Late last month, the Tasmanian Legislative Council voted down a gay law reform bill put by the Greens and passed by the Legislative Assembly in early June. 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly's NATALIE WOODLOCK interviewed RODNEY CROOME, spokesperson for Tasmania's Gay and Lesbian Rights Group, about the future of the campaign.
Question: What sort of political pressure do you think is necessary to get the gay law reform bill passed?
This issue figured quite prominently in the last state elections, and those who supported reform got a majority in the lower house. This forced the conservative government to change its position to allow a conscience vote. For the first time, the establishment in Tasmania conceded that it needed to move.
Of course, this concession has been very limited. They're still saying to gays and lesbians, "We're going to try to get away with as much homophobia as we can".
The best way to bring pressure to bear on them is to continue to show that public opinion is behind changing the laws. We can bring expert opinion to bear on the issue, but ultimately the Legislative Council will only accept reform under pressure from large groups of people.
We've shown in the past that there is mass support for reform, with large rallies in Hobart. We need to continue to do that. We have to organise large rallies to show that there is extreme public concern.
Question: The ALP amended the bill which was passed in the Legislative Assembly so that gay sex will remain a criminal offence for men under 17 years old. Is the gay and lesbian community prepared to make more concessions like that one to get the bill passed?
The government introduced amendments to the Greens' bill which set a higher age of consent for gay men of 18. The age of consent for heterosexuals in Tasmania is 17.
To try to get people to support his amendments, Ray Groom went on about how, if the Greens' bill got up, it would decriminalise anal sex for 12 year olds. This rattled some conservative people in the ALP to the extent that they were going to support the government's amendments.
So a compromise was suggested to simply abolish the defences for under 17 year olds (their defence in court that they are roughly of similar age). But the abolition of defences made it illegal.
We objected to that. You don't deal with adolescent sexuality by making criminals of people, dragging teenagers before the court for having sex with each other. If there are any more compromises, we'll ask for the bill to be withdrawn because it will be worthless.
Question: The Tasmanian Greens tried to pass a similar bill in 1994 but it was rejected without even being debated by parliament. This time the Liberal Party allowed a conscience vote on the issue, and three Liberal members crossed the floor. How do you explain this shift?
The MPs will say that it's because the United Nations and the federal government told them that these laws have to change. But up until the state election they were saying to hell with the United Nations, to hell with the federal government. It was public opinion and the result of the last state election that forced them to change their position.
Before the election, the Liberals were hoping their opposition to gay law reform would win them votes on the north-west coast, and they counted on people in the south being apathetic enough not to care. But it worked the other way: they lost votes in the south, and they didn't manage to shore up their vote on the north-west coast. So they made an assessment that explicit opposition doesn't do them any good.
Question: Many of the legislative councillors who oppose gay law reform favour a referendum on the issue. What is your approach to this?
The Gay and Lesbian Rights Group opposes a referendum, and our position seems to be supported by almost all of the gay and lesbian community and its supporters.
A referendum would be very divisive. It would polarise the community and increase hatred expressed towards gay and lesbian people. We've seen that happen in Oregon and Colorado in the United States, where they've had referendums and there's been a huge increase in hate crimes and discrimination against gays and lesbians.
Secondly, this is a human rights issue. You don't decide human rights by popular votes.
Thirdly, all of this occurs within the framework of a society which is, at its core, heterosexist. So while it might appear democratic to let everyone have a say, the fact is that the major institutions in our society, the media in particular, are not fair because they're part of a society which is essentially oppressive. In this context, things like referendums are often weighted against minority groups.
There are devices built into the referendum legislation in Tasmania to try to make it fair. For instance, everyone gets posted an argument for and against. But that's only at one level. More generally, in terms of the media and the economic resources available to the people wanting to change the status quo, there's no equal opportunity at all. They, the people who want this referendum, have many more resources than we do.
Question: Has the struggle for the rights of gay men benefited the struggles of other disadvantaged groups?
The campaign for gay law reform definitely has had an impact on other struggles in Tasmania, just like the green movement has. The green movement in Tasmania motivated lots of people; it showed that it was possible to make social change, and it showed how to do it. A lot of movements came along in its wake and learned from it — we did, I think. And people who are involved in different communities, different minority groups and other struggles have also found inspiration in and learned from what we've done.
People take specific action on specific issues. It is only occasionally that they come together to form a broader coalition that goes beyond the specific issues. Sometimes I think that's the right way to go. An effective way to deal with the structural problems in our society, to attack capitalist exploitation, is to attack it at specific places at specific times with specific issues. Looked at in this way, the action we're taking in Tasmania can be seen to be effective and useful.
Question: Where to from here?
We will continue to focus on getting the reform bill passed. When you're campaigning in the community for social change, it's important to have specific goals that lots of people can aspire to and that become symbols of all our aspirations. The legislative councillors see gay law reform as a symbol of what they don't want Tasmania to become. But other people support gay law reform as a symbol of a Tasmania that they do want to see come about. That's why it's an issue that has kept motivating people.
When the gay law reform debate is won, then it will be time to move on to other issues. That's not to say that we should not be fighting on a number of different fronts at once. It's dangerous to put all your campaign eggs in one basket. Over the last eight years, we've had law reform as a focus, but we've also been campaigning for anti-discrimination legislation, same-sex relationship recognition and lesbian access to sperm donation programs, and also doing lots of community education, government policy work and work with schools. We will continue to do that.