Monthly Archives: June 2024

Submission to Inquiry into Right Wing Extremist Movements in Australia

Posted on by

Senate Legal and Constitution Affairs Committee

Submitted via email: legcon.sen@aph.gov.au

Friday 5 April 2024

To the Committee

Inquiry into Right Wing Extremist Movements in Australia

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this short submission in response to the Committee’s inquiry into right wing extremist movements in Australia.

I do so as a long-standing advocate for the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) community, including in relation to anti-discrimination and vilification laws but also more broadly.

In this context, I express my genuine hope that the Committee, in its inquiry, looks at the role anti-LGBTIQ prejudice, and especially transphobia, has played in the rise of right wing extremism in Australia, in particular over the past 12 months.

The rise of homophobia, biphobia and transphobia since March 2023

There has been a disturbing rise in anti-LGBTIQ prejudice, including hate speech as well as threats of intimidation and violence, since early last year.

This has come from individuals and groups that can largely be described as being far-right in political ideology.

Some of the most notable events include:

  • The rally against trans rights held in Melbourne on 18 March 2023, to which neo-Nazi groups turned up, performing Nazi salutes on the steps of Victorian Parliament, and shouting at trans counter-protestors while holding a banner proclaiming ‘destroy paedo freaks’ (emphasising the explicit anti-trans views of these fascists),
  • The violent attack by so-called ‘Christian Lives Matter’-associated individuals on 21 March 2023 against a small group of LGBTIQ protestors, and NSW Police officers, in Belfield in Sydney, and
  • Disgusting and offensive homophobic comments on social media by then-One Nation MLC Mark Latham to Independent Member for Sydney Alex Greenwich MP (which I will decline to republish here), the following week.

All of the above occurred within a two-week period. Sadly, however, the rise of anti-LGBTIQ hate speech and extremism did not end there, but has continued and in some ways worsened.

The 12 months since March 2023 have seen a large number of LGBTIQ and related community events shut down amid credible threats of intimidation and violence by right wing extremists.

This includes Drag Story Times (which are nothing more than voluntary gatherings where people in costumes read books to parents and their children, promoting imagination and inclusivity) being cancelled at libraries and other community venues around the country, on the advice of police because the safety of attendees could not be guaranteed.

Most recently, this included deaths threats against ABC employees forcing the cancellation of a Drag Story Time that was to be held in the lead up to the 2024 Sydney Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras, and a rally outside a Cumberland Council meeting in late February which was debating Drag Story Times (and which ultimately passed a motion banning them), with some protestors shouting offensively the word ‘trannies’.

It should obviously be noted that drag is not necessarily the same as LGBTIQ, although there is significant cross-over in the entertainers who perform in drag (with many being same-gender attracted and/or gender diverse) and importantly with the people who are against both conflating the two in any event (as seen clearly at the Cumberland Council protest).

The impact of these cumulative developments on the LGBTIQ community has been profound, with legitimate fears for our safety against this rising tide of extremism.

I write that as a privileged cisgender gay man, who has been out for more than 25 years and who has been advocating on LGBTIQ rights for almost as long – but who has felt less safe in public over the past year than at any point this century.

This feeling of vulnerability has been compounded by the sense the Commonwealth Government has effectively left us on our own in the face of these attacks.

The Commonwealth Government has been missing in action on anti-LGBTIQ extremism

Disappointingly, the Commonwealth Government’s response to the specific element of anti-LGBTIQ prejudice, and especially transphobia, in the overall rise of right wing extremism over the past 12 months has ranged from inadequate and incomplete, to completely absent.

Admittedly, there was widespread condemnation of Mr Latham’s tweets about Mr Greenwich, including the homophobic nature of his communications. Which was welcome, but that’s about as far as it goes.

The Commonwealth Government’s response, including its public comments, to the anti-trans neo-Nazi display on the steps of Victorian Parliament concentrated on the Nazi aspect of this activity (which obviously deserves condemnation) while largely ignoring the transphobia at its core (which is no less worthy of political denunciation).

This can be seen through its legislative response in Parliament, including in the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023, which focused on the public display of Nazi symbols, including people engaging in Nazi salutes, while not addressing hate speech against LGBTIQ people more generally.

My understanding of this legislation is that it would not capture a situation of a group of thugs dressed in black assembling on the steps of Victorian Parliament, shouting at trans people and waving a banner which says ‘destroy paedo freaks’, provided they did not also wear Nazi symbols or perform a Nazi salute.

For the trans people targeted, surely both situations are intimidating – but only one is now regulated.

The Commonwealth Government has also been missing in action in terms of addressing the right wing threats of intimidation and violence against LGBTIQ and related community events, including Drag Story Times, shutting down gatherings right around the country.

This is a national problem requiring a national response, and yet I cannot recall a single strong public condemnation from a senior Government Minister, from the Prime Minister down, to this phenomenon.

Nor has there been any kind of legislative response, or funding for LGBTIQ community organisations and/or Local Governments, to increase safety to allow these events to proceed.

Indeed, in the absence of clear Commonwealth Government action (and, it must be said, lack of State and Territory Government action too), it has been left up to the LGBTIQ community itself, through initiatives such as Rainbow Community Angels, to enable events like Drag Story Time go ahead in spite of right wing extremist threats.

The fact the Commonwealth Government has been missing in action on anti-LGBTIQ prejudice is reinforced by comparing its actions over the past 12 months to religious hate speech and threats of intimidation and violence against religious minorities.

There have been repeated strong public condemnation of anti-semitism from the Prime Minister, and multiple other senior Government Ministers including the Attorney-General.

There have been repeated promises to introduce Commonwealth laws to prohibit vilification on the basis of religious belief (with these laws expected to be introduced shortly despite the Government’s simultaneous refusal to implement its broader commitment to a Religious Discrimination Bill and Sex Discrimination Act amendments to protect LGBTQ students and teachers in religious schools in the absence of agreement from the Opposition).

The Commonwealth Government has also announced, and delivered, tens of millions of dollars to faith-based organisations to enhance their and their respective communities’ safety (with the Attorney-General announcing a $40 million grant round on 17 May 2023, coincidentally the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia, or IDAHOBIT).

The LGBTIQ community has not received the same commitments, or funding, from the Government despite facing similar challenges in terms of hate speech, threats, intimidation and violence.

What the Commonwealth Government should be doing to address anti-LGBTIQ extremism

There are a range of actions which, in my view, the Commonwealth Government should be undertaking to address increasing right wing anti-LGBTIQ extremism.

This includes measures which not only respond to the visible growth of this hatred over the past 12 months, but would also ideally help to prevent and reduce anti-LGBTIQ prejudice in the community generally, thereby removing what appears to be fertile ground for right wing extremists to recruit on and organise around.

These measures include:

  1. Clear public condemnation of right wing anti-LGBTIQ extremism

    The basic starting point should be clear and consistent public condemnation of the anti-LGBTIQ, and especially anti-trans, extremism which has gathered pace over the past 12 months.

    This should include statements from the Prime Minister, and other senior Government Ministers including the Attorney-General, and must leave no doubt that such extremism will not be tolerated.

    2. Fund a national strategy countering anti-LGBTIQ prejudice

    In the context of other recent domestic and international developments, the Commonwealth Government has sought to expedite a new national anti-racism strategy, in partnership with the Australian Human Rights Commission.

    Anti-LGBTIQ prejudice is no less serious a threat as racism, with substantial impacts on the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer Australians. It too warrants development of a funded national strategy to help combat it, including initiatives to prevent homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and anti-intersex bigotry.

    3. Introduce Commonwealth laws prohibiting anti-LGBTIQ vilification

    There is currently no Commonwealth protection against anti-LGBTIQ vilification under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. Protections at state and territory level are a patchwork replete with many holes, with anti-LGBTIQ vilification prohibited in Tasmania, the ACT, Queensland and Northern Territory, while civil vilification provisions in NSW cover only gay men, lesbians and some transgender people (although Crimes Act prohibitions on inciting violence apply across the LGBTIQ community). There are no protections in Victoria, South Australia or Western Australia.

    The Albanese Government has an opportunity to address these gaps by introducing nation-wide prohibitions on vilification on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics, based on existing vilification provisions in section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.

    This should be done at the same time as the Government implements its commitment to prohibit religious vilification, given there is little difference in the potential harm vilification causes these respective groups.

    4. Fund safety initiatives for LGBTIQ community organisations and Local Governments

    Similarly, the Commonwealth Government should be providing funding for initiatives to protect the safety of LGBTIQ Australians on an equivalent basis to the programs it has already delivered to faith groups.

    This should include a grants program for LGBTIQ community organisations to upgrade their safety infrastructure, as well as to provide safety training to members of the LGBTIQ community to help protect us against the growing threat of right wing extremism.

    The Government should also fund Local Governments to upgrade their own security settings, so that community events such as Drag Story Times can be held safely despite any threats of intimidation and violence emanating from far-right extremists.

    5. Create and appoint an LGBTIQ Commissioner at the Australian Human Rights Commission

    The above measures should be supported by institutional infrastructure to ensure they are delivered, and delivered in line with community expectations.

    One part of this infrastructure, currently absent, is a stand-alone, dedicated Commissioner for Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Sex Characteristics at the AHRC (with responsibility for these issues presently an ad hoc, part-time responsibility of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner).

    The creation and appointment of an LGBTIQ Commissioner would help to ensure that addressing homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and anti-intersex bigotry is given an appropriate emphasis both within the Commission and beyond.

    6. Create and appoint a Commonwealth Government LGBTIQ Advisory Committee

    Another current gap in federal institutional infrastructure is the absence of any Minister with dedicated responsibility for LGBTIQ issues, and/or specific office within a central agency with the onus for co-ordinating policy and service-delivery on LGBTIQ issues.

    Nor is there a national LGBTIQ Advisory Committee to help present views from the full diversity of LGBTIQ communities across the country.

    While all should, in my view, be created, perhaps the most important is the advisory committee – because perhaps, had the Commonwealth Government an existing consultative mechanism, they may have already taken action to address the rise of right wing anti-LGBTIQ extremism, rather than left us feeling like we’re on our own.

    Thank you in advance you your consideration of this submission. Please do not hesitate to contact me, at the details provided, if you require clarification or additional information.

    Sincerely

    Alastair Lawrie 

    Neo-Nazis turn up to an anti-trans rally on the steps of Victorian Parliament, March 2023.

    Submission re Queensland Anti-Discrimination Bill 2024 (Exposure Draft)

    Posted on by

    Strategic Policy and Legislation

    Department of Justice and Attorney-General

    GPO Box 149

    Brisbane QLD 4001

    Submitted via email: adactreview@justice.qld.gov.au

    Friday 22 March 2024

    To whom it may concern

    Submission re the Anti-Discrimination Bill 2024 (Exposure Draft)

    Thank you for the opportunity to provide this short submission in response to the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Bill 2024 (Exposure Draft) as released in February 2024.

    I do so as a long-term advocate for the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) Australians, with a particular focus on anti-discrimination and vilification law reform.

    I note that this consultation has coincided with a number of other developments in LGBTIQ human rights, both federally (renewed debate about a Religious Discrimination Bill, and Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) amendments to protect LGBTQ students and teachers in religious schools) and in my home state of NSW (including the Conversion Practices Ban Act 2024 (NSW), which was passed this morning), that have restricted my ability to engage more fully with this important consultation process.

    However, I did wish to make the following four brief points in relation to key aspects of the Exposure Draft as released.

    First, I welcome the fact that the Bill would protect all parts of the LGBTIQ community against discrimination, through the inclusion of the protected attributes of sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics (as proposed in clause 10).

    This would retain the status quo, as created by the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 2023 (Qld), which ensured that non-binary people were finally included within the scope of gender identity, and that intersex people were finally protected by the addition of sex characteristics as a separate attribute (while noting that these amendments have yet to commence).

    I also welcome the expansive and inclusive definitions of these attributes, as proposed in Schedule 1 of the Exposure Draft, as well as the explicit inclusion of sex work activity as a protected attribute (replacing lawful sexual activity).

    Second, I welcome the fact that the Bill would protect all parts of the LGBTIQ community against vilification, through the inclusion of sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics in clause 84 which regulates ‘hateful, reviling, seriously contemptuous, or seriously ridiculing conduct.’

    Once again, this is consistent with the existing Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) as amended by the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act (although once again not yet commenced).

    I also particularly welcome the inclusion of disability as a relevant attribute for the purposes of this clause, which would be a positive development arising out of the Exposure Draft.

    Third, I welcome the narrower approach the Exposure Draft Bill takes in relation to exceptions for employment by religious bodies, and especially for employment by religious educational institutions.

    Proposed clause 29, which only allows discrimination on the basis of religious belief or religious activity if: religious participation is a genuine occupational requirement of the work; the worker cannot meet this requirement because of their religious belief or religious activity; and ‘the discrimination is reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances’ – is a significant improvement on the equivalent provision in the existing Anti-Discrimination Act.

    Section 25, which essentially creates a ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ environment for LGBTQ teachers and other staff in Queensland’s religious schools, is one of the worst features of the current law, not only from an LGBTIQ human rights perspective but more broadly.

    Teachers should be employed on the basis of their ability to teach, not their sexual orientation or gender identity.

    Removing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’, thereby lifting the requirement for many LGBTQ teachers and other workers in religious schools to remain in the closet and maintain hyper-vigilance to prevent unintended disclosure of their orientation or identity, would also have the consequence of allowing them to focus on doing the best job they can – to teach students.

    Which means that this reform will ultimately benefit everyone.

    Fourth, I welcome the retention of a narrow approach to exceptions for religious educational institutions, as proposed in clause 36.

    The Exposure Draft Bill is similar to section 41(a) the existing Act, in allowing discrimination by religious schools against students, but only on the basis of their religion, and only at the point of enrolment.

    I also specifically welcome proposed sub-clause 36(2):

    ‘To remove any doubt, it is declared that a person can not rely on subsection (1) to discriminate against another person on the basis of a protected attribute other than religious belief or religious activity.’

    As well as the example provided: ‘A person can not rely on subsection (1) to discriminate against another person on the basis of the other person’s gender identity.’

    These provisions are essential to ensure all LGBTQ students are protected, both at enrolment and beyond.

    They also have the added benefit of supporting the religious freedom of children and young people, to learn and to grow as they engage in their education, including to question, challenge and develop their own faith, which may be different to the faith of their school.

    Finally, I am aware of the submission made by the Australian Discrimination Law Experts Group (ADLEG) and endorse their position on the Exposure Draft Bill, including their specific comments and suggestions regarding a range of further improvements to this legislation.

    Thank you in advance for your consideration of this short submission. Please do not hesitate to contact me, at the details provided, should you require any additional information.

    Sincerely

    Alastair Lawrie

    Submission to AHRC Inquiry into Current and emerging threats to trans and gender diverse human rights

    Posted on by

    Australian Human Rights Commission

    Via email: TGD.Submissions@humanrights.gov.au

    Sunday 5 May 2024

    To whom it may concern,

    Submission re Current and emerging threats to trans and gender diverse human rights

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

    I do so as long-term advocate for the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) community in Australia, including as a volunteer for a number of LGBTIQ community organisations, and through my personal website www.alastairlawrie.net

    While I am a cisgender gay man, I have consistently attempted to serve as an active ally for trans and gender diverse (TGD) people. This has included writing about:

    • Anti-discrimination and vilification laws, at Commonwealth and state and territory level, including how they protect (or in many cases fail to protect) TGD people
    • Birth certificate laws across Australian states and territories, and
    • The need for public funding, through Medicare, for gender-affirming health care.

    These are the three main topics I will focus on in this submission.

    Anti-discrimination and vilification laws

    Australia’s anti-discrimination and vilification laws fail to adequately protect TGD people in a number of key areas, including:

    Protected attributes for discrimination

    While the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) and most state and territory anti-discrimination frameworks clearly cover all sections of the TGD community against discrimination, in two jurisdictions they fall short of even this minimum standard.

    NSW’s Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 only covers transgender people with binary gender identities (because of the outdated references to ‘identifying as a member of the opposite [sic] sex’ in the interpretive provision in section 38A, leaving non-binary and gender fluid people without legal protection.

    While Western Australia’s Equal Opportunity Act 1984 is even narrower, only prohibiting discrimination against ‘a gender reassigned person on gender history grounds’ (section 35AB). Because of associated definitions in section 4 and section 35AA, this effectively restricts protection to transgender people with binary gender identities who have had a gender recognition certificate issued in WA (or equivalent legal recognition elsewhere).

    Both the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act and WA Equal Opportunity Act must be reformed to ensure all TGD people enjoy the human right to non-discrimination.

    Vilification protections

    There are even larger gaps when it comes to legal prohibitions on anti-trans vilification. While Tasmania, the ACT, Northern Territory and Queensland all prohibit vilification against all TGD people, there are currently no protections against transphobic vilification under the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act, nor under the laws of Victoria or Western Australia (despite both State Governments having committed to doing so over several years), or South Australia.

    The situation in NSW is more complex, with only transgender people with binary gender identities covered in relation to civil vilification under the Anti-Discrimination Act, while all TGD are protected by the ‘threatening or inciting violence’ offence in s93Z of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (because the latter adopts the more modern terminology of ‘gender identity’).

    The lack of clear, nation-wide prohibitions on anti-trans vilification is even more problematic given the rise in hate speech against TGD people, especially over 2023 and early 2024, including (but sadly not limited to) the anti-trans rally on the steps of Victorian State Parliament in March 2023 to which neo-Nazis turned up shouting at trans counter-protestors with a banner saying ‘destroy paedo freaks’.

    The State Governments of Victoria, WA, SA and NSW, and especially the Commonwealth Government, must take urgent action to address this worsening national crisis.

    Religious exceptions permitting discrimination against TGD people

    One of the major weaknesses of anti-discrimination laws relating to LGBTQ+ Australians, including TGD people, are exceptions allowing religious organisations to engage in conduct that would otherwise be unlawful.

    Over the past decade, this issue has received particular attention in relation to religious schools.

    In 2024, it remains lawful for a publicly-funded religious educational institution to discriminate against TGD students under the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act, as well as in NSW, Western Australia and, most likely, South Australia too.

    Indeed, the exceptions in NSW are so broad they apply to all ‘private educational authorities’, and there is no test that these institutions are required to satisfy before being able to mistreat TGD students – the exceptions are ‘blanket’ exclusions from the Act’s operations.

    These exceptions deny the fundamental human right to education. All students should enjoy the ability to learn and to grow, free from the fear of discrimination because of who they are. That must include TGD students.

    The situation for TGD teachers is even worse. Once again, they are legally permitted to be discriminated against under Commonwealth law, as well as in NSW, Western Australia, and South Australia (although schools must publish their discriminatory policies).

    In Queensland a ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ regime applies, although thankfully the Queensland Government has been consulting on legislation to remove these exceptions entirely.

    Religious exceptions deny the fundamental human rights of TGD workers, including the right to non-discrimination. TGD teachers should be hired or not hired, fired or not fired, and otherwise treated in the workplace, according to their skills and experience, not their gender identity.

    The Albanese Labor Government was elected in May 2022 with clear commitments to end the legally authorised mistreatment of TGD students and teachers.

    However, despite referring this issue to the Australian Law Reform Commission for review in November 2022, and receiving the ALRC’s straight-forward recommendations for how LGBTQ+, including TGD, students and teachers should be protected in December 2023, the Government is now refusing to implement reforms without bipartisan agreement (an unnecessary prerequisite for legislation to pass, and an artificial barrier that will most likely result in ineffective protections – or no protections at all).

    The Albanese Labor Government’s failure to act is not only a broken election promise. It is a denial of the rights of TGD Australians and will have long-term implications in poorer life outcomes for TGD people.

    While the exceptions which apply in relation to religious schools have received the most scrutiny to date, the special privileges that allow other publicly-funded religious organisations to discriminate, across health, disability, aged care (noting that amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act in 2013 protected LGBTQ+ people accessing aged care services but not the workers of those same faith-based providers), housing and other essential community services must also be removed.

    Finally, I note many anti-discrimination laws include other exceptions, including in relation to the participation of TGD people in sport, but defer to the views of TGD organisations on these provisions.

    TGD birth certificate laws

    Having access to identity documents that accurately reflect who you are is a fundamental human right, but one that is currently denied to far too many TGD people in Australia.

    This is especially so in NSW which, as a consequence of provisions of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995, remains the only jurisdiction in Australia that still requires transgender people to have genital surgery in order to update their birth certificate to reflect their gender identity.

    This is surgery many TGD do not wish to undertake – including because it is not necessary for them to live their daily lives according to their gender identity. For many who do wish to access gender-affirming surgery, they simply cannot afford the prohibitive costs (which will be addressed in more detail in the third and final section of this submission, below).

    Given that this genital surgery is also sterilising, imposing this barrier in order to legally update birth certificates can justifiably be seen as a denial of the right to reproductive freedom, including the human right to found a family.

    Finally, the NSW approach is also deficient in that it currently only allows binary sex or gender markers (male or female), with no legislated option to record non-binary and other gender diverse identities.

    Both of these issues – the unnecessary requirement for genital surgery, and the lack of options to record gender beyond male or female – would be resolved through passage of the Equality Legislation Amendment (LGBTIQA+) Bill 2023, introduced by Alex Greenwich MP and currently being considered by a NSW Parliamentary Inquiry (although the NSW Government has still yet to indicate their position on this long overdue reform).

    Unfortunately, the approach in Western Australia is only slightly better, and that is primarily because of the intervention of the High Court, rather than the provisions of Gender Reassignment Act 2000 (WA) itself.

    Thanks to the decision in AB v Western Australia; AH v Western Australia [2011] HCA 42, genital surgery is no longer required in Western Australia.

    However, some form of physical medical intervention, such as top hormone treatment or top surgery, is still deemed necessary, and once again, there are no legislated options to record gender beyond male or female.

    Disappointingly, while the WA Government has committed to replace with Gender Reassignment Act 2000 with more contemporary legislation, including allowing options beyond male and female, and abolishing the Gender Reassignment Board, they have not chosen to adopt best practice frameworks, such as those that exist in Tasmania and, following recent amendments, the ACT.

    Instead, the WA Government’s announcements have indicated they will be following the flawed approach of South Australia and the Northern Territory, both of which still require a TGD person to obtain approval from a medical professional, such as a psychologist or counsellor, before a new birth certificate can be issued.

    This is unnecessary and inappropriate ‘medical gate-keeping’ of the legal rights of TGD people, including their right to have identity documents matching their lived reality.

    It also perpetuates the incorrect assumption that being transgender or gender diverse is a form of mental illness, rather than simply part of the beautiful diversity of being human.

    Requiring ‘sign-off’ from psychologists or counsellors places additional financial hurdles in the way of TGD people who simply want identity documents that actually reflect their identity.

    Above all, identity documents are exactly that, intended to record a person’s identity – and TGD people are TGD irrespective of whether a psychologist or counsellor supports them.

    Instead, a full self-identification model should be adopted, along similar lines to the legislation in Tasmania and the ACT. I urge the Western Australian Government to reconsider their decision to introduce laws that fall well short of this standard.

    And for the South Australian and Northern Territory Governments to reform their own laws to ensure TGD people in those jurisdictions enjoy straight-forward access to new birth certificates too.

    Medicare funding for gender-affirming health care

    While much is written about the need to reform the laws which apply to TGD people seeking accurate birth certificates, far less attention is often paid to a much broader, and arguably even more important, problem – that the cost of accessing gender-affirming health care is prohibitive, and out of reach for many TGD people in Australia.

    These costs apply not just to various kinds of surgery (including ‘top’ and ‘bottom’ surgeries, as well as, for some TGD people, facial surgeries), but also to other health services, including hormone treatments.

    These expenses can mean the difference between being able to affirm one’s gender identity or not – but are so high that they can effectively push some trans people into poverty. While for others, they are completely unaffordable.

    For example, in March 2018, the ABC reported that: ‘There’s a massive price tag on being transgender in Australia. For some, the cost of surgery and treatment for gender dysphoria will crack $100,000’ [noting there has been significant inflation in health care in the six years since then, meaning contemporary figures may be even higher].

    LGBTIQ policy expert Liam Elphick noted in The Conversation in March 2019 that: ‘Medicare and private health insurance do not cover many treatments that transgender and gender-diverse people may require to transition, such as surgical changes, because these are deemed “cosmetic”.’

    However, gender-affirming health care is not cosmetic, but essential.

    ACON’s 2019 ‘A blueprint for improving the health and wellbeing of the trans& gender diverse community in NSW’ raised the issue of TGD out-of-pocket medical costs, noting on page 20 that:

    ‘For medical services to be covered by the public health system in Australia, they must be medically necessary, clinically effective and cost effective. For many trans and gender diverse people, the ability to alter their body is part of affirming their gender and can be an important treatment if they are experiencing distress or unease from being misgendered and/or feeling incongruence between their gender identity and their body.’

    ‘Research has demonstrated that access to gender-affirming care has led to reduced mental health risks and improved quality of life for trans and gender diverse people.’

    These factors – better mental health and quality of life outcomes – are obviously important reasons why trans out-of-pocket medical costs must be reduced. Or better still, eliminated entirely.

    There is an even more fundamental argument: TGD people have a human right to live their affirmed gender identity, and that right is just as important as health, education and housing.

    Sadly, as with anti-discrimination and vilification laws, and access to birth certificates reflecting their identity, the rights of TGD Australians are being denied in this area too.

    As a consequence, for some TGD people, whether they are able to afford gender-affirming health care turns on whether they are able to run a successful ‘gofundme’ campaign (or other fundraising initiative).

    Access to essential health care should never be determined in this lottery-like manner.

    Instead, it’s time for the Commonwealth Government to ‘go fund them’, by ensuring all forms of gender-affirming health care are fully covered by Medicare, so that all TGD people who want to undertake surgery, and receive other services, are able, irrespective of their individual financial circumstances.

    Thank you in advance for your consideration of the issues raised in this submission. Please do not hesitate to contact me, at the details provided, should you require further information.

    Sincerely

    Alastair Lawrie

    If you have appreciated 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