I take it from this article that, with reform of Queensland laws, the effective age of consent in all Australian states will be 16, regardless of the type of sex involved. No, wait a minute, it's still basically 17 in South Australia, apparently. And Tasmania.
I see that some Australian States do have the sense to also have "Romeo and Juliet" laws, which provide a defence if the age difference is not more than 2 (or 3, or even 5[?!]) years. (In fact, it is Tasmania with the high age of 17 that has laws allowing a defence if up to 5 years age difference. Odd.)
Queensland doesn't, though. Wouldn't that seem a sensible reform? If even Texas has it, can't we?
On a related issue, I did feel sorry for the old guys who appeared in the report on 7.30 last night who attended the Victorian government's apology for past governments having criminalised homosexual sex. From this point in history, it is a little hard to understand the intense interest in policing such activities in the mid 20th century. I guess part of it may have to do with people hating the idea of public sexual activity, which is something still to be disdained; but the irony is, I suppose, that making it a crime even in private almost certainly encouraged secretive and opportunistic liaisons in public.