Thank you Margie for the invitation to speak here today.
This Conference is just one of the events which mark the 40^th anniversary of the decriminalisation of homosexuality in South Australia.
Its also a conference which asks us to consider the story of LGBTIQ rights in Australia.
The theme of the conference is From outlaws to in-laws.
These words tell a story.
It is a story about us and a story about our struggle.
It is a story about inclusion and citizenship.
It is a story about our friends and allies.
It is also a story not yet concluded.
So today we celebrate what has been achieved, while acknowledging there is more to be done.
The 1970s was a turning point in our fight for recognition here in South Australia.
In 1975 we were the first state in Australia to decriminalise male homosexuality.
But we should not forget the tragic circumstances that acted as a catalyst for change.
Many South Australians will know the name of Dr George Duncan, a law lecturer at the University of Adelaide in 1972.
He was a man who had only recently emigrated to Australia and had just commenced teaching Roman Law.
He was also gay a crime at the time.
We pride ourselves on being a country that values openness, tolerance and respect.
The society which greeted Dr Duncan was one of intimidation, persecution and brutality for gay men sometimes perpetuated by people who were sworn to protect the public.
On 10 May 1972 Dr Duncan was thrown into the River Torrens by a group of men and he quickly drowned.
He was known to be frail man and he could not swim.
Even today, questions remain over who was responsible for his death.
There have been allegations of police involvement, and subsequent investigations have never provided satisfactory answers.
George Duncans brutal murder is a sad marker in our states history.
It brought out into the open and made ordinary South Australians confront the injustice and the violence and intimidation that gay people experienced in our society.
And in that way, the tragedy of George Duncan became a powerful force for change.
It galvanized activists inside and outside the parliament.
In 1975, after a number of attempts, the Dunstan Labor Government decriminalised male homosexuality .
While we remember, and laud, the reforming acts of Don Dunstan and Peter Duncan, we should recognise the role of others, including Murray Hill, a member of the Liberal Country League, who introduced a private members bill seeking gay law reform in the early 1970s.
Its a reminder that the fight against discrimination need not be partisan.
Many of the important steps towards equality have been made possible, and more profound, because they are bipartisan.
It is a matter of disappointment for many of us that over the last two decades, South Australia has gone from leader to laggard on equal rights.
Thats why I welcome the decision by the Weatherill Government, in this anniversary year, to commission a review of discrimination against LGBTIQ South Australians in state legislation.
I also welcome support for reform by State Liberal Leader, Steven Marshall, who says that South Australia has a proud history when it comes to gay rights and one that I am sure will continue.
Our state parliament has a historic opportunity in the coming year to deliver change. An opportunity to ensure our laws truly reflect the principle of equality. An opportunity which can and must be taken.
The Review undertaken by the SA Law Reform Institute found over 140 South Australian Acts and Regulations that discriminate (or potentially discriminate) on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and intersex status.
For example, South Australia is one of the only states which requires lesbian couples to be considered medically infertile to have access to Assisted Reproductive Treatment.
In practice, this denies many South Australian same sex couples the right to access IVF.
Same sex couples are also denied the right to adopt children yet another restriction which denies us rights available to couples in other jurisdictions.
Discriminatory laws like this are why campaigns calling for changes to the law - like Equal Families - are so important.
Today, I want to add my voice to growing call for action in our community.
We already know the true value of our partners and our families.
Its time for our laws to catch up.
I welcome the Premiers announcement that the Government is preparing omnibus legislation to modify or repeal a number of pieces of legislation where discrimination exists.
And I look forward to the release of exposure draft legislation and swift passage through State Parliament next year.
Federally, the next chapter for us lies in the fight for marriage equality.
Recently I had the opportunity to debate Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi on this issue and in that exchange I quoted the Reverend Dr Margaret Mayman.
I think its worth reprising her words today.
She observes: All over the western world, the movement to transform marriage is underway. However it is not gay and lesbian people who have been transforming marriage. It is heterosexuals. It is precisely because heterosexuals have changed marriage from an economic arrangement to a relationship of love and support that gay and lesbian people are seeking to join it.
Marriage equality is about the removal of discrimination.
But Dr Mayman is right.
Fundamentally, it is also about love.
It is within federal Parliaments power to safeguard and protect our rights as human beings to love one another regardless of gender, and to recognise that love in our laws.
Federal Parliament should exercise that power.
We now have a Prime Minister and an Opposition Leader who both support marriage equality.
Opinion polls show two thirds of Australians support marriage equality, compared with one third a decade ago.
One would think that given this shift in sentiment, justice cant be far away.
But a plebiscite risks setting back our cause.
Lets not forget the referendum on the Republic in 1999. Despite strong support for change, the case for a republic faltered, resulting in the issue being placed in the too hard basket for almost two decades.
Today, I want to place on record the reasons why I am opposed to the type of plebiscite which has been proposed by the Turnbull Coalition Government and some in the Australian Greens.
Its important to acknowledge from the outset, that there has been no principled position articulated for this issue to be put to a plebiscite instead of being decided on by Parliament.
Australia hasnt had plebiscites on other fundamental issues of justice and human rights like ending the death penalty, dropping the White Australia policy or enacting a native title regime.
State and federal parliaments have legislated on sensitive social and moral questions like abortion, voluntary euthanasia and stem cell research without calling plebiscites.
These are regarded as questions for parliament, because in a representative democracy, parliamentarians are elected by the people to make our laws.
The only reason a plebiscite on same sex marriage has been proposed in recent months is because Tony Abbott did not want to facilitate a conscience vote by Liberal MPs.
Opponents of marriage equality now believe a plebiscite is their best opportunity to block progress.
It was the Australian Christian Lobby which first proposed in May this year taking same sex marriage to a plebiscite.
This is the same organisation which recently called for an anti-bullying school program for LGBTIQ young people to be axed.
Senator Bernardi has adopted the slogan Let the People Decide and called for a referendum on the issue.
When social conservatives like the Australian Christian Lobby and Senator Bernardi are pushing for a plebiscite you know it is not because they want to achieve marriage equality quite the contrary.
I spoke earlier about the journey From outlaws to in-laws being one of inclusion and tolerance.
I believe a vote in parliament will say something positive about our democracy.
I know that in this room today, and in our community, we have the capacity, the drive and the strength to fight and win a plebiscite if we must.
But only the election of a Federal Labor Government will ensure that marriage equality is subject to a free parliamentary vote.
There is also a grave risk that a plebiscite will operate as a licence for hate speech.
This debate is not abstract for us.
Opponents of marriage equality already use words which hurt and words that convey bigotry and prejudice.
My Twitter feed foretells the inevitable nature of an anti-equality campaign and it does it in 140 characters or less.
We dont want our families, our children, our community to be exposed to prejudice, bigotry and hate all in the guise of a debate over marriage equality
As the Rainbow Families Council makes clear in recent evidence to the Senate, a plebiscite debate will be: all-encompassing and our children will be accessing it. It will say something very directly to them about the value and worth of their families.
Nor should we forget that a fear campaign can ultimately win the day.
Earlier this month in America, the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance was defeated.
This was a measure that would have barred discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender, race or age, among other categories.
It was a measure that had widespread support from political leaders including President Obama, Vice President Biden and Hilary Clinton, and from corporations like Apple, General Electric and Hewlett Packard.
And yet, it was defeated.
Conservatives mounted a fear campaign claiming this change would allow sexual predators to enter female bathrooms.
It demonised transgender men and women with the slogan no men in womens bathrooms.
It is a model which is happily adopted by our own far right groups in Australia.
The Australian Christian Lobby use non-official websites and other material to twist the message of the Safe Schools Program for LGBTIQ young people in their campaign for its abolition.
It is hard to envision how organisations like this would behave responsibly in a national debate in the full glare of the media spotlight.
You are here today to discuss what the next chapter looks like for LGBTIQ Australians.
The simple truth is we are not equal before the law.
And until we are the journey from outlaws to in-laws will not be complete.
It is a history conference, and history provides us with the opportunity to learn from our mistakes.
But it also challenges us to consider what role we will take in shaping history.
Ive spoken about our struggles and our desire for equality.
We were a community that was once hidden from sight, and persecuted for who we were.
We have made some important gains since then but there is still more to do.
We still have laws to make and to unmake.
And we still have prejudices to confront.
More than four decades after the drowning of George Duncan, gay people are still subjected to violence and harassment on our streets and in our public places.
Across Australia from the suburbs of our big cities to the small towns of our regional areas there are young men and women struggling with their sexuality, often confused, isolated, intimidated and afraid.
In todays Australia, they should not be victims of bigotry and hate because of who they are.
Their opportunities and their rights, in their schools and communities and workplaces, should be no less than those of other Australians.
This Conference is an opportunity to reshape our future, to ensure this century is one of inclusion, diversity and equality.
For when we change laws, we change attitudes and we change society and that task is as important today as it was when South Australia led the way 40 years ago.