Get married without parental consent

    In light of this, what right as sensible thinking adults do you have to open the door further for homosexually-inclined paedophiles to molest our children?

    If as some would argue, there is a need to bring equality in legislation, why not increase the heterosexual age to 18 and so make it harder for paedophiles to abuse any child?

    I ask you to vote against this harmful legislation and live up to the title "Honourable".

    Another email of the same date stated:

    I wish to object strongly against the proposed "Age of consent legislation".

    Lowering the age limit will in my opinion just give older paedophiles the cover of our legal system to lower their sights by two years.

    Would you like your 16 year old son raped by such a person? How would you feel that the law was on their side?

    A further email dated 13 May stated:

    I am sending this message to urge you not to support legislation which lowers the age of consent for male homosexuals. It is a great tragedy that homosexuality is not publicly condemned as an obnoxious practice, responsible for much disease and violence amongst the homosexuals themselves. At a time when sexual abuse on the young is so much in the news, and with some calling for further legislation for the protection of the young, it is disgusting that legislation such as this is introduced into Parliament.

    Child protection groups were quoted in the Daily Telegraph of 9 May, including Hetty Johnson from Bravehearts Australia, who agreed that lowering the homosexual age of consent to 16 would allow offenders to target younger boys and claim confusion about their age. She said:

    The lower the age of consent, the more opportunities there are for paedophiles to abuse the law.

    Clare Pascoe Henderson from Clergy Abuse Victims Education, Advocacy and Support said that the bill needed to be expanded to ensure that teenagers were protected from the advances of adults. She said:

    There were also significant problems associated with tacking increased penalties for child abuse on to the end of a controversial Bill like this one.

    I think that whenever you have proposed changes to the law like that they should be separated because you have exactly the possibility [that MPs will want to vote for one and not the other].

    Parliamentarians should not be put in that position.

    In a letter dated 15 May a church leader on the mid North Coast stated:

    I have been in touch with a number of Church Leaders and we are concerned with the lowering of the age of consent for males to be voted on in the NSW Parliament.

    Whilst we agree with the equality of the sexes, we would rather see the minimum age for both male & female raised, rather than lowered.

    I am sure you are aware of the sickening number of children being sexually abused in our community. We need to do everything we can to protect our children against paedophiles and rape attacks. Lowering the age of consent does not seem to us a sensible way to protect our children.

    We hope you will consider the concerns of the majority of Churches and thousands of like-minded people in your electorate when making your conscience vote on this issue. Even more important, consider the lives of the thousands of children we have elected you to protect and serve, who as yet cannot vote for themselves.

    Yet another email, dated 14 May, stated:

    First of all I must say that I find it somewhat disturbing to learn that as a community we are considering lowering the age at which homosexual males can legally engage in sex. Given the widespread community outrage relating to cases of paedophilia, should we be considering lowering this age?

    I know that the Attorney General believes that his proposed changes will simply remove a level of perceived discrimination against homosexual males that does not apply to heterosexual males. Yet this argument I believe misses the purpose of the existing legislation.

    As far as I can determine, the existing legislation was designed to protect the young in our community from committing acts that they might regret. Specifically the legislation currently protects the young from significantly older persons coercing them into committing acts that they wouldn't normally have decided to commit.

    For example, the main target of heterosexual adults is girls. Females, however, mature on average two years quicker than males, and as such it is right that this section of the community be protected from these men. The age set down for this maturity is 16.

    On the other side of the coin, the main target of homosexual adults is boys. They also need to be protected from these men, and if the maturity difference is to be trusted, then it is right that this age be set at 18.

    As such, whilst this discrimination exists, it is appropriate. Lowering this age would surely damage our community with little or no gain. I urge you to cast your conscience vote against this proposed change.

    That is just a sample of the feedback I have received. I am sure that most would agree that this correspondence contains many compelling arguments against lowering the age of consent for homosexual acts. So, clearly there is no mandate for this action, and the Government is cynically seeking to ram through an agenda aimed at appeasing its Left wing while banking on the electorate's failure to remember the issue in four years time. To be fair, I received a few emails in support of the change. However, they were significantly fewer in number and, following my responses to the issues raised, drew no further comment.

    The issue arising from this bill is essentially this: We have a law in this State which sets as 18 the age of consent for homosexual acts, in recognition of the biological difference in maturity rates for males and females. Why change this quite effective law? I see no compelling reasons to do so. Government members have argued that other States have a lower age of consent for homosexual men. Why should we be led by what another jurisdiction does or does not do when our own law is effective and appropriate? They also argue that it is discriminatory to have an older age of consent for male homosexuals. However, this line of argument does not recognise the fact that girls mature earlier than boys and that boys between the ages of 16 and 18 may not only be mentally immature but also confused about their sexuality and therefore at risk from predatory older men. How often have we heard about a young man's life being ruined by the sexual predation of an older man? It is a rare event indeed to hear of sexual predation of a young man committed by an older woman.

    [Interruption]

    Why is that funny? Another argument raised is the increased risk of suicide among young homosexual men—a tragic statistic indeed. But might this increased suicide risk be due to the pressure of participating in homosexual sex, possibly with an older man, or have some connection with other observed facets of the gay lifestyle, such as increased medical problems and drug use? The Government has also argued that the 1997 Wood royal commission recommended changes to the homosexual age of consent. However, nowhere did it acknowledge the fact that the Wood report states that "physical and emotional development is said to occur about two years later in boys than girls so that extra time should be allowed for boys to determine their sexual identity and preference".

    The Wood report also acknowledged that a change in the age of consent would be seen as "an encouragement of paedophiles" and that legal symmetry could be achieved by raising the age of consent of females to 18. The existing law has been soundly based, with its sole purpose the protection of immature youths from the advances of older predatory males. Where has the push to change the law come from? Not from the 16-year-old to 18-year-old men who may or may not engage in homosexual acts—the law does not seek to prosecute them if they do. Rather, the pressure to change the law must logically come from those who stand to be prosecuted under the current law—that is, older homosexual men. [Extension of time agreed to.]

    Clearly, the proposed changes to the Crimes Act would result in older homosexual men being able to legally pursue younger men than they can now. This is the outcome desired by the proponents of this bill. The motive behind the legislation is exposed by clause 49 of the bill, which states that consensual male homosexual acts that took place with youths between 16 and 18 before this legislation will cease to be unlawful. This bill contains the extraordinary provision that persons previously regarded as having committed a crime will be given full immunity from future prosecution. This provision is almost without precedence in Australian legislation—a carte blanche immunity, possibly for convicted paedophiles and for those identified by police for their homosexual activities involving young boys but not yet prosecuted.

    Numerous reports have appeared in the media arising from the Wood royal commission of cases involving high-profile homosexuals utilising venues such as Costellos and the notorious Wall at Darlinghurst to have sex with under-age boys. Under this legislation, provided the sex was consensual and the boy was over 16, all convicted and suspected persons would be let off scot-free. This is scandalous! The National Party will seek to have this provision removed. I ask the Attorney whether this provision could expose the State to claims for criminal compensation from persons convicted in the past, no matter how long ago, of having sex with youths aged between 16 and 18?

    In his second reading speech the Attorney General devoted only one short sentence to this highly controversial proposal—a sentence hidden in the middle of a lengthy speech. No wonder he did not want to draw attention to his get-out-of-gaol-free card. Clearly the agenda is being driven by older homosexual men—many of whom, according to various commentators, including a former member of the Legislative Council, occupy positions of high office, including in the legal profession. The issues surrounding this bill include a lack of any mandate, and pressure for change driven not by those whom the community would seek to protect but by those who stand to be exempted from prosecution related to their sexual proclivities.

    Another issue surrounding the bill relates to the way the Government has packaged the controversial issue of reduced age of consent for homosexuals with a range of higher penalties for other child sex offences. Despite the Government's rhetoric that it is allowing its members a conscience vote, it is placing a huge amount of pressure on its members, including many new members, to support the bill in toto. How can any members of Parliament oppose tougher sentences for child sex offenders? Yet, this is what they must do if they wish to oppose the lowering of the age of consent.

    The Government has put members between a rock and a hard place by linking the controversial with the eminently sensible. That is why the National Party has called on the Government to split the two main provisions of the bill—the lowering of the homosexual age of consent and the tougher penalties for child sex offences. The Premier has refused this eminently sensible request, which would give effect to a true conscience vote on the controversial issue of the age of consent. I do not accept the Premier's reasons for refusing to split the bill and I will move amendments aimed at removing the age of consent provisions. If these amendments are accepted, the Government can reintroduce its proposals for lowering the age of consent. That will allow proper consideration of that important issue without it being clouded by other matters.

    In conclusion, the National Party reflects the views of the regional, rural and coastal communities it represents in expressing concerns about the Government's proposal to reduce the age of consent for homosexual acts. It has no mandate for this action. This agenda is being driven not by those whom the existing law is intended to protect but by those who stand to gain from the immunity that this legislation would bestow on their activities.

    [Interruption]

    Why is that funny? Members on the Government side can giggle amongst themselves, but it is a scandal, including a blanket retrospective immunity to alleged paedophiles. This aspect of the legislation, as well as the inappropriate coupling of age of consent and increased penalties provisions, will be addressed by amendments to be introduced by the National Party.

    Mr LYNCH (Liverpool) [9.15 p.m.]: I support the Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences) Bill. Specifically I make it clear that I support its provisions in relation to age of consent. I support equal treatment of sexual offences regardless of the gender of the victim or perpetrator. I support an equal age of consent for sexual activity regardless of gender. One can make many substantive and serious arguments in support of this legislation, and I will do so in a minute. My instinctive reaction to the age of consent issue is that the present age of consent provisions are ridiculous. It is absurd to have different ages of consent based on sexuality or gender. It looks silly and it sounds ridiculous.

    The first and most obvious substantive argument is that there is no rational basis for the distinction. That is the way it was put in the summary of argument in support of this change in the royal commission report and that is a sensible and logical way of looking at it. Another view that would support this legislative change to the age of consent is also associated with the report of commissioner Wood. That is, that equalising the age of consent, reducing the age of consent for homosexual behaviour from 18 to 16, would reduce the potential for extortion and police corruption. That argument is similar to arguments used in support of changes to the law in relation to prostitution.

    However, there is a more fundamental argument in support of this legislation: the discrimination argument. Once one accepts, as we have in this State, that homosexuality is legal, it seems utterly unreasonable and illogical not to have the same age of consent. If you do not have a common age of consent you have an arbitrary difference that has no good grounding in law, commonsense or reason. One can only assume that the maintenance of different discriminatory ages of consent is the last bastion of homophobes who are not prepared to accept that homosexuality is legal in this State.

    There are some practical reasons to support the legislation and the changes proposed to the age of consent. The first has been touched on by other speakers but it is worth restating because of its significance. It is that health professionals and social workers report quite regularly, on good grounds, that they are restricted in the services they can provide to males under 18 who might be involved in homosexual activity. That includes advice and treatment in relation to HIV, AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases. It extends logically to providing advice about safe sexual practices. Clearly there must be risks for any health professional or social worker in that field who does anything that can be seen as supporting what is now regarded as a criminal activity. I have seen legal advice that would confirm that fear.

    Another particularly practical aspect has also been touched on in this debate: gay male youths are 3.7 times more likely to commit suicide than their heterosexual peers. That stems from a number of factors, obviously, but certainly some research in the United States of America and in Australia argues quite convincingly that the homosexual suicide rate stems directly from the isolation and the alienation that young gay men suffer, which is significantly and causally related to the criminality that the law currently imposes upon them. They simply want to act out their sexuality without there being any criminal consequences, in the same way that heterosexual people of the same age can. That is a very real social cost that is being imposed upon a component of our community for no particularly good social policy that I can see.

    The Australian study of health and relationships reported that 44.6 per cent of men who had a homosexual experience had their first such experience before they reached 18 years of age. If that is the case, our present law is criminalising people and imposing all of those social costs and the sorts of problems I have just referred to. In a broader sense, we are simply catching up with the rest of the world if we introduce this change. As I read it, no other State in this country has a similar regime to the one we have. Apart from the Northern Territory, we are the only jurisdiction in Australia that discriminates in the way we do.

    The vast bulk of overseas jurisdictions do not have these sorts of distinctions. A study of the ages of consent in various countries indicates that they are similar for the various sorts of sexual activity. And the ages of consent are not just 16; a number of countries such as France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Korea, Malta and Spain have an age lower than 16. I note that there was some dispute earlier about Malta but my reading of the Parliamentary Library briefing paper is that Malta has an age of consent of 12.

    It seems to me that in that sense we are just catching up with the rest of the world. There is a considerable amount of authority in support of this change to the legislation. One of those sources is the Wood royal commission. The Leader of the National Party was quite deceptive—that is the nicest way of putting it—when he quoted from the royal commission report and claimed that it supported his proposition. In fact, the section of the report that he quoted was simply outlining the arguments without adopting them or rejecting them. It ill behoves the Leader of the National Party to play those sorts of semantic games with this House. Paragraph 14.32 of the report states:

    The question whether there should be any change in the age of consent is uniquely a matter for the community, rather than for this Commission to determine. However, upon the material available, the Commission is able to state that it sees no reason:

    • to perpetuate a distinction between consensual homosexual and heterosexual activity; or

    • to suppose that legislative change to achieve uniformity in this area would bring about any behavioural shift, or that it would, in real terms, expose any more children to the risk of paedophile activity than are presently exposed to that risk (that is, so long as the age of consent does not go below 16 years).

    Accordingly, it considers it appropriate for the relevant legislation to be the subject of further review in the light of community opinion, and in light of matters identified in this Report.

    The Leader of the National Party also launched a quite extraordinary attack upon the Attorney General for hiding away the terrible fact that some activity is to be retrospectively made non-criminal. I suggest to the Leader of the National Party that if he wants to continue that argument he ought to read the bill, because that point is made in very clear and undeniable terms in big, bold, black letters right on the front of the bill in the explanatory note, in the overview. So the suggestion that it is somehow being hidden is, frankly, a cheap debating point that has no substance.

    As I have said, a number of bodies support the proposal in this bill. I have referred to the royal commission. The Model Criminal Code Committee of the Standing Committee of Attorneys General has proposed a code that would be consistent with what we are putting here today. The AIDS Council of New South Wales, known as ACON, in a letter dated 15 May 2003 stated to me, among other things:

    The unequal age of consent:

    • creates an environment in which young gay men are less likely to come forward for information about sexual health including STIs and HIV/AIDS for fear of prosecution

    • reinforces the prejudices of those who perpetrate discrimination and anti-gay violence particularly between peers in a school environment; and

    • contributes to low self-esteem among young gay men, with resultant homelessness, drug, alcohol and tobacco use and a rate of suicide 300% higher than that of young heterosexual men.

    Young gay men are often isolated from usual support such as families because of the stigma of being gay—access to information and support services such as ACON is even more important in circumstances when families or peers are unable or unwilling to assist.

    I briefly turn to some of the arguments against the bill. The first one from the Leader of the National Party today was interesting. He said, "This is the product of a rabid, extreme, left-wing, socialist government." I am inclined to say: If only! That is certainly news to my ALP branches. The second argument is that the proposition should be amended so that the age of consent is made standard but is increased to 18 years rather than reduced to 16 years. That perhaps has the virtue of consistency, but it certainly suffers from the vice of utter unreality.

    It is certainly true that any age we choose is arbitrary. No one age will cover every conceivable situation that is appropriate. But anyone who has the slightest comprehension of the level of sexual activity of people under 18 and actually thinks we ought to lift the age to 18 has no connection with the real world. All that we would do by lifting the age of consent to 18 for all forms of sexual activity would be to criminalise about half the young people between 16 and 18. It is just not a viable option.

    The current absurdity of a distinction in the age of consent did not come about because someone sat down and wondered what, in the best of all possible worlds, looking at all the logic and all the arguments, would be the most appropriate age? The present age of consent for male homosexual behaviour is the result of vagaries of political compromise that came out of this place a couple of decades ago. It was the best deal that could be cobbled together by a group of people trying to pass legislation at that time. To suggest that it has any other strength than that is just absurd; it defies not only the logic but also the reality of what happened.

    Another argument that is used to oppose the proposed changes is that it would allow predatory males to exploit young boys. I find that argument hypocritical because the people who put that argument forward do not at the same time, for the most part, say, "We have to raise the age of consent for heterosexual behaviour from 16 to 18." They manage to forget the fact that the vast bulk of sexual assault is by men upon young girls. The real problem of sexual assault is not about predatory males chasing after young boys; it is about predatory males chasing after young girls. If we were seriously worried about predatory behaviour we would not be getting uptight about reducing the age of consent for homosexual behaviour; we would be dealing with other issues altogether. The Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research is the authority for the proposition that 80 per cent of child sexual assault is by men upon young girls. [Extension of time agreed to.]

    One of the arguments against the proposed changes is that it is inappropriate to reduce the age of consent to 16 years because 16-year-olds cannot vote, cannot drive and so on and so forth. That is a clever—I use the word sarcastically—debating point but it really does not go to the substance of the issue here. In a whole series of areas there is a difference between people but we impose limitations based on age, and it does not follow at all that we can jump from voting and driving cars to sexual activity.

    There is also a related argument that boys mature more slowly than girls and therefore there should be different ages of consent. That is fine, but if the people who are putting that proposal really want to pursue it, they should also support 18 as the age of consent for heterosexual activity for boys and 16 as the age for girls. But that is not being advocated. The people who are using the argument about the difference in the ages of maturity are grasping at straws and simply putting the argument as a way to block this change in the age of consent for homosexual activity.

    Another argument that has been put to me at various times in opposing the bill is that it is wrong and is immoral. I have a letter that quotes various books from the Bible—Romans, Leviticus and Corinthians. There are two things I should say about that argument. First, for some time now there has been a separation of church and state in our society. The mere fact that there might be some religious beliefs does not necessarily mean that they have to be embodied in legislation. The Reformation and the separation of the church and state occurred a fair while ago. I for one am delighted that it happened, and I would rather like to keep it that way. We do not need the Bible to tell us that murder is wrong. Some of us actually understand that without having religious authority rammed down our throats. It seems to me that that is not a proper basis upon which to base legislation.

    The outrageousness of those arguments is the assumption that if one is a Christian one cannot support this bill. That is nonsense. A number of honourable members who are practising Christians support this bill. The honourable member for Heathcote spoke very sensibly and with some thought about that issue earlier this evening. The people who use those arguments do not want to address the core issue. Adele Horin stated:

    Dress it up as they will, homophobia is the real reason for the continued discrimination against young gay men. If the MPs were concerned about teenage sex per se, they would lift the age of consent for boys and girls to 18. This would turn about half of the state's 16-year-olds into criminals, given the sex survey's findings on sexual initiation. But at least that would be consistent.

    I am delighted to support this bill. It is about implementing fair and non-discriminatory laws in this State and ensuring equal treatment of all people before the law.

    Ms SEATON (Southern Highlands) [9.30 p.m.]: This is one of the most important issues that honourable members have considered since the new Parliament began sitting, and probably one of the most important we have all considered for some time. In exercising my conscience vote this evening, I have regard to my views, which are the result of consultations with my husband, and to the fact that I represent 43,000 people in the electorate of Southern Highlands. I have sought the views of my community and I will comment on that later. The aim of the Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences) Bill is to establish a uniform age of consent and to increase penalties for certain types of sexual assault against young people. The bill makes specific provision for teachers and their behaviour with pupils and for possible grounds of defence. Those issues should be separate from a uniform age of consent and I will support any moves to split the bill. The Government is trying to be too clever in grouping these issues. Penalties for sexual assault should be separate and not a matter of conscience; they are no different from the vast majority of matters that this House considers along party and policy lines. The sexual assault penalty provisions cannot be opposed and I will not do so.

    The real issue is uniformity of the age of consent and I have given it a great deal of thought. I note that all other Australian States have a uniform age of consent. We do not discriminate between males and females in respect of the age at which they are responsible for their behaviour on our roads, if they have stolen or vandalised property or if they have caused malicious damage. We also do not say that a female is subject to adult laws two years earlier than a male. If legislation were introduced in this Chamber involving a difference in the age of responsibility for boys and girls or men and women, every honourable member would reject it. I am not suggesting that decisions about sex and sexual activity are equivalent to the lawfulness or otherwise of behaviour dealt with by criminal law in other areas. Human sexual behaviour is complex and subjective and, for many people, guided by expectations of morality and religious frameworks. Understanding that, I sought input from my community about this bill and these propositions. I issued invitations on radio and in the print media, and I thank local media organisations for their interest and for participating in and facilitating the debate by devoting time and space to it.

    However, I am surprised by the small number of responses. I received fewer than 30 telephone calls, emails and letters. However, I treated each and every representation with great respect and will note the concerns people have raised. One family was tragically affected by a paedophile and others said that 16 years of age was too young. I have a great deal of sympathy for their concern and agree that 17 years of age might be preferable. However, I am sure that psychologists, parents, counsellors, teachers and individuals could credibly make a case on the evidence available about the capacity of certain individuals to make good, sound decisions from, say, the age of 13 possibly to a person's early 20s. I accept that although 16 may seem too young to some, I do not have the expertise or capacity to determine whether 16, 17 or 18 is the right age. On that basis, I believe that the principle that should be upheld is that of fairness under the law and that uniformity of the age of consent is the key. The opportunity presented in this bill to support the principle of gender equity is impossible to bypass.

    As a woman in this place I have campaigned for equality of opportunity in many aspects of life and law. I see no difference in the principle we are considering in this bill. For those reasons I support the bill—on the principle of equality of men and women under the law and the need for tougher penalties for sexual assault against young people. I have one reservation relating to implementation of the legislation and I am interested to hear the Attorney General's response. If we suddenly change the law and implement a uniform age of consent, it is important that families have a chance to discuss the implications and to have some period of adjustment and reflection. I am not sure that, if this bill were assented to immediately and proclaimed, we might not have some unintended and unnecessary difficulties.

    I have reached this decision with great respect for those who have expressed opposition to the bill, and I thank them for their counsel. The mail I received directly addressed to me—apart from the mail I received from organisations—included five expressions of support for the bill and one of opposition from the Sydney area. I have received nine direct representations from my local area opposing the bill and two in favour of it. I also made my decision as a Christian, a parent and a member of the Liberal Party who believes it is best to educate and resource individuals to make good and sound decisions for themselves free of government interference in their private lives. Above all, I made my decision keeping in mind the principles of equality of all before God and the law.

    Mr KERR (Cronulla) [9.38 p.m.]: Before the last election I attended a meeting at which the candidates for the seat of Cronulla were asked questions about their support for or opposition to various policies. The Labor candidate was Scott Docherty—the Attorney General might know him. We were both asked whether we would support a reduction in the age of consent for men to 16 years of age. It was a pity that Tracie Sonda did not attend the meeting. She apologised and I am sure she had a good reason for not attending. She could have answered the question about the age of consent and the people of Cronulla are entitled to know what she would do. Scott Docherty said he would support a reduction in the age of consent to 16, but we do not know Ms Sonda's view and the people of Cronulla are entitled to know.

    The arguments of the proponents are based on the fact that New South Wales is out of step with other States, that the female age of consent is 16 and that there should be equality of the sexes. The honourable member for Liverpool addressed the equity argument, and he quoted with approval Adele Horin, a Sydney Morning Herald columnist, who said it would be consistent to raise the female age of consent to 18, and no-one could argue with that. In our society a person becomes an adult at the age of 18 years. The minimum voting age is 18. The underlying principle is that 18 years is the minimum age at which males and females are reasonably capable of being mature enough to understand the consequences of their actions, to make reasoned decisions and to be considered no longer an adolescent. For that reason, people under the age of 18 years do not enjoy the same degree of autonomy in their lives as do people over the age of 18. Many of them are at school and still live at home. Our society does not permit people under the age of 18 to vote, buy tobacco products or alcohol, join the armed forces, marry, change their name or obtain a passport.

    At 16 years of age, neither sex is regarded as mature enough to hold a drivers licence. It is extraordinary to suggest that a juvenile who cannot buy alcohol or cigarettes should be allowed to have sexual intercourse. I wonder whether the honourable member for Bligh and the honourable member for Liverpool regard sexual intercourse as so trivial that it is less important than buying alcohol or cigarettes. The Opposition supports the bill's increase in penalties for sexual offences against children, for many reasons. The Leader of the National Party referred to volume V chapter 14 of the royal commission report, which detailed the arguments against change. It would be interesting to know whether the honourable member for Bligh regards the Wood royal commission as homophobic. That view was certainly put forward in her electorate, as she would be aware. It would be interesting to hear the honourable member's views about whether the royal commission engaged in homophobic activity. In its report the royal commission outlined the following arguments against raising the age of consent:

    • physical and emotional development was said to occur about two years later in boys than girls, so that extra time should be allowed for boys to determine their sexual identity and preference;

    • amendment of the law would be seen as an encouragement of paedophiles, and would mark the beginning of a progressive relaxation or erosion of child sexual abuse laws;

    • lowering the age of consent would increase the opportunities for paedophile networks to expand; and

    • homosexuals were suggested to be more likely to seduce boys if the age of consent was lowered, a proposition which assumes that laws can modify sexual behaviour, and that adolescent males are less capable of resisting sexual advances than their female counterparts.

    Mr Debus: They were arguments put before the royal commission by other folk.

    Mr KERR: They were, and they were published by the royal commission. I have said nothing more than that, as the record will show. The House is entitled to hear all arguments on this issue, not simply the politically correct arguments. I received a letter from the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, who is entitled to have his views put forward—

    Mr Corrigan: As we all are.

    Mr KERR: As the honourable member for Camden rightly says, as we all are.

    Mr Debus: He's very cunning, the member for Camden.

    Mr KERR: "Cunning" may not be an adjective of endearment in politics, I inform the honourable member for Camden. In his letter the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney wrote:

    The Anglican Diocese of Sydney welcomes and supports the Bill's attempts to increase penalties for those who sexually abuse children. However, this is an entirely different matter to the lowering of the age of consent. One is about protecting children by deterring predators through harsher penalties. The other encourages predators as lowering the age of consent takes away the onus of responsibility on adults to act with integrity towards young people. Therefore we support calls to split the Bill so that the two issues may be debated and voted on separately.

    Who could argue with that? The Archbishop went on to say:

    The question at hand concerns the age at which a teenager can participate in a sexual relationship on equal terms with their partner. Perhaps the legislation needs to concentrate more on the age difference between partners rather than setting an arbitrary age limit. However, if an age limit is to be set, we argue that 16 is too young. Considering that health and psychological research suggests that there are great risks associated with early sexual activity, it is irresponsible to permit adults to relate to 16-year-olds in a sexual manner. We do not allow 16-year-olds to participate as equals in our community in other aspects of life. What then are our motives in saying that they are able to participate as equals in a sexual relationship? Moreover, it seems that a lower age of consent would put mature 14 and 15 year olds at particular risk as they may be targeted for seduction, which could be defensible on the grounds that the child "appeared to be 16".

    I put the Anglican Archbishop's view to the House for its consideration. It would be interesting to know whether the honourable member for Bligh would regard the Anglican Archbishop and the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney as homophobes. I am sure that even the Attorney General would acknowledge that they are entitled to their views, which would be influential with members of this House. As I said, this is important legislation and the issue is of considerable concern to the people of my electorate. The issue was not put before them during the last election campaign. It would have been interesting if it had been put before the people at that time and a mandate sought in relation to it, but that was not done.

    It would have been useful if the legislation had been separated and put before this House in the form of an exposure bill. In question time today the Premier spoke about exposure in relation to cannabis and its use in alleviating people's suffering. I am sure that even the honourable member for Bligh and the Attorney General would agree that this is extremely important legislation, that given the consequences that will flow from it people are entitled to have their view, and that therefore an exposure draft would have been of great assistance. An exposure draft would have given members representing the electorates of Manly, Lismore, Ballina and Strathfield the opportunity to discuss the issue with their constituents without undue haste. However, they have been denied that opportunity. It would be interesting to know what consultation the honourable member for Manly has had on the issue with groups in his electorate. If the honourable member speaks to the bill, he will no doubt detail fully the communication that has taken place in his electorate.

    The Opposition has quite rightly sought to split the legislation because it is eminently self-containable in relation to two bills: one that deals with lowering the age of consent for homosexual boys and another that deals with the increase in penalties, and ironically expresses horror, in relation to exploitation, predatory behaviour and sexual assault. It is a great pity that the approach taken by the Government has sought to blend one intention with the other, because there is a degree of debate. Lowering the age of consent does not have unanimous support. However, there is unanimous support for the increased penalties contained in the bill. It is a great pity the issues are dealt with as one parcel of legislation.

    Mr CORRIGAN (Camden) [9.50 p.m.]: I acknowledge the arguments that have been put so far in this debate. Unfortunately, I have been absent from the House and I have not heard some of those arguments. I heard the speeches of the honourable member for Liverpool, the honourable member for Cronulla and the honourable member for Southern Highlands. I agree with the honourable member for Liverpool and the honourable member for Southern Highlands. I am the father of three boys aged 24, 22 and 19, and a daughter aged 14. I represent a very conservative electorate, but I believe that the people of Camden deserve to know why I am going to vote the way I am. It is quite a simple argument. When this issue was brought before the Labor Caucus I at first thought it was a difficult argument. I thought, "Gee, what a horrible thing to be stuck with during the first session of Parliament: a conscious vote on a matter that is controversial." However, when the issue is looked at closely it is not that controversial; it is simply a matter of equity.

    I acknowledge what the honourable member for Cronulla said, but I point out that girls of 16 do have all the rights he talked about. Girls of 16 have the right to engage in sexual activity. Boys of 16 do not have the right to engage in sexual activity with those of the same sex. That is the crux of the matter. Although this might appear to be a difficult issue, it is simply a matter of treating both sexes equally. And that is why I will vote in support of the bill. The Attorney General, who represents the electorate of Blue Mountains, and I have conservative electorates. My constituents voted for me to represent their views. Although Camden might be a very conservative electorate, it is a very liberal electorate as far as its constituents' views. My constituents would expect me to do what I thought was right. I think it is right to vote for the bill. I will use two simple examples to illustrate my reasoning. If I had 17-year-old twins—one a boy and one a girl—and the girl had consensual sex there would be no trouble. However, if the boy had consensual sex with a male he would be a criminal. There is something wrong with that. There is something wrong when a 17-year-old is treated as a criminal because of his choice. If a 17-year-old daughter made that choice with an opposite sex or same sex partner she would be treated differently. They should both be treated equally.

    I ask honourable members to note that I said 17-year-old and not 16-year-old—I tried to get that little bit of age differential. We are entitled to believe that our children will be treated the same. I do not have twin children, but a colleague of mine on Camden Council has just had twins and it occurred to me that he could be in an invidious position in 16 or 17 years time should this situation occur. I want to correct that situation now. I can understand the opinion that boys and girls mature at different ages, and I certainly agree with that. On Saturdays I see 14-year-old girls who play netball with my daughter—some of them are sexually mature and some are not. When I watch my son play football I see 16-year-old boys—again, some are sexually mature and some are not. Ultimately, these young people have the right to be treated equally under the law. This bill allows that to happen.

    The second argument I advance was put to me by a teacher in my branch of the Australian Labor Party. A young man came to her and said, "I am concerned. I had sex and the condom broke. I am concerned that there might be some disease involved." The teacher counselled him on what he could and should do. However, she was concerned that as a teacher her legal obligation was to report his action as a criminal act to the police or to youth and community services. She sought advice from the Teachers Federation, from the department and from others. I do not intend to tell the House what decision she made, but she was placed in an invidious situation. A 17-year-old boy went to her and explained a sexual problem that had caused him great concern and she was being forced to report him as a criminal. It was not a criminal act—it was an act of sex or love. It was a consensual act—he told her that—but he would be treated as a criminal. That is not a way to treat young men who are born this way, as was put to me by a member of the gay community at Campbelltown. I know a number of members of the gay community and a lot of them are good friends of mine. I have sought their advice as to the right way to go on this bill. They said that everyone should be treated equally in the of the law, irrespective of gender—whether they are 16-year-old boys or 16-year-old girls they should be treated equally. I cannot get away from that argument and I will be supporting it.

    Mr PAGE (Ballina—Deputy Leader of the National Party) [9.57 p.m.]: The Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences) Bill contains two main elements: one increases the penalties for sexual offences committed against children, which I support; the other reduces the age of consent for homosexual men from 18 to 16, and I have serious reservations about that aspect. Those two concepts are separate issues: one is about protecting children by deterring predators through harsher penalties; the other is about lowering the age of consent for homosexual sex, which could encourage predators to legally target 16-year-old boys. The bill should be split. If it is not split members who support increased penalties for sexual offences against children will be forced to vote against it if they do not agree with the lowering of the age of consent for homosexual sex for men. Therefore, members will be placed in an invidious position. In examining this bill I resisted the temptation to come to an instinctive conclusion.

    I preferred to examine the arguments for and against lowering the age of consent. The Parliamentary Library produced an excellent briefing note on this legislation, just as it did in 1997. Without traversing all the arguments I have heard in the Chamber tonight, many of which came from the briefing note, I believe the Attorney General outlined fairly comprehensively in his second reading speech the arguments in favour of lowering the age of consent. The Government relies on the argument that we should not discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual people by having different ages of consent. There is certain logic to that argument, but what should be the age of consent for a homosexual and heterosexual relationship? If the key element is to prevent young people, male or female, from being preyed upon, the argument could be mounted that instead of lowering the age of consent to 16 years, it should be raised to 17 or, indeed, 18 for both sexes.

    In South Australia and Tasmania the age of consent for both sexes is 17 years. Although South Australia was the first State in Australia to legalise homosexual activity, it is interesting to note that it has legislated that 17, not 16, is the appropriate age for consensual homosexual sex. Some evidence suggests that boys mature more slowly than girls, so it could be argued that 18 years should remain the age of consent. In the United Kingdom the Wolfenden report on homosexual offences and prostitution comprehensively argues that boys who may not have determined their sexual orientation until the age of 18 years should be given protection until that point.

    It is probably true that boys mature more slowly than girls. As a father of three sons, one of whom is almost 21 and a daughter who is 20, I am equally concerned about people sexually preying on my daughter, or anyone else's daughter, as well as my sons, or anyone else's sons when they were 16 years of age. To that extent I am committed to the concept of equal treatment for males and females. However, it should be noted that it is against the law for young people to drink, gamble, bet or watch X-rated videos until they are 18 years old. Indeed, they are not able to vote until they are 18, but this bill provides that it is okay for both males and females to have sex at 16 years of age.

    I believe that sex is a special part of any relationship, whether it is homosexual or heterosexual. Sexual relationships are enhanced if the participants have a level of maturity and certainty about their own sexuality. I would like the importance of sex in a relationship to be elevated to the level it deserves, that is, something special. The consequences of sexual intercourse can be significant for the parties involved. Furthermore, if we are worried about discrimination we should err on the side of caution and protect our young people. We must not forget that the fundamental intent of the legislation is to protect young people from offences committed by sexual predators. I would not want to make criminals out of two 17-year-olds who have consensual sex. However, I do not want young people, male or female, to be sexually exploited by older people. Frankly, I believe this bill needs redrafting because the appropriate consultation has not been undertaken. As the honourable member for Cronulla said, many members have not had an opportunity to consult properly with their constituents.

    Ms Moore: It has been around for 19 years.

    Mr PAGE: It might have been around for the honourable member for Bligh for 19 years because she is switched on to this issue, but for many people this is fairly new legislation. This was not in the election policy of the Labor Party; it was not a hot issue during the election campaign. We should seriously consider the South Australian and Tasmanian models, which provide 17 years as the age of consent for both homosexual and heterosexual relationships. I believe the bill should be split and that consideration should be given to raising the age of consent to 17 years.

    I am concerned about the retrospective aspect of the bill. The bill is retrospective in that it ceases to make unlawful male homosexual acts between persons who were not less than 16 years of age. In other words, a prior unlawful act will become lawful with the passing of this bill. To make matters worse, clause 50 of schedule 1 provides an ongoing defence for people who believe the person to have been 16 years of age when they were only 14 years of age. People charged with having homosexual sex with a 14-year-old prior to this bill being passed will have a defence under section 77 (2).

    In principle I do not support retrospective legislation, and I certainly do not support retrospective legislation that lets paedophiles off the hook. With the passing of the bill people such as those who were charged following the police royal commission will not be able to use the defence that they believed a person was 16 years old when the person was only 14 years old. However, the retrospective aspect of the bill allows for continuation of that defence for those charged under the existing law. I urge the Attorney General to specifically address this matter in reply and to explain in a logical fashion why this bill cannot be split.

    Mr BARR (Manly) [10.06 p.m.]: I support the Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences) Bill. The debate involves narrow morality versus wider morality. The exponents of narrow morality are those who disapprove of homosexuality and believe that it can be cured or prevented. The bill legislates for wider morality so as not to discriminate and punish a certain segment of society because of sexual preference and gender. The Crimes Act presently stipulates that the age of consent for heterosexuals is 16 years for females but 18 years for gay homosexual men. Discrimination on social grounds should not continue to be entrenched in law; rather, it should be removed.

    Over the years there has been considerable debate about homosexual behaviour. Scientific therapies have been put forward and experimentation undertaken. One grotesque example of that is the behavioural therapist who tried to modify sexual behaviour through aversion therapy on the notion that the sexuality can be moulded. I do not believe it can be. There is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that if people are not born with a particular sexual preference, it develops at an early stage. We must consider how to legislate for sexual preference, which is dangerous and difficult territory. Sexual behaviour is a constellation of emotional, physical and behavioural traits. It is more complex and cannot be simplified to mere genital behaviour. The ability of people to express their sexuality is fundamentally a human rights issue. We must protect young homosexual males, who suicide at three times the rate of the rest of the population. Having a legislative regime that punishes them only exacerbates their problems.

    We must remove discrimination and acknowledge the difficulties faced by homosexual males. We should help them, as we help all adolescents, and ensure that they are not discriminated against in law. We should encourage them to access the appropriate social and medical help. As I said, the complexity of human sexuality is something that we all struggle to come to grips with, not only in adolescence but throughout our lives. However, adolescence is a particularly volatile time, and we must ensure that we do all we can to help people and not discriminate against them. For those reasons, I support this bill.

    Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Mills.


Last modified 05/12/2007 16:25:19   :   Update this page