Hate-speech against minority groups is inherently harmful, and most people accept it should be regulated in some way (even if there is debate about what such regulation should look like).
Indeed, almost a quarter of a century since racial vilification was prohibited under Commonwealth law – the Racial Hatred Act was passed by Parliament in August 1995 – many probably assume that vilification against minority groups, including against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people, is already outlawed.
Which means that some would likely be surprised to discover the majority of Australian jurisdictions do not prohibit vilification against LGBTI people, and that even among those states and territories that do, only two cover all parts of our community.
The first jurisdiction that prohibits vilification against all of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender and intersex people is Tasmania.
Section 19 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas) outlaws ‘inciting hatred’:
‘A person, by a public act, must not incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or a group of persons on the ground of’ protected attributes including sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex variations of sex characteristics.’
Tasmania also has best practice protections under section 17(1), which further provides that:
‘A person must not engage in any conduct which offends, humiliates, intimidates, insults or ridicules another person… in circumstances in which a reasonable person, having regard to all the circumstances, would have anticipated that the other person would be offended, humiliated, intimidated, insulted or ridiculed.’
Once again, the attributes covered include sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex variations of sex characteristics.
Australian Capital Territory
The ACT is the second jurisdiction that prohibits vilification against all of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender and intersex people.
Section 67A of the Discrimination Act 1991 (ACT) makes vilification unlawful:
‘It is unlawful for a person to incite hatred toward, revulsion of, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of a person or group of people on the ground of any of the following, other than in private:
(b) gender identity
(d) intersex status
Although it should be noted that intersex advocates have called for discrimination and vilification protections on the basis of ‘intersex status’ to be replaced by the attribute of ‘sex characteristics’,[i] based on the definition in the Yogyakarta Principles plus 10.[ii]
Queensland is one of two other jurisdictions that protect some, but not all, parts of the LGBTI community against vilification.
Section 124A of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) provides that:
‘A person must not, by a public act, incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of the race, religion, sexuality or gender identity of the person or members of the group.’[iii]
And it should be noted that the definition of gender identity in this Act only includes ‘binary’ transgender gender, not non-binary or other gender diverse people (‘gender identity, in relation to a person, means that the person… identifies, or has identified, as a member of the opposite sex by living or seeking to live as a member of that sex’).
Meaning that only LGB and some T Queenslanders are protected. Unfortunately, there is no indication the Queensland Government will update the definition of gender identity, and include sex characteristics as a protected attribute, before the upcoming state election, scheduled for 31 October 2020.
New South Wales
The situation in NSW is far more complex. The Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) contains civil sanctions against vilification targeting binary transgender people, as well as lesbians and gay men.
Specifically, section 38S(1) prohibits anti-transgender vilification:
‘It is unlawful for a person, by a public act, to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of-
(a) a person on the ground that the person is a transgender person, or
(b) a group of persons on the ground that the members of the group are transgender persons.’
However, this clause does not protect non-binary or other gender diverse people, because the definition in section 38A of the Act is out-dated:
‘A reference in this Part to a person being transgender or a transgender person is a reference to a person, whether or not the person is a recognised transgender person-
(a) who identifies as a member of the opposite sex by living, or seeking to live, as a member of the opposite sex, or
(b) who has identified as a member of the opposite sex by living as a member of the opposite sex…
and includes a reference to the person being thought of as a transgender person, whether the person is, or was, in fact a transgender person.’
Section 49ZT(1) then prohibits vilification – meaning inciting hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule – of ‘a person or group of persons on the ground of the homosexuality of the person or members of the group’.
Note that this only refers to homosexuality, meaning civil sanctions under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) do not cover bisexual people.
On the other hand, amendments to the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), introduced in 2018, created a criminal offence of ‘publicly threatening or inciting violence on grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex or HIV/AIDS status’. Section 93Z(1) now provides that:
‘A person who, by a public act, intentionally or recklessly threatens or incites violence towards another person or a group of persons on any of the following grounds is guilty of an offence:
(c) the sexual orientation of the other person or one or more of the members of the group
(d) the gender identity of the other person or one or more of the members of the group
(e) that the other person is, or one or more of the members of the group are, of intersex status…’
The individual penalty for contravention of this provision is up to 100 penalty units or 3 years imprisonment (or both).
The next NSW state election is not due until 25 March 2023, meaning there is plenty of time available for the current Government to amend the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) to ensure its civil vilification prohibitions also cover bisexuals, non-binary or other gender diverse people and intersex people – as well as fixing some of the many, many other problems with Australia’s worst LGBTI anti-discrimination law.[iv]
Five other jurisdictions do not prohibit anti-LGBTI vilification, at all:
There is currently no prohibition – civil or criminal – on anti-LGBTI vilification in Commonwealth law.
This remains the case almost 25 years since the Racial Hatred Act 1995 (Cth) added section 18C to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (‘the RDA’):
‘(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.’
Unfortunately, it seems far more likely the Morrison Liberal/National Government will wind back section 18C of the RDA (something former Attorney-General George Brandis attempted, but thankfully failed, to do), than to introduce an LGBTI equivalent before the next federal election, due in May 2022.
Indeed, current Attorney-General Christian Porter’s proposed Religious Discrimination Bill, if passed, would immediately undermine Tasmania’s existing prohibition on conduct which offends, humiliates, intimidates, insults or ridicules LGBTI people,[v] as well as leaving the door open to explicitly overriding all state and territory LGBTI anti-vilification laws, via simple regulation, in the future.[vi]
Victoria is another jurisdiction that fails to protect LGBTI people against vilification.
The Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) contains no prohibitions against vilification, for anyone. While, as the name suggests, the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 (Vic) currently only prohibits racial and religious vilification.
On the positive side, and unlike the Commonwealth, there are at least signs of possible progress in Victoria, with Fiona Patten MLC having introduced a Racial and Religious Tolerance Bill 2019. Her Bill would add sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics (among other categories) to the list of protected attributes in that Act.
The issue of anti-vilification protections is also being considered by a parliamentary committee, with that inquiry due to report by 1 September 2020.[vii] Which leaves sufficient time for the Victorian Government to take action to address this shortcoming before the next election, on 26 November 2022.
Another jurisdiction with disappointingly out-dated anti-discrimination legislation – perhaps the second-worst in the country behind only NSW – is Western Australia.
The Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA) does not contain any prohibitions on vilification, on any attribute. However, the Criminal Code Act 1913 (WA) does create a range of offences linked to racial vilification[viii] – although there are no equivalent offences for anti-LGBTI vilification.
The Western Australian Government has referred the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA) to the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia for review. Encouragingly, one of the terms of reference for this inquiry is to consider ‘the inclusion of vilification, including racial, religious, sexual orientation and impairment vilification’.
However, the website for the inquiry has not been updated for more than 12 months (since 6 March 2019), and the next Western Australian election is due in less than 12 months (scheduled for 13 March 2021), making it highly unlikely for LGBTI anti-vilification protections to be passed this term.
South Australia also has no anti-vilification coverage for the LGBTI community.
The Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA) does not include any vilification provisions, while, as the name suggests, the Racial Vilification Act 1996 (SA) only covers vilification based on race.
Unlike Victoria and Western Australia, though, I am not aware of any South Australian Government processes considering the issue of LGBTI anti-vilification laws prior to their next state election, to be held on 19 March 2022.
The Northern Territory is unique, in that it is the only Australian jurisdiction without its own racial vilification provisions. However, section 18C of the RDA still applies, which means racial vilification is outlawed – there is no such luck for LGBTI Territorians.
The Northern Territory Attorney-General’s Department did conduct a public consultation about their Anti-Discrimination Act (NT) in January 2018, which included consideration of ‘introducing specific anti-vilification laws prohibiting offensive conduct on the basis of race, religious belief, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status.’
Unfortunately, that inquiry’s website has not been updated since May 2019 – with that ‘radio silence’ making it extremely unlikely LGBTI anti-vilification laws will be passed before the Northern Territory election which is just over two months away (22 August 2020).
Vilification against members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community can be incredibly damaging, especially for younger and/or vulnerable individuals. This was demonstrated, painfully and unequivocally, by the harm caused by the Turnbull Liberal/National Government’s wasteful and unnecessary same-sex marriage postal survey in 2017.
However, it is disturbing to realise that, in 2020, fewer than one million Australians – out of a population of more than 25 million – live in jurisdictions that prohibit vilification against all parts of the LGBTI community: Tasmania and the ACT.
As we have seen, another two states – Queensland and NSW – offer only partial coverage, while the Commonwealth, Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia and Northern Territory offer no legal protection at all.
Well. That. Is. Simply. Not. Good. Enough.
This winter, I will be regularly posting about these and other serious weaknesses of Australian LGBTI anti-discrimination laws.[ix] #WinterOfDiscriminationContent. To follow, you can:
- Sign up to my blog (via the right-hand scroll bar on desktop, or near the bottom of the page on mobile)
- Follow me on twitter, and/or
- Like No Homophobia, No Exceptions on Facebook.
Anti-discrimination protections are essential to the full participation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people in Australian life. And we have allowed them to atrophy for far too long. So, as well as fighting against a Religious Discrimination Bill that undermines those rights we already have, we need to fight even harder to make sure LGBTI anti-discrimination and anti-vilification laws are made much, much better.
[This article is part of a series. Find other ‘Did You Know?’ posts here.]
[i] ‘Article 9. We call for effective legislative protection from discrimination and harmful practices on grounds of sex characteristics.’ Darlington Statement, 10 March 2017.
[ii] ‘Understanding ‘sex characteristics’ as 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.’ The Yogyakarta Principles plus 10: Additional principles and state obligations on the application of international human rights law in relation to sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics to complement the Yogyakarta Principles, 10 November 2017.
[iii] Somewhat confusingly, section 124A is found in Chapter 4, Part 4 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), titled ‘Racial and religious vilification’, which may lead some people to erroneously assume LGBT vilification is not prohibited.
[iv] For more, see What’s Wrong With the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977?
[v] Clause 42(1)(b) of the Second Exposure Draft Religious Discrimination Bill.
[vi] Clause 42(1)(c) of the Second Exposure Draft Religious Discrimination Bill. For more, see: The ‘Bad Faith’ Religious Discrimination Bill Must Be Blocked.
[vii] You can see my submission to that inquiry, here.
Section 77 Conduct intended to incite racial animosity or racist harassment
Section 78 Conduct likely to incite racial animosity or racist harassment
Section 79 Possession of material for dissemination with intent to incite racial animosity or racist harassment
Section 80 Possession of material for dissemination that is likely to incite racial animosity or racist harassment
Section 80A Conduct intended to racially harass
Section 80B Conduct likely to racially harass.
[ix] For a comparative analysis, see A Quick Guide to Australian LGBTI Anti-Discrimination Laws.
2 thoughts on “Did You Know? Most Australian Jurisdictions Don’t Prohibit Anti-LGBTI Vilification”
Hi – How are cases of LGBTI vilification presently dealt with in jurisdictions without express anti LGBTI law eg WA?
Thanks for your question Bruce. It depends on the circumstances of each case. It is possible that some cases may also constitute discrimination (and therefore be pursued as a discrimination complaint) while extreme cases could potentially qualify as other criminal offences. However, it is likely that for ‘garden variety’ vilification there is nothing the victim, or police, could do – because it would be entirely lawful.