South Australia’s attorney-general, Kyam Maher, has pledged to “consider” calls for the state to abolish sacrilege laws, but is yet to commit to action.

In a letter to the Rationalist Society of Australia last month, Mr Maher said that he would consider the suggestion previously put forward by the RSA for the state government to get on with the job of addressing this issue.

In his letter, Mr Maher said charges of sacrilege were not commonly applied in South Australia, with his own department aware of only a handful of charges in recent years.

“Notwithstanding how infrequently the offence of sacrilege is charged in South Australia, I will consider your suggestion,” he said.

RSA Executive Director Si Gladman wrote to Mr Maher in May after another case of sacrilege charges – that of a 25-year-old man from Murray Bridge – triggered widespread media attention and public criticism.

Mr Gladman told Mr Maher that the clear public view was that sacrilege laws were anachronistic and had no place in modern-day South Australia.

In South Australia, the crime of sacrilege carries a punishment of imprisonment for life for breaking and entering a “place of divine worship” and committing an offence such as theft, offences against the person, or offences involving damage or destruction of property.

In March, Mr Gladman told South Australian radio station 5MU Radio that punishment for crimes such as trespass, theft of property, or damage of property should not be greater simply because an offence has taken place in a place of worship.

According to media reports, sacrilege charges have been laid on several occasions in the past two decades, including in the 2020 case of a 19-year-old man alleged to have stolen items from a church.

Earlier this year, before the wave of media attention on the latest case, Mr Maher told the RSA that he would consider its views on the state’s sacrilege and common-law blasphemy laws.

Following the Tasmanian government’s decision to abolish blasphemy laws last year, the RSA wrote to Mr Maher in January to urge him to take similar steps to modernise South Australian laws.

If you want to support our work, please make a donation or become a member.

Si Gladman is Executive Director at the Rationalist Society of Australia. He also hosts ‘The Secular Agenda’ podcast.

Letter from Attorney-General Kyam Maher, 22 July 2025

Dear Mr Gladman

I write in response to your email dated 20 May 2025 about the offence of sacrilege in South Australia.

As you would be aware, South Australia’s offence of sacrilege criminalises breaking and entering in a place of divine worship and committing an offence such as theft, offences against the person, or offences involving damage or destruction of property.

Sacrilege is not commonly charged in South Australia. The Attorney-General’s Department is aware of only a handful of charges over recent years.

Trespassing in religious premises with intent to commit theft, property damage or an offence against the person could alternatively result in a charge of serious criminal trespass in a non-residential building.

Notwithstanding how infrequently the offence of sacrilege is charged in South Australia, I will consider your suggestion.

Thank you for writing to me to express your views on this issue.

Yours sincerely

Hon Kyam Maher MLC

Attorney-General

RSA letter to Mr Maher, 20 May 2025

Dear Attorney-General,

I’m writing on behalf of the Rationalist Society of Australia to follow up with you on community concerns about the continued use of sacrilege laws in South Australia.

Since corresponding with you earlier in the year on this issue, the case of a 25-year-old man being charged with sacrilege in Murray Bridge has triggered widespread media attention and consternation in the community.

Clearly, the maintenance of such laws fails to meet public expectations. The clear public sense is that sacrilege laws – carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment – are anachronistic and have no place in modern-day South Australia.

Again, we urge you to modernise South Australian criminal law in line with community expectations by abolishing sacrilege offenses, along with the common law blasphemy offences that we raised in our previous correspondence.

Will the state government now get on with the job of addressing this issue?

Si Gladman

Executive Director,

Rationalist Society of Australia