*Age Of Consent & Legal Sexual Activity for the State of
2nd
July 2007 Letter
to the Leader of The Opposition, Jeff Seeney in
reply to his letter dated 26th
June 2007.
Confirming the message delivered in my 29th
June 2007 phone call to his Parliament House office. I point out that Mr.
Seeney has clearly been given inaccurate advice regarding the majority
recommendations in the 1990 all-party Parliamentary Criminal Justice
Committee Report on Reforms in Laws Relating to Homosexuality. I include a
copy of page 49 of that Report (pdf file
page 52) in which Recommendation 7 is very plainly in favour of a truly equal
age of consent.
The text for Mr. Seeney’s letter had
apparently been copied (word for word in the last 3 of four paragraphs) from a
24th January 2006 letter which was sent to me by
To: Mr Jeff Seeney, Leader of The Opposition,
Leader of The Nationals and Member of Parliament for Callide
Parliament House,
From: John Frame
Ph: 07 3350 1562 / 0409 501 561
Date: 2nd July 2007
Dear Mr. Seeney,
I thank you for your letter
dated 26th January 2007. That letter was in response to the “6 Statements of
Support for Equal Age Of Consent Reform” DVD-Video/CD-ROM pack which I had
posted to you.
I respectfully advise that
you are in error in your letter's statement that "In 1990 an all-party
parliamentary committee, the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee,
investigated and rejected the very proposal being put forward by you."
In fact the opposite is true.
I have attached a copy of
page 49 from the Queensland Parliament pdf file of the October 1990 all-party
PCJC Report (to which you have
referred). Page 49 includes the full text of “Recommendation 7” – which was the
majority recommendation for a truly equal age of consent in the
decriminalisation of sex between men.
I note that the last three
paragraphs of your letter are identical, word for word, to a letter which I
received from Lawrence Springborg, as Leader of The Opposition, dated 24th
January 2006.
On that occasion I sent in reply
an email and a letter, both dated 27th January 2006. I have attached
a copy of the complete text of that letter in which I provide proof that the
legal advice which has been given to Mr. Springborg, and which has been copied
into your letter, was clearly incorrect – and I detail the circumstances which
have arisen since that time to justify reconsideration of
The Opposition’s position.
I respect your right, and
the right of your Party, to hold any particular point of view – however I
believe that it is of utmost importance that your opinion should not be based
on false or inaccurate information.
I welcome your reply.
Yours sincerely,
Copy of page 49 of the 1990 all-party Parliamentary Criminal Justice
Committee Report on Reforms in Laws Relating to Homosexuality:
(copy of 27th
January 2006 letter to the Leader of The Opposition):
To: Mr Lawrence Springborg, Leader of The Opposition,
Leader of The Nationals and Member of Parliament for
Parliament House,
From: John Frame
Ph: 07 3350 1562 / 0409 501 561
Date:
(This is a written, slightly corrected version of my email which was sent earlier today)
Dear
I thank you for your letter
dated
I respectfully advise that you are in error in your letter's statement that "In 1990 an all-party parliamentary committee, the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee, investigated and rejected the very proposal being put forward by you." The opposite is true.
It is a verifiable fact that the PCJC Report specifically recommended that, not only should sex between men be decriminalised, but that there should also be a truly equal age of consent, with no higher age set for any sexual activity. This was RECOMMENDATION 7 (see pages 48 and 49 of the Report - a copy of the Government's original pdf file is stored at http://www.queerradio.org/PCJC_law_reform_report_October_1990.pdf ).
RECOMMENDATION 7 states:
“THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT THE AGE OF CONSENT FOR HOMOSEXUAL ACTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF SEXUAL EQUALITY AND ANTI-DISCRIMINATION BE THE SAME FOR MALES AS IT IS FOR FEMALES, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE SEXUAL ACT IS HETEROSEXUAL OR HOMOSEXUAL.”
You further state that "no circumstance has arisen since that time to justify any reconsideration of this position". This again is incorrect and I hope you will acknowledge the following key circumstances which have arisen since 1990:
1. Law reform has been
enacted in every other
2. Official support for
reform in
3. Popular support for
reform through 740 signatories of the
4. Written support for reform by over twenty Community Groups and Service and Health Organisations. http://www.queerradio.org/AOC_QuAC-Open_Doors-PFLAG_Mid_Oct_2005.htm
5. In 1995 the Goss Government passed a Revised Criminal Code which effectively reformed the Sodomy Law by stating only that all sex under the age of 16 was illegal. (See http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/ACTS/1995/95AC037.pdf) However in 1996 just a month before that Revised Criminal Code was to come into effect, the National Party led Coalition briefly regained control of Parliament and their first act was to repeal the Goss Government's Revised Criminal Code 1995 (which would otherwise have ensured a truly equal age of consent). The Borbidge Government then enacted a drastic revision of the 1899 Criminal Code http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/ACTS/1997/97AC003.pdf - including
(1) changing the terminology under Sections 208 and 209 from "anal intercourse" to "sodomy";
(2) raising the minimum age from 17 to 18; and
(3) doubling the maximum penalties from 7 years to 14 years. There is no record in Hansard of any debate occurring on these revised Sections.
6. The National Children's & Youth Law Centre called for Sodomy Law Reform in their May 2005 Non-Government Report on the Implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights Of the Child In Australia http://www.ncylc.org.au/croc/images/CROC_Report_for_Web.pdf
7. Research published by La Trobe University in Melbourne on the health and well being of same sex attracted youth proves that same sex attracted youth, those most affected by the Sodomy Law, are denied peer support and acceptance, and as a result are at greatly increased risk of sexually transmitted diseases, self-harm through drug and alcohol abuse, and suicide. (See http://www.latrobe.edu.au/ssay/pdfs/writing_themselves_in_again.pdf )
8. The greatly increased
risk of HIV/AIDS. The 1990 PCJC Report to which you referred, was clear in
identifying that criminalising a particular sexuality or sexual activity did
nothing to curb the practice of that activity, but merely acted to impede vital
safe sex education. The rate of HIV infection increased in
Please refer to page 49 of the 1990 PCJC Report http://www.queerradio.org/PCJC_law_reform_report_October_1990.pdf which states:
"The Committee was of the view that the professional advice put before it concludes the following:-
1. Sexual orientation is most likely determined early and while the age is not determinable it is most likely before puberty.
2. Once sexual orientation is determined it is very difficult if not impossible to change.
3. The law regardless of whether it makes homosexual sex between consenting males in private legal or not has little impact or no impact on the practice of homosexuality in private. Its impact is in relation to whether safe sex is practiced and whether the community is susceptible to particular AIDS education programs.
4. The evidence seems to suggest that homosexual orientation is not a matter over which homosexuals have any control in the same way heterosexuals have no control over their sexual orientation."
I would be happy to discuss any of these references with you and I welcome your response.
In late 2002 I witnessed from the Public Gallery as
Parliament discussed the Discrimination Law Amendment Bill. I was impressed to witness
you acknowledge the value of your friends who happen to be gay and state that
they should not face undue discrimination. Therefore I am hopeful that you will
agree that 16 and 17 year old
There is no doubt that the current law does great harm - it is not benign in any respect.
This is a reform that all Parties should be proud and confident in supporting because it is purely in the interest of protecting the health and welfare of youth.
Yours sincerely,
John
John Frame
presenter of Queer Radio www.queerradio.org
on community radio 4ZZZ fm102.1
Ph: 07 3350 1562 / 0409 501 561
Post:
----"There is no substitute for equality"----