Monthly Archives: October 2018

Submission re Mandatory BBV Testing Options Paper

Posted on by

The NSW Department of Justice has released an Options Paper considering whether to impose ‘mandatory disease testing’ for people whose bodily fluids come into contact with emergency services personnel. You can find more details of that consultation here.

This is my personal submission: 

 

via mdtsubmissions@justice.nsw.gov.au

 

Wednesday 31 October 2018

 

To whom it may concern,

 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission to this public consultation process.

 

I write this submission as a former employee in the blood borne virus (BBV)/health sector, and as someone who supports the rights of people living with HIV, hepatitis C and hepatitis B.

 

I wish to express my serious concerns with any proposal for the mandatory testing of people whose bodily fluids come into contact with emergency services workers, including police.

 

These concerns are based on a number of factors, including:

 

The Options Paper places undue emphasis on the number of incidents of exposure to bodily fluids, not the number of transmissions

 

The table on page 8 outlines the total number of incidents of exposure to bodily fluids per year, including for NSW Police, Corrective Services and Health. These numbers are obviously quite high – especially in relation to NSW Health – however, they are not further categorised by the number of incidents in which the risk of BBV transmission is high, and therefore is inflated by a large proportion of incidents in which the risk of transmission is low or negligible.

 

Perhaps more importantly, while the paper includes the number of incidents of exposure to bodily fluids, it does not include any information on the number of actual transmissions of HIV, hepatitis C or hepatitis B in these contexts, presumably because these figures are also low or negligible.

 

For example, I understand that despite the high number of exposures within NSW Health, there have been no confirmed cases of HIV transmission for a health care worker following occupational exposure in NSW since 1994, and nationally since 2002.

 

I do not wish to underestimate the anxiety that may be experienced by an emergency services worker following an incident of exposure to bodily fluids. However, a focus on the number of incidents of exposure to bodily fluids, while ignoring the very low number of transmissions of BBVs, is likely to exacerbate rather than alleviate such anxiety.

 

The ‘window period’ means that mandatory testing for BBVs cannot offer the level of comfort that its advocates claim

 

The push for new laws in this area, introducing mandatory testing for BBVs, by organisations including the Police Association, appears to be motivated by a desire to provide comfort to emergency services personnel who are exposed to bodily fluids in the course of their work.

 

However, the respective window periods for detection of HIV, hepatitis C and hepatitis B mean that mandatory testing of the ‘source’ person of these fluids cannot offer genuine comfort for these employees. This fact is conceded in the Options Paper itself, on page 13: ‘Because of the window period, it can never be known for certain at the time of testing whether the source person is infectious.’

 

It is possible to imagine that the results of mandatory testing in these circumstances will instead lead to negative outcomes for the emergency services personnel themselves.

 

For example, an employee may feel relieved by a negative test of the ‘source’ person, and then, perhaps not fully understanding window periods or simply acting on ‘false confidence’, fail to take appropriate precautions to prevent onwards transmission to their partner, family or others.

 

On the other hand, a positive test of the ‘source’ person, for one or more BBVs, may lead to heightened anxiety for the emergency services employee, for several months, despite the fact the overall risk of transmission from the particular incident remains low.

 

Again, this scenario is contemplated in the Options Paper itself, on page 35: ‘even where the source person tests positive, there are varying degrees of risk that the disease will transmit to the emergency services worker. A further consideration is that a positive test result from a source person could have the opposite effect than intended by adding to a worker’s stress, rather than ameliorating it.’

 

In short, mandatory BBV testing cannot provide what its advocates want. Thus, option 2 – which calls for ‘changes to agency policy to allow the source person to be assessed, counselled and asked to consent to a sample being taken for testing by a health care professional’ – should not be supported.

 

A better approach would be to focus on providing appropriate health services to emergency services workers

 

In my view, it would be more effective to ensure that the health services offered to these employees are best practice.

 

This is contemplated in option 1: ‘improvements to agency policy and practice to ensure emergency services personnel are promptly assessed, counselled and managed by a health care professional with access to specialist advice immediately following an exposure to potentially infectious body fluids.’

 

This should be supplemented by increased education of emergency services personnel on the routes of BBV transmission, including how to minimise risks of work-related transmission and how to respond to exposure to bodily fluids.

 

There should also be ongoing programs to ensure all emergency services employees are vaccinated for hepatitis B, that where relevant they have prompt access to Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (PEP) for HIV and immunoglobulin for hepatitis B, and that highly-effective hepatitis C treatments remain available for all Australians who require it.

 

Mandatory testing undermines Australia’s successful BBV response which is based on consent

 

Australia has embraced a world-leading response to multiple blood borne viruses, including HIV and more recently hepatitis C.

 

In both cases, it is based on principles of informed consent and voluntary testing, engagement with affected communities, provision of harm reduction initiatives and the roll-out of treatment across the community.

 

The introduction of mandatory testing undermines this approach. Indeed, international bodies such as UNAIDS and the World Health Organisation (WHO) oppose mandatory testing because it compromises public health initiatives and efforts to reduce HIV and other BBV transmission.

 

For these reasons I am strongly opposed to option 3, which is described as ‘a consent-based scheme, with an option for a court ordered mandatory disease testing’.

 

On page 20, the Options Paper even claims that ‘The advantages of the consent process still apply, and informed consent is the basis for seeking testing. It is anticipated that a sample would be obtained in most cases, as most people would agree to be tested’.

 

In my opinion, it is highly misleading to state that such a scheme has anything to do with consent. It would more accurately be described as a duress-based scheme, especially because, as outlined on page 19, if the person does not provide ‘consent’ the emergency services agency may then apply to a court for a mandatory disease testing order and:

 

‘Where the source person does not complywith the court order, the relevant agency may apply to the court for a custody order with warrant. Police may apprehend and detain the source person for the purpose of taking the sample’ (emphasis in original).

 

This threat negates any consent that may be provided by anyone under this model.

 

 

The involvement of police in health-related risk assessments cannot be supported

 

Option 4 – which is described as ‘a scheme that would apply where an offence has been committed, with mandatory disease testing ordered by a senior police officer’ – has all of the disadvantages of option 3 (above), as well as raising other serious concerns.

 

The first and most obvious is that police officers are not appropriately qualified to undertake health-related risk assessments. This is again conceded on page 26, which notes: ‘A risk assessment conducted by a senior police officer (or senior correctional officer) offers practical advantages. However, they do not possess the medical expertise offered by health care professionals.’

 

However, perhaps an even larger problem is created by the criteria that would allow officers to order a test, including the following factor (on page 23):

 

‘The incident involves a suspected offence or has occurred during the lawful apprehension and detention of a person. For example, the exposure may occur during an assault on the emergency services worker, or while a police officer is arresting a person.’

 

It should be remembered that a significant proportion of suspected offences are never proven, and that charges in relation to the incident may ultimately be dropped (often several months afterwards). There are also occasions when the lawfulness of the individual’s apprehension and detention are contested, again usually some time later.

 

However, even if charges are dropped and/or the detention is subsequently found to be unlawful, in the meantime the individual would have already been subjected to an invasive and involuntary medical procedure (or indeed been charged again for failing to provide a sample).

 

It is even possible to see how, in an incident involving exposure to bodily fluids, such a scheme could operate as an incentive for police to allege an offence has occurred in order to obtain a BBV test from the source person.

 

This option is therefore not just poor from a health but also a legal perspective.

 

Mandatory BBV testing creates significant privacy concerns

 

All of options 2, 3 and 4 generate significant concerns for the privacy of people who undergo BBV testing. This is because the test results are automatically disclosed to the affected emergency services worker.

 

While it is proposed that safeguards be introduced to ensure the test results are not further disclosed, it is easy to foresee circumstances in which positive results will be disclosed either inadvertently or deliberately during this process.

 

This is obviously of significant concern for people living HIV, hepatitis C or hepatitis B, who have a right to control their health information, including choosing when, and to whom, they disclose their status.

 

These concerns are especially acute for people who may be diagnosed as a result of a mandatory BBV test in these circumstances. They will immediately and involuntarily have their status disclosed outside the health context to an emergency services or law enforcement employee, who is most likely a stranger to them and in whom they cannot necessarily place trust not to disclose to others.

 

This could be an incredibly disempowering experience for the individual concerned and, if health workers are involved in this process (for example, performing the test), could alienate them from the very services they should be accessing for support and (if they so choose) treatment.

 

It is revealing that the Options Paper discusses, at-length, multiple options in an effort to alleviate the concerns of emergency services workers who are exposed to bodily fluids, despite the fact it is highly unlikely they will ultimately contract a BBV, but spends little to no time discussing the consequences of a positive test result for the ‘source’ person, which is actually the more likely scenario.

 

This further illustrates that the proposals for mandatory BBV testing are not health- or evidence-based.

 

Conclusion

 

As outlined above, I have serious concerns about the proposals outlined in the Options Paper, and especially options 2, 3 and 4.

 

The ‘window periods’ for HIV, hepatitis C and hepatitis B mean there is limited public health benefit from introducing mandatory BBV testing. On the other hand, there are significant risks, including:

 

  • Undermining principles of informed consent (and therefore compromising Australia’s world-leading BBV responses)
  • Inappropriately involving police in health-related risk assessments and medical procedures, and
  • Creating serious privacy concerns, especially for people diagnosed as a result of mandatory testing.

 

The preferred approach would be to ensure that emergency services personnel have access to appropriate information and health services, as outlined in option 1 (‘improvements to agency policy and practice to ensure emergency services personnel are promptly assessed, counselled and managed by a health care professional with access to specialist advice immediately following an exposure to potentially infectious body fluids’).

 

Therefore, while option 1 can be supported, options 2, 3 and 4 should all be rejected.

 

Please do not hesitate to contact me, at the details provided, should you require further information.

 

Sincerely,

Alastair Lawrie

 

Genderless (Notices of Intended) Marriage

Posted on by

The Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department is currently consulting about the Notice of Intended Marriage form. Submissions close today, 28 October 2018 (for more information, click here). Here’s mine:

**********

Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department

via marriagecelebrantssection@ag.gov.au

 

Sunday 28 October 2018

 

To whom it may concern

 

Notice of Intended Marriage Consultation

 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission to this consultation.

 

My comments relate to only one section of the revised Notice of Intended Marriage form, and that is:

 

  1. Gender (optional) Male, Female or Non-Binary.

 

This is required to be completed for both parties to an intended marriage.

 

The inclusion of this question is entirely unnecessary and it should be removed.

 

It is unnecessary because, following the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017, there is generally no gender (or sex) based restriction on whether couples are able to lawfully marry.

 

This status will be reinforced on December 9 this year when, for those states and territories that have yet to abolish forced trans divorce, the exception provided by the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984 to permit this unjustifiable discrimination will expire.

 

This question is also unnecessary to establish identity, which is proved by name, date and place of birth and the requirement to supply identity documentation on the subsequent page of the form. Logically, it is clearly unnecessary to prove identity it if answering is optional.

 

It should be removed because of the growing recognition of, and respect for, the full diversity of the Australian community, particularly in terms of sex, sex characteristics and gender identity.

 

As a cisgender gay man and LGBTI advocate I acknowledge the advice of trans, gender diverse and intersex individuals and organisations that, in order to be fully inclusive of their diversity, requests for information about sex and/or gender should only be included if they can be shown to serve a valid purpose.[i]

 

I can see no such purpose in this instance.

 

Recommendation 1: Question 3 of the Notice of Intended Marriage form should be removed.

 

If the above recommendation is not agreed, then it is my strong view this question should remain optional.

 

Further, given the question serves no valid purpose (in terms of determining whether a person is eligible to marry, or in verifying their legal identity) I suggest that the current three options of Male, Female and Non-Binary be removed. Instead it should simply state:

 

Gender (optional), please specify

 

This should be a write-in box, and have no other prompts for information. Amending the question in this way would allow people to enter their own gender identity, including those who may not identify with any of Male, Female, or Non-Binary.

 

Recommendation 2: If question 3 is retained, it must continue to be optional, and should ask for Gender, please specify, followed by a write-in box.

 

With the passage of last year’s amendments to the Marriage Act 1961, and the imminent abolition of forced trans divorce, marriage in Australia will shortly be available to all couples, irrespective of sex, sex characteristics, sexual orientation and gender identity.

 

That is what 61.6% of Australians said yes to (in the Liberal-National Government’s unnecessary, wasteful, divisive and harmful postal survey).

 

This equality-of-access should be reflected in the Notice of Intended Marriage form, by removing the optional question that asks for the gender of the participants, because it is no longer relevant in 2018.

 

Please do not hesitate to contact me at the details provided should you require additional information.

 

Sincerely

Alastair Lawrie

 

images-1

 

Footnotes:

[i] See for example article 8 of the 2017 Darlington Statement of intersex advocates from Australia and Aoteoroa/New Zealand, which includes:

“Undue emphasis on how to classify intersex people rather than how we are treated is also a form of structural violence. The larger goal is not to seek new classifications, but to end legal classification systems and the hierarchies that lie behind them. Therefore:

  1. a) As with race or religion, sex/gender should not be a legal category on birth certificates or identification documents for anybody” (emphasis in original).

Submission to WA Law Reform Commission Inquiry into Recognition of a Person’s Sex, Change of Sex or Intersex Status

Posted on by

Update 5 March 2019:

 

The Law Reform Commission of Western Australia has handed down its final report of its Review of Western Australian legislation in relation to the registration or change of a person’s sex and/or gender and status relating to sex characteristics (a copy of the report is available here).

 

It is generally well-considered, and largely positive for the trans, gender diverse and (in parts at least) intersex communities.

 

This includes Recommendation 1 that “The Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA) be amended to include protections against discrimination based on gender identity and intersex status” (although the latter protected attribute should instead be ‘sex characteristics’ in line with the Yogyakarta Principles plus 10).

 

There are also a range of recommendations that clarify the difference between sex and gender (and which one should be recorded in different contexts).

 

The most controversial recommendations (albeit ones I support) are:

 

Recommendation 5

Sex classification be removed from birth certificates

 

Recommendation 6

The Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1998 (WA) and the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Regulations 1999 (WA) be amended to expressly prohibit the recording of sex or gender on birth certificates.

 

This would then be replaced by an opt-in system of ‘Gender Identity Certificates’ for situations where gender may be relevant:

 

Recommendation 7

The Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1998 (WA) be amended to provide an application process for a person born in Western Australia to apply for a Gender Identity Certificate (with Recommendation 8 covering people born outside WA).

 

Importantly, under Recommendation 9, the gender markers included in these certificates would be expanded to include male, female and non-binary (although it does not include an ‘other’ category, as suggested in my submission to the Review, published below).

 

The WALRC further recommends that there no longer be any surgical or medical barriers for people to update their Gender Identity Certificate, instead proposing a simple administrative process, which, if introduced, would be best practice in Australia (for a comparison with existing laws around Australia, see Identity, not Surgery).

 

That phrase – if introduced – is key. Unfortunately, I understand that the WA Government has already shied away from the removal of sex and/or gender from birth certificates which, if true, would obviously be incredibly disappointing.

 

Trans, gender diverse and intersex people deserve better than to have a progressive Law Reform Commission of Western Australia report languish, unimplemented, on the shelves. Let’s hope the WA Government remembers why it commissioned this review in the first place.

 

Original submission:

Law Reform Commission of Western Australia

Level 23, David Malcolm Justice Centre

28 Barrack St

Perth WA 6000

lrcwa@justice.wa.gov.au

 

Friday 19 October 2018

 

To whom it may concern

 

Submission in relation to recognition of a person’s sex, change of sex or intersex status

 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission to this important inquiry.

 

As noted in the Discussion Paper, Western Australia’s current legislation in relation to recognition of a person’s sex, change of sex (or gender) or intersex status is inadequate and out-dated, with negative consequences for trans, gender diverse and intersex individuals.

 

The model for reform proposed by the Commission would address a number of these short-comings, although I believe there could be further improvements as discussed below.

 

I write this submission as a cisgender gay member of the LGBTI community, and as an ally of the intersex, trans and gender diverse communities. Where there may be inconsistencies between this submission and the positions supported by those communities, I defer to their views.

 

Question 1. Will the Commission’s proposed model cause any difficulties if implemented?

 

I believe the Commission’s proposed model will remove some of the regulatory barriers currently experienced by trans and gender diverse people in having their gender identities recognised in Western Australia.

 

The removal of sex from birth certificates will also have particular benefits for people born with variations in sex characteristics, reducing pressure for involuntary and unnecessary medical treatments and/or surgeries to be performed.

 

However, as indicated above, I believe there could nevertheless be some improvements made to the model to ensure it better addresses the needs of these diverse communities.

 

Question 2. Is the ‘indeterminate’ category sufficient or should additional categories be added to the forms that are used for the First Report and the Second Report, which will then be used to record the sex of the child?

 

In principle, I do not object to the recording of ‘indeterminate’ sex in the First or Second Reports, provided other aspects of the model – and especially the removal of sex from birth certificates – are also implemented. This appears to ensure statistical data is collected while also reducing the stigmatisation of children born with intersex variations.

 

However, if the collection of ‘indeterminate’ sex is to continue through this process, it would be useful for the WA Government to indicate the numbers of births that have been recorded using this category – and also to actively monitor the number of children with intersex variations who undergo medical interventions to modify their sex characteristics each year (in an effort to reduce and ultimately eliminate human rights abuses in this area).

 

Question 3. Should sex classification be mandatory on birth certificates?

 

No.

 

I can see no proper purpose for recording sex classification in this way. In contrast, there are multiple benefits to be gained by removing this category from this form.

 

For trans and gender diverse people, and especially trans and gender diverse young people, it means they will be able to determine their own gender identity (which is much more relevant) when they are ready – and have that identity reflected in official documentation more easily (under other parts of the model),

 

For people born with variations of sex characteristics, it will help to reduce pressures for involuntary and unnecessary treatments and/or surgeries to alter their sex characteristics to conform to medical, parental and/or societal expectations.

 

The removal of sex and gender from birth certificates has also been called for in the March 2017 Darlington Statement of Australian and New Zealand intersex advocates and as part of the Yogyakarta Principles plus 10.

 

Question 4. Should alternative markers be available, such as ‘other/indeterminate’ or ‘not specified’, if sex classification is required on birth certificates?

 

I would defer to the views of intersex, trans and gender diverse organisations on this issue.

 

However, for the reasons outlined above, I would strongly urge the Commission – and the Western Australian Parliament – to ensure that sex classification be removed, avoiding the potential for adverse consequences in this area.

 

Question 5. Are there circumstances in which it will be necessary or desirable to prove sex through a birth certificate, where proof of gender by a Gender Identity Certificate or proof of sex by medical documentation is not appropriate or sufficient?

 

No. I can think of no circumstances in which proof of sex through birth certificate would be necessary, or preferable instead of proof of gender by Gender Identity Certificate.

 

Question 6. If yes for the above, would certification by the Registrar alleviate this issue?

 

Not applicable.

 

Other comments on the proposed model

 

There are other aspects of the Commission’s proposed model that are welcome, including the recommended abolition of the Gender Reassignment Board (with the simplified functions under the model performed by the Registrar instead).

 

I also welcome the proposed ability of minors to apply for a Gender Identity Certificate from the age of 12, with parental consent.

 

However, I question the age at which parental consent should no longer be required. Rather than the age of 18, which appears to be the position of the Discussion Paper, I believe consideration should be given to adopting an age of 16, as recommended by the February 2016 options paper from the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commissioner.

 

In terms of which categories should be available on Gender Identity Certificates, I suggest that all of Male, Female, Non-Binary and Other (Please Specify) should be options, to recognise the complexity of gender identity, and that simply adding ‘non-binary’ may not accurately capture all of the possible identities of trans and gender diverse people.

 

However, as expressed earlier in the submission, if the consensus view of trans organisations and individuals is that Male, Female and Non-Binary are sufficient, I defer to those views.

 

On the issue of time limits, I do not agree with the proposal to make any change of gender identity beyond the third occasion subject to approval by an appropriate court or tribunal. I can see no reason why, if change of name is allowed annually, that application for change of gender identity should not also be allowed every 12 months (while noting that it is highly unlikely people will actually apply more than two or three times).

 

I also believe there may be some circumstances in which, even within a particular 12 month timeframe, there may be reasons to allow a person to apply to an appropriate court or tribunal for a change of gender identity to be revised (where, for example, a person is distressed following the issuing of a new gender identity certificate and making them wait to amend it has the potential to cause additional psychological distress).

 

An additional concern I have about the model is the comment on page 70 that “The Registrar may also request further evidence if required to prove the application [for a Gender Identity Certificate] is not sought for an improper or fraudulent purpose.”

 

This power seems to undermine the overall intention for the model to reflect self-identification as far as possible. There is also already a penalty for providing a false statutory declaration, making the necessity of such a power debatable.

 

In this situation, I suggest consideration of either removing this power entirely, or for ensuring additional safeguards on its exercise, to ensure it is only used sparingly, and in exceptional circumstances (rather than reintroducing onerous requirements for individuals to supply medical and other evidence through these administrative arrangements).

 

In addition, any decision by a Registrar to reject an application for a new Gender Identity Certificate (that is different to a previous certificate) on these grounds must be easily appealable, at low or no cost to the individual.

 

Finally, in relation to determining the appropriate place to hear appeals (both in relation to this issue, and also on other questions, such as applications for Gender Identity Certificates for minors where parents disagree, or where a person seeks a change in certificate prior to the expiry of any relevant time limits), I express reservations about the suggestion on page 75 that:

 

“The Commission considers the Family Court to be an appropriate decision-maker where the application is contested by one or more parent(s)/guardian(s), given the Family Court’s jurisdiction for approving medical procedures for intersex and trans and gender diverse minors in circumstances where a child is unable to give informed consent or where there is a disagreement between the parents or guardians about the medical procedure.”

 

Based on some harmful decisions in relation to intersex minors and involuntary medical treatments and/or surgeries by the Family Court of Australia, the Western Australian Family Court may not be seen as being best-placed to adopt the role of decision-maker under the Commission’s proposed model. I therefore suggest consideration be given to adopting a different decision-maker, including the possibility of a specialist tribunal within Western Australia.

 

Other issues

 

I welcome the comments by the Commission, on page 77, that:

 

“The [Equal Opportunity Act 1984] does not provide protections for intersex people, on the basis of their sex characteristics or intersex status, nor does it provide protections for people on the basis of their gender identity. The Commission considers a detailed review of the EO Act would be beneficial.”

 

However, while I support the view that this inadequate and out-dated legislation should be reviewed, I do not believe this should delay amendments to the protected attributes covered under the Act to ensure all members of the LGBTI community in Western Australia are protected against discrimination, as quickly as possible.

 

This could be achieved by adding the protected attribute of ‘gender identity’, potentially based on the definition used in the CommonwealthSex Discrimination Act 1984(with final wording agreed following consultation with the WA trans and gender diverse community).

 

However, I disagree with the Commission that consideration should be given to introducing a protected attribute of ‘intersex status’, again potentially based on the Sex Discrimination Actdefinition.

 

While that approach would ensure greater consistency between WA and Commonwealth law, it is not best practice. Instead, I support the introduction of a protected attribute of ‘sex characteristics’, as called for by Intersex Human Rights Australia, and in the Darlington Statement, potentially using the definition included in the Yogyakarta Principles plus 10:

 

‘each person’s physical features relating to sex, including genitalia and other sexual and reproductive anatomy, chromosomes, hormones, and secondary physical features emerging from puberty.’

 

Finally, I note that any consultation that addresses the issue of legal recognition of people with intersex variations will inevitably raise the issue of harmful, involuntary and unnecessary medical surgeries and/or treatments of children born with variations in sex characteristics.

 

The Discussion Paper indeed touches on this issue, including noting on page 28 that “The Commission understands that the current medical preference is to monitor, rather than intervene, for as long as is medically viable.”

 

My own understanding, based on views expressed by intersex organisations, is that this position may not be entirely accurate. I therefore call on the Commission to further investigate this issue, in consultation with intersex organisations.

 

Ultimately, I would like to see Principle 32 of the Yogyakarta Principles plus 10 reflected in the lived experience of all intersex people in Australia:

 

‘Everyone has the right to bodily integrity, autonomy and self-determination irrespective of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or sex characteristics. Everyone has the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics. No one shall be subjected to invasive or irreversible medical procedures that modify sex characteristics without their free, prior and informed consent, unless medically necessary to avoid serious, urgent and irreparable harm to the concerned person’ (emphasis added).

 

Please do not hesitate to contact me at the details provided below should you wish to clarify any of the above, or for further information.

 

Sincerely

Alastair Lawrie

 

Who pays for homophobia, biphobia and transphobia?

Posted on by

Prejudice against the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community comes with a hefty price tag.

 

It is paid for by the individuals who are subject to direct and indirect acts of discrimination, being denied employment, or services, because of who they are, who they love or how they identify.

 

And by others, who self-censor, missing out on opportunities and on full participation in society, because of the legitimate fear of such discrimination.

 

It is paid for in the adverse mental health impacts experienced by the LGBT community, with depression, anxiety and other mental illness caused by homophobia, biphobia and transphobia.

 

And most tragically by those who end their lives as a consequence.

 

It has even been estimated that homophobia costs the global economy at least $119.1 billion in lost GDP every single year (and presumably more if the effects of biphobia and transphobia are included).

 

But, in this post, I want to take this question – who pays for homophobia, biphobia and transphobia – more literally.

 

In essence, who provides the money that funds anti-LGBT prejudice? Who allows it to occur in the first place?

 

The answer (or at least one of the answers), sadly, is all of us. Let me explain.

 

You are probably aware that most religious schools in Australia currently enjoy special privileges that permit them to discriminate against LGBT students, teachers and other staff.

 

This includes religious exceptions such as section 38 of the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984, as well as equivalent anti-discrimination laws in New South Wales and Victoria.

 

In fact, Tasmania and now the ACT are the only Australian jurisdictions that do not allow religious schools to discriminate against teachers and students on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or relationship status.

 

All of the other states and territories allow at least some discrimination against LGBT students, or teachers, or in many cases both (Queensland actually comes closest to matching Tasmania and the ACT’s ‘best practice’ approach: it does not permit discrimination against LGBT students, while LGBT teachers are subject to a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ regime – although that still means they can be fired if they even mention having a same-sex partner in the workplace).[i]

 

And you likely also know that in Australia, religious schools receive significant government funding.

 

But you are probably not aware just how much public money – taxpayers’ money, your money – is given to these institutions.

 

According to the 2018 Budget, the Commonwealth Government will provide:

 

  • $11.829 billion to non-government schools in 2018-19
  • $12.452 billion in 2019-20
  • $13.145 billion in 2020-21, and
  • $13.821 billion in 2021-22.

 

That’s a total of $51.247 billion in taxpayers’ money going to non-government schools in just four years.

 

In fact, it’s even worse than that. In September, the Morrison Liberal-National Government announced an extra $1.1 billion for non-government schools over the next four years (and $4.5 billion over the next decade).

 

And these numbers don’t include the funding provided by state and territory governments.

 

Based on averages published by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), state and territory governments provide approximately one-third of the amount funded by the Commonwealth.

 

That means an extra $17.43 billion of public funding over the next four years alone, bringing the overall total to $69.78 billion.

 

Now, a couple of important caveats. Given religious schools in Tasmania are not permitted to discriminate against either LGBT students or teachers, let’s subtract $1.438 billion from this figure (the $1.079 billion allocated to Tasmanian non-government schools in the Commonwealth Budget, plus an extra third for additional state government funding) as well as $1.083 billion for the ACT (the $811.7 million allocated by the Commonwealth, plus an extra third from the Territory government).

 

And, with a small proportion of non-government schools being non-religious in nature and therefore generally not allowed to discriminate (except in NSW, where the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 permits all private schools, religious or otherwise, to discriminate against homosexual and transgender students and teachers), let’s be generous and subtract another 5%.

 

That still leaves $63.83 billion in Commonwealth, state and territory government funding allocated to religious schools over the next four years even though they are allowed to discriminate against LGBT teachers, students or both.[ii]

 

And who picks up the tab for this Government-sponsored homophobia, biphobia and transphobia? You do of course.

 

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in June 2017 there were 19.963 million Australians aged 15 and over (and therefore potentially of taxpaying age).

 

This means that for every Australian individual taxpayer Commonwealth, state and territory governments will collectively give $3,198 over the next four years to religious schools that have the legal right to discriminate against LGBT students and/or teachers. Roughly $800 every year, per person, spent subsidising anti-LGBT prejudice.[iii]

 

What makes these figures truly offensive, obscene even, is remembering that this money is coming from LGBT teachers, who are paying for religious schools to have the ability to deny them employment in up to 40% of the jobs for which they are qualified.

 

From the parents of LGBT children, who are paying for the special privileges of these institutions to reject their child’s enrolment simply because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

 

And from same-sex couples in rainbow families, who are paying for religious schools to deny their children admission on the basis of their parents’ relationship.

 

Indeed, the homophobia, biphobia and transphobia of religious schools is being paid for by the taxes of all LGBT Australians, our families, friends and allies.

 

And by the 61.6% of voters who just last year said that we are, or should be, equal irrespective of our sexual orientation or gender identity.

 

Despite that result (or perhaps even because of it) the Liberal-National Government seems intent on making what is a horrible situation worse.

 

Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull commissioned the Ruddock Review of Religious Freedom during last year’s same-sex marriage parliamentary debate.

 

The contents of that review’s final report, delivered to the government in May but not yet released to the public, were leaked yesterday to Fairfax newspapers, and appear to support the further entrenchment, and possible expansion, of the ‘right’ of religious schools to discriminate against LGBT students and teachers.

 

This could potentially include the Commonwealth Government using the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 to override the anti-discrimination laws of states and territories like Tasmania and the ACT (and to a lesser extent Queensland) that have moved to limit these special privileges.

 

New Prime Minister Scott Morrison does not seem opposed to such a development, saying that the right to discriminate against gay students ‘already exists’ (ignoring the fact it has been curtailed in some jurisdictions).

 

Three weeks’ ago he also told Sky’s Paul Murray that:

 

Let me give you this example. I send my kids to a Christian school, I think that Christian school should be able to ensure they can provide education consistent with the Christian faith and teaching that I believe as a parent. That’s why I’m sending them there. I don’t think that school should be told who they can and can’t employ, or have restrictions on them in ensuring that they’re delivering to me – the parent, their client, their customer – what I’ve invested in for my children’s education.

 

What he fails to mention is that, by virtue of public funding for religious schools, we are all ‘investing’ in his children’s education.

 

And what the Ruddock Review, Prime Minister Morrison and some members of his Government seem to want is for all of us to pay even more to allow more religious schools to discriminate against more LGBT students and teachers.

 

Well, fuck that. Enough is enough.

 

It’s time we stopped handing over money so that religious schools can fuck over LGBT students.

 

And it’s time we stopped coughing up cash so that these institutions can tell LGBT teachers and other staff to fuck off.

 

These human rights violations have gone on long enough.

 

To borrow a phrase from the American Revolution, there should be no taxation without anti-discrimination protection. Or even more simply:

 

No Taxation For Discrimination.

 

Instead of being an excuse for expanding religious exceptions in relation to religious schools, the Religious Freedom Review should be the catalyst for these special privileges to finally be subjected to proper scrutiny.

 

If the Morrison Government introduces amendments to entrench and expand the exceptions in section 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act, and potentially to override the best practice approaches of the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act and ACT Anti-Discrimination Act, it will be up to Labor, the Greens and the cross-bench to block it (for his part, Opposition Leader Bill Shorten is making the right noises, saying “The fact is every child is entitled to human dignity. We shouldn’t even be having this debate”).

 

The pressure will also be on Liberal moderates, who like to claim credit for delivering marriage equality (they didn’t, but that’s a post for another day), to stand up and help defeat proposals that will increase discrimination against that same community.

 

But stopping things from getting worse would hardly be a heroic achievement. The religious exceptions of the Sex Discrimination Act, and the equivalent laws in most states and territories that promote anti-LGBT prejudice, must be repealed.

 

Because LGBT teachers should be employed on the basis of their abilities, not their orientations or identities.

 

And LGBT students should not be refused enrolment, expelled, or discriminated against in any way, shape or form, just because of who they are. Not one student. Not ever.

 

While the rest of us shouldn’t be forced to pay for it, literally funding the homophobia, biphobia and transphobia of religious schools.

 

Bottom line: if religious schools want one cent from us, they must be decent to us, and that means ending their special privileges to discriminate against LGBT students, teachers and other staff once and for all.

 

To take action, please sign and share this petition from just.equal: www.equal.org.au/protectourkidsandteachers

 

aud100front

Your hard-earned dollars are funding anti-LGBT prejudice.

 

If you have enjoyed reading this article, please consider subscribing to receive future posts, via the right-hand scroll bar on the desktop version of this blog or near the bottom of the page on mobile. You can also follow me on twitter @alawriedejesus

 

Footnotes:

[i] For more information about these laws, see: A Quick Guide to Australian LGBTI Anti-Discrimination Laws.

[ii] I am not suggesting that all of these schools would discriminate against LGBT students and/or teachers. In practice, a number provide welcoming environments irrespective of sexual orientation and gender identity. However, these schools retain the legal right to discriminate on these grounds.

[iii] By way of comparison, the Commonwealth Government will provide $245.6 million over the next four years to another inappropriate and unjustified school funding initiative (the National School Chaplaincy Program), or the equivalent of $12.30 for every Australian aged 15 and over. On the other hand, the Turnbull Government, of which Scott Morrison was Treasurer, axed the $8 million Safe Schools program in 2016 – in effect, they could not even be bothered spending 40c per taxpayer, spread over four years (so just 10c per taxpayer per year), to help address homophobia, biphobia and transphobia in schools.