Clause 10 of the government's bill would amend section 304 of the Criminal Code, so it would not be available on the basis of an unwanted sexual advance, other than in exceptional circumstances. Exceptional circumstances could be if there was a history of sexual assault or violence between the accused and the person killed, and would be up to a judge to assess on a case-by-case basis, Attorney-General Yvette D'Ath said when introducing the bill. Queensland and South Australia are the only Australian states to still have the partial defence of provocation. But Queensland Law Society president Christine Smyth said, in a submission to the committee, that while the society commended the policy rationale, it was concerned with the wording. "For example, it would be concerning if this defence were not open to a defendant where the victim had sexually assaulted or raped the defendant, or where the victim had sexually abused the defendant as a child," Ms Smyth said.

Ms Smyth said the bill attempted to address the concern by including "circumstances of an exceptional character" as an exception, but it was not defined. "Furthermore, the lack of definition of "circumstances of an exception character" might actually lead to a court allowing in an "unwanted sexual advance" defence to provocation by attempting to argue that a homosexual advance is an exceptional circumstance, which is entirely contrary to the intention of the legislation and would contravene the drafter's intention," she wrote. However, lawyer Stephen Page, who has lobbied for LGBTI equality in the past, said he hoped the reform would receive bipartisan support. "The health and safety of LGBTI people in Queensland should not be the subject of a political score card," Mr Page said. Mr Page said he had been a target while out in public with his husband, who he married in the US in 2015.

"Almost every other day for the 'sin' of holding hands or being perceived to be different, we are given the death stare, or look of disdain, or have yelled at us abusive homophobic terms. We have done nothing by our conduct to deserve such abuse," he said. Mr Page cited research from 2010, which showed 73 per cent of respondents in an LGBTI study received verbal abuse and 23 per cent were subjected to a physical attack. "Put simply, if Parliament enacts this proposed change... it will give a powerful message to the community that these types of assaults are unwelcome, unapproved and should not be tolerated," he said. The Brisbane LGBTIQ Action Group submission also supports the change, saying LGTBI Queenslanders felt vulnerable while "gay panic" remained available as a partial defence to murder. "As long as deep-seated homophobia and discrimination against people persists in some segments of society, LGBTI Queenslanders can feel vulnerable knowing this defence could potentially be used, perhaps even fictitiously, if ever they were to be the victim of a targeted gay-bashing resulting in their death," the submission reads.

"In addition to making the law fairer, by removing the so-caled gay panic defence this sends an important message to the community that LGBTI people are valued members of society and that discrimination is not acceptable." Another submission welcomed the move, but the writer questioned whether by including the phrase "other than in circumstances of an exceptional character", the bill may leave the door slightly ajar to some cases where a "homosexual advance defence" may be used. LGBTI Legal Service director of law reform Thomas Clark supported the amendment, arguing the gay panic defence was archaic. "[We] believe that the common law that gives rise to the 'gay panic' defence is completely discriminatory while perpetuating notion of 'second-class citizen' so often felt by the LGBTI community in Queensland," he said. The Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby submitted that laws that legitimate, and effectively condone, violence directed at LGBTI people "played a decisive role in the dehumanisation of members of our community throughout history, so the substantive revision of such laws is critical".

"[It would] send a strong symbolic and material message to perpetrators, as well as those in the community who would contemplate committing such acts, that they are not acceptable, are not condoned by the law, and will be punished accordingly," the submission reads. But the Australian Christian Lobby argued the bill should not be passed, saying it supported equality before the law, but section 304 was not "prima facia discriminatory" because it did not refer to sexual orientation or gender. "The proposed changes may result in unforeseen and disproportionately adverse consequences for many accused of murder in Queensland," the ACL submission reads. It also argues that female defendants might be disadvantaged, if for example, they were subjected to touching by a male colleague at work, which brought up a memory of childhood abuse, and stabbed him with scissors, they would not have access to the partial defence of provocation. "The fact that no woman in Queensland facing murder charges has appealed to 'provocation' does not mean that women who might face these charges in the future should be deprived of 'unwanted sexual advances' as a contributing factor to this partial defence," the ACL submission says.

It also asks: "Are heterosexual men to be denied a partial defence for violent responses that would be completely understandable if they were female?" The Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee received nine submissions on the bill. In November, a string of celebrities banded together to urge the Queensland government to introduce the reforms before the end of 2016. A petition calling for the reform, created by Catholic priest Paul Kelly, has more than 290,000 signatures. Father Kelly created the petition after a man was bashed and killed in his church grounds at Maryborough in 2008.

A report is expected to be tabled by February 21.