Gay law reform and the High Court
"Gay Victory": this was how the February 27 edition of the Burnie Advocate referred to the unanimous High Court decision to allow our case to proceed.
When we originally lodged our case, the Tasmanian government objected to our standing before the court and to the court's jurisdiction to hear the case. Both claims were based on the absence of any prosecutions under our anti-gay laws. Last Wednesday the court overruled these objections, stating that even if the offending laws are not enforced, they overshadow the lives of gay men in Tasmania. The court also ordered the Tasmanian government to pay our costs so far. It was indeed a great victory.
The most obvious implication of the court's decision is that our case will now proceed to an examination of whether or not Tasmania's anti-gay laws are invalid. Getting a hearing in the High Court was probably the most difficult obstacle we faced, so the chances of a positive outcome have increased significantly following last week's decision.
The decision also has wider implications for human rights in Australia. The court has broadened its criteria for standing, giving other people who have experienced human rights abuses a better chance of having their grievances heard.
The Tasmanian government has not yet decided whether it will proceed with a defence of its laws. Obviously it must assess the political repercussions of spending $10,000 on a case it will probably lose. Nor has the Victorian government decided whether it will continue to oppose our case.
But as soon as the Western Australian government heard of the High Court's decision, it stated it would join the case against us. This is because a successful outcome in our case would provide an important precedent for the invalidation of WA's discriminatory anti-gay age of consent law.
Meanwhile, in the wake of the court decision the Senate has voted in support of a Green motion calling for a review of our anti-gay laws. The motion had the support of Senator Brian Harradine. But, despite their support for the sexual privacy law and our High Court case, the Coalition parties voted against the motion. This is disturbing because it may indicate that reactionary forces in the Coalition are gaining greater influence over social policy issues.
[Reprinted from Pink Thylacines, the newsletter of the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group. TGLRG's web site is at http://www.tased.edu.au/tasonline/tasqueer/tasqueer.html.]