The age of consent and Coalition 'family values'

The recent WA election saw the ALP under Premier Geoff Gallop comfortably returned. The fact that the WA economy is doing quite well seemed to play a major role in his victory. The leader of the Liberals, Colin Barnett, managed to boost Gallop’s chances by displaying unbelievable incompetence in committing to building a potentially costly and poorly thought out Kimberley to Perth canal. As Peter Van Onselen argued earlier in On Line Opinion, the canal proposal was the equivalent of John Hewson’s GST policy. It made voters nervous and the electorate tends to shy away from leaders with whom they feel unsafe.

The WA gay community had other reasons to feel unsafe with Barnett. In a policy position statement, Family First: Defining the Difference, the WA Liberals explicitly called for the age of consent for gay men to be made higher than for heterosexuals (prior to Gallop coming to office it was 21 years for homosexuals. It was adjusted across the board to 16 years). In the statement it was put that:

The Gallop Labor Government has justified lowering the age of consent for homosexual males to 16 solely on the grounds of equality. Whether that is right or wrong, or whether this is in the best interests of vulnerable young adults has not been properly considered by the wider community.

No consideration has been given to the fact that teenage girls are generally more mature than boys or that community concern has more to do with predatory and exploitative behaviour by older males than it has to do with sexual relations between young adults of similar ages.

On balance, most people would accept the age of consent for homosexual males to be 18 years, in line with the age of majority.

The last sentence is interesting given the WA Liberals showed no indication of ever reducing the age of consent for homosexual sex from 21 years to 18 years while they were in office.

Not content with alienating gay men, Barnett’s Liberals reaffirmed their opposition to lesbians accessing IVF services and opposed same-sex couples’ use of the Family Court. Their document may as well have been called “Homosexuals Last”.

It is not clear how many gays voted ALP or even if the vote was significant. However, Barnett’s anti-gay policies surely didn’t help his cause. And gay rights campaigners across Australia were alarmed by the explicit attempt to make the age of consent in WA unequal once again - and rightly so. The age of consent, which I will focus on, should remain equal for very good reasons.

Richard Roberts and Peter Maplestone have argued in their report The Age of Consent and Gay Men in NSW (2001) (pdf file 607KB) that:

No substantial evidence was found to support a higher age of consent for young homosexual men. The evidence supports the position that the age of consent should be equalised on the grounds that the current position is not only discriminatory against young gay men but is harmful in inhibiting their access to educational, health and welfare services at a time they need them most.

One counter-argument is that discriminatory practices can exist for very good reasons. For instance, 10-year-olds unlike 18-year-olds are not allowed to drive - for their own safety as well as everyone else’s. However, an unequal age of consent serves no useful purpose, is discriminatory for its own sake and has negative social and health implications for younger gay men.

Roberts and Maplestone point out that:

Researchers the world over have documented the impediments imposed by unequal age of consent legislation on such essential services [public health, welfare and educational practice]. They also note that such impediments are especially problematic in the light of the fact that for young males the mid teens form a developmental stage at which information, education and support care are of the utmost importance.

NSW health, welfare, and counselling professionals interviewed in this study all reported significant difficulties with providing information and support around sexuality issues to young gay males by virtue of the fact that this could be viewed under NSW law as aiding and abetting a criminal activity - leaving them potentially open to prosecution and de-funding.

As a former telephone counsellor with the NSW Gay and Lesbian Counselling Service (GLCS NSW), I can relate these difficulties. Young male callers who identified themselves as 16-years-old placed GLCS NSW volunteers in awkward situations. We had to be very careful in making referrals. For example, if we directed a lonely young gay man to an interactive website in order to chat to other men we could potentially be in legal hot water if the website contained the smallest amount of sexually explicit material.

What possible justifications could there be to maintain an unequal age of consent given that an equal age of consent in states other than WA had already been established? In Victoria and the ACT the age of consent is 16 years for heterosexual and homosexual sex. The same applies to New Zealand, Britain and Belgium. Is there any evidence young males in these places are more vulnerable to sexual abusers than anywhere else?

Are young gay men really safer from HIV/AIDS in places where the age of consent for homosexual sex is higher than heterosexual sex? I have seen no proof in this regard. In fact, in countries where homosexual sex is illegal altogether the HIV/AIDS epidemic has not been prevented and the sex abuse of young men, women and children goes on unabated. Some of the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa are the most tragic examples. The only reason, if it is indeed a “reason”, seems to be blind prejudice.

It is also amazing how proponents of an unequal age of consent have been so dismissive of the interests of women. The protection of young men’s sexuality appears to take precedence over young women’s. Family’s First: Defining the Difference refers to concerns around “predatory and exploitative behaviour by older males” only in regard to males younger than 18 years. Does that mean it is okay to subject 16-year-old females to “exploitative behaviour” but not 16-year-old males? Nowhere in the document does it say the age of consent should be 18 years for all as some conservative commentators such as Miranda Devine appeared to support in NSW (when the debate was raging there in 2003). That at least would be consistent and would demonstrate a concern (no matter how misguided) for young women’s sexual development. But the WA Liberals’ document doesn’t and feminist groups, indeed women generally, should be outraged by this policy statement.

The feminist academic Sheila Jeffreys, in her book The Spinster and Her Enemies, recounts the feminist campaign to increase the age of consent in late 19th Century Britain when it was as low as 13 years for females. There was debate as to how far to raise it. However, the point is that feminist campaigners aimed to protect younger women and were not going to tolerate double standards. Gay rights activists today likewise will not tolerate one rule for heterosexuals and another for homosexuals.