LGBT kids don’t need more hollow promises

On Thursday, it was reported that Attorney-General Michaelia Cash has written to the Australian Law Reform Commission, asking for ‘detailed drafting’ to protect LGBT children from discrimination in faith-based schools.  

‘It is … the government’s position that no child should be suspended or expelled from school on the basis of their sexuality or gender identity,’ wrote Cash.

There are at least six reasons why this seemingly positive expression of support for LGBT kids is a bitterly disappointing statement of hollow nothingness.

First, we’ve heard this all before.  On 11 October 2018 the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, stated unequivocally: ‘We do not think that children should be discriminated against’. He promised to amend the Sex Discrimination Act to protect LGBT students in religious schools against discrimination before the end of that year.

That was more than 3 years ago. 1,137 days to be exact (and yes, I’m counting). In that time, the Morrison Government has failed to do anything concrete to implement its promise.

Second, the Attorney-General was writing to ask the ALRC to do what it was already tasked to do by her predecessor, Christian Porter, back in April 2019. His original terms of reference requested the Commission to review religious exemptions, ‘having regard to… the importance of protecting the rights of all people, and children in particular, to be free from discrimination in education.’

More than 30 months later, the new Attorney-General is trying to spin a request for ‘detailed drafting’ as being something new. Exactly how that varies from ordinary ALRC recommendations is a distinction without a difference.

Third, we don’t need ‘detailed drafting’. We know how to protect LGBT students in religious schools against discrimination.  Four jurisdictions – Queensland, Tasmania, the ACT and NT – have already done so. Tasmania has been protecting LGBT kids, successfully, for more than 23 years. The amendments required are simple. There’s no need to reinvent the wheel.

Fourth, there’s not even a need to invent a new Bill. In response to the Prime Minister’s promise to protect LGBT kids in October 2018, the Labor Opposition introduced their own legislation the following month (the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Removing Discrimination Against Students) Bill 2018). The schedule of substantive amendments came to a grand total of 70 words.

If the ALRC reports in 2023, and the Government finally takes action that same year (both of which remain big ifs), it could end up taking them 5 years to draft 70 words. At just over one word per month, they’re certainly pacing themselves.

Fifth, we can see from the time and energy expended on the Religious Discrimination Bill where the Government’s real priorities lie. 

We’ve already gone through two rounds of public exposure drafts on the ‘religious freedom’ Bills package (which actually comprises three separate Bills). We’ve had 157 pages of draft legislation, before we even get to the third and final version(s) next week.

The drafting effort that has gone into the Religious Discrimination Bill demonstrates what happens when a Government wants to get something done. The comparative lack of effort in drafting straight-forward amendments to protect LGBT kids reveals what happens when they don’t.

Sixth, based on Senator Cash’s correspondence, it’s not even clear whether the Government supports ending all discrimination against LGBT students, or only removing the ability of religious schools to suspend or expel them. If it’s just the latter, then other forms of mistreatment would continue to be permitted, and the harm they experience will go on.

A child who was in Year 7 when the Prime Minister first promised to protect them from discrimination is on track to finish high school before he keeps that promise. That’s an entire generation of LGBT kids abandoned because they’re not considered a priority by their own Government.

LGBT kids don’t need more ‘detailed drafting’. They need action. What do we have instead? The Attorney-General sending the emptiest of gestures to the Australian Law Reform Commission, asking them to do something they’ve already been tasked to do.

It is a fig-leaf trying to cover up years of the Morrison Government’s inaction. But nothing can hide their lack of care about this issue. Because if they cared, it would have been fixed years ago.

The tragedy of it all is that, for as long as the Government prevaricates and obfuscates, vulnerable children are left exposed to abuse and mistreatment, discrimination, suspension and even expulsion, just because of who they are.

LGBT students deserve the right to learn in safety. Instead, Commonwealth anti-discrimination laws grant religious schools extraordinary special privileges to discriminate against them.

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

Submission to the WA Law Reform Commission Review of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984

Law Reform Commission

GPO Box F317

Perth WA 6841

Via email: equalopportunityreview@justice.wa.gov.au

Friday 5 November 2021

To the Commission

Submission to Review of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA)

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this individual submission in response to the Commission’s Discussion Paper as part of this important and long-overdue review.

I do so as a long-standing advocate for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) community, and as a leading expert on LGBTI anti-discrimination law in Australia, as demonstrated by my personal website www.alastairlawrie.net

Based on this experience, I submit that the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA) is one of the worst LGBTI anti-discrimination laws in Australia, failing to offer necessary protections to multiple sections of the LGBTI community, across multiple areas.[i]

In this submission, I will provide major comments in relation to three primary areas for reform:[ii]

  • Protected attributes
  • Religious exceptions, and
  • Anti-vilification coverage.

I will then provide some additional comments regarding a number of other issues raised in the Discussion Paper.

Protected Attributes

Gender identity

I welcome the Discussion Paper’s focus on the issue of ‘gender history discrimination and gender identity’ on pages 107 to 109 (although I also note the problematic aspects of this discussion in relation to sex characteristics, which I will address further below).

Western Australia’s anti-discrimination protections for trans and gender diverse people are the narrowest and therefore most limited in Australia.

It is the only jurisdiction to limit anti-discrimination coverage to people who have undergone surgical and/or hormonal gender affirmation treatment, and have also had that gender affirmation recognised by the State (in this case, under the Gender Reassignment Act 2000 (WA)).[iii]

This is because of the combination of three provisions: the definition of gender reassigned person in section 4:

‘gender reassigned person means a person who has been issued with a recognition certificate under the Gender Reassignment Act 2000 or a certificate which is an equivalent certificate for the purposes of that Act’;

the definition of ‘gender history’ in section 35AA:

(1) ‘For the purposes of this Part, a person has a gender history if the person identifies as a member of the opposite sex by living, or seeking to live, as a member of the opposite sex.

(2) In subsection (1)-

opposite sex means a sex of which the person was not a member at birth’;

and the test for discrimination on the protected attribute of ‘gender history’ in section 35AB (and subsequent sections):

(1) ‘For the purposes of this Act, a person (in this subsection referred to as the discriminator) discriminates against a gender reassigned person on gender history grounds if, on the ground of the gender reassigned person having a gender history, the discriminator treats the gender reassigned person less favourably than, in circumstances that are the same or are not materially different, the discriminator treats or would treat a person not thought by the discriminator to have a gender history.’

In my view, there is no justification to limit protections for gender identity-related discrimination to the comparatively small group of people who have had their gender identity recognised by the State, while leaving the much larger group of other trans and gender diverse people without any protections whatsoever.

It is time for Western Australia to remove this limitation, and follow the lead of the Commonwealth Government, and all other states and territories, by removing any link between formal gender recognition and anti-discrimination protection.

A related problem is caused by the definition of ‘gender history’ in section 35AA, which limits protections to people who ‘identify as a member of the opposite sex’ – meaning a person who was assigned female at birth but whose gender identity is male, and vice versa.

Irrespective of the gender recognition restriction (above), this definition itself excludes a wide range of nonbinary and gender diverse people whose gender identities do not neatly fit within this supposed ‘gender binary’.

Unfortunately, in this respect, Western Australia has some company – anti-discrimination coverage in NSW, Queensland and the Northern Territory also excludes nonbinary and gender diverse people.

However, that means all other jurisdictions, including the Commonwealth, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and the ACT, have amended their laws to protect nonbinary and gender diverse people.

Once again, I can see no legitimate justification to allow discrimination against nonbinary and gender diverse people on the basis of their gender identity.

It is time for Western Australia to follow the best practice approach of other jurisdictions. The most recent, and not-coincidentally most inclusive, is the definition of gender identity which commenced in the Victoria Equal Opportunity Act 2010 on 26 October 2021:

‘gender identity means a person’s gender-related identity, which may or may not correspond with their designated sex at birth, and includes the personal sense of the body (whether this involves medical intervention or not) and other expressions of gender, including dress, speech, mannerisms, names and personal references’ (section 4).

Finally, I see no justification for why anti-discrimination protections for trans and gender diverse people should apply in fewer areas of public life compared to other protected attributes. The Act should be amended so that the prohibition on discrimination on the basis of gender identity applies in the same areas as race, sex and sexual orientation.

Recommendation 1:

Trans and gender diverse people in Western Australia should be protected against discrimination irrespective of whether their gender identity is formally recognised by the State, and irrespective of whether their gender identity is binary, nonbinary or gender diverse.

This should be achieved by replacing the protected attribute of ‘gender history’ with a protected attribute of ‘gender identity’, and adopting the best practice definition from the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act 2010:

‘gender identity means a person’s gender-related identity, which may or may not correspond with their designated sex at birth, and includes the personal sense of the body (whether this involves medical intervention or not) and other expressions of gender, including dress, speech, mannerisms, names and personal references’.

Prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of gender identity should also apply in the same areas of public life as existing core protected attributes, such as race, sex and sexual orientation.

Sex characteristics

As flagged earlier, perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the entire Discussion Paper is the conflation of the two distinct protected attributes of gender identity and sex characteristics.

In the section ‘Gender history discrimination / gender identity / intersex status’ on pages 107 to 109, it is unclear whether the Discussion Paper’s author(s) understand the differences between trans and gender diverse people, and people with innate variations of sex characteristics (intersex people).

Indeed, the questions posed on page 109 – ‘Should the protections in the Act be expanded beyond the currently defined gender reassigned persons (for example, persons identifying as another sex)? Should there be exceptions? What other legislation is relevant to this provision?’ – do not even ask directly about what attribute should be introduced to protect people with innate variations of sex characteristics against discrimination.

Obviously, I believe that intersex people in Western Australia do require protection against discrimination under the Equal Opportunity Act.

In my view, this should be achieved by introducing a new protected attribute of ‘sex characteristics’, as called for by intersex people and organisations in the March 2017 Darlington Statement, and as reflected in the Yogyakarta Principles plus 10

The terminology ‘sex characteristics’ is best practice, and has been recently introduced in both the ACT and Victoria (with ‘intersex variations of sex characteristics’ covered in Tasmania). Sex characteristics is also preferred compared to older attributes of ‘intersex status’, as protected in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), and in South Australia.

I endorse the definition of sex characteristics proposed by Intersex Human Rights Australia in their submission in response to the Discussion Paper:[iv]

‘sex characteristics means a person’s physical features relating to sex, and includes:

(a) the person’s genitalia and other sexual and reproductive parts of the person’s anatomy; and

(b) the person’s chromosomes; and

(c) the person’s hormones; and

(d) secondary features emerging as a result of puberty.’

Recommendation 2:

People with innate variations of sex characteristics (intersex people) in Western Australia should be protected against discrimination on the basis of who they are.

This should be achieved by introducing a protected attribute of ‘sex characteristics’, based on the wording used in the submission by Intersex Human Rights Australia:

‘sex characteristics means a person’s physical features relating to sex, and includes:

(a) the person’s genitalia and other sexual and reproductive parts of the person’s anatomy; and

(b) the person’s chromosomes; and

(c) the person’s hormones; and

(d) secondary features emerging as a result of puberty.’

Sexual orientation

One issue not addressed at all in the Discussion Paper is the need to update the definition of the protected attribute of sexual orientation.

Currently, section 4 of the Act defines sexual orientation as:

‘in relation to a person, means heterosexuality, homosexuality, lesbianism or bisexuality and includes heterosexuality, homosexuality, lesbianism or bisexuality imputed to the person.’

While this does include people who identify as lesbian, gay and bisexual, it does not expressly include other sexual orientations such as pansexuality. It has also fallen behind the best practice definitions of sexual orientation adopted elsewhere in Australia.

For example, recent amendments to the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act 2010, which commenced on 26 October 2021, define sexual orientation as:

‘means a person’s emotional, affectional and sexual attraction to, or intimate or sexual relations with, persons of a different gender or the same gender or more than one gender.’

The WA Equal Opportunity Act 1984 should be amended in a similar manner to ensure sexual orientations other than lesbian, gay and bisexual – including people identifying as pansexual – are explicitly protected.

Recommendation 3:

People with sexual orientations other than lesbian, gay and bisexual – such as pansexual people – in Western Australia should be protected against discrimination on the basis of who they are.

This should be achieved by modernising the definition of ‘sexual orientation’ in section 4 of the Act, with reference to the best practice definition in the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act 2010:

‘sexual orientation means a person’s emotional, affectional and sexual attraction to, or intimate or sexual relations with, persons of a different gender or the same gender or more than one gender.’

*****

Religious Exceptions

The religious exceptions contained in the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA) are excessive, and do not reflect contemporary community standards. Nor do they respect the right of LGBT people in Western Australia to go about their daily lives, free from discrimination. In employment. In education. In health and community services. In all areas of public life.

For example, section 72 currently provides:

‘Nothing in this Act affects-

(a) the ordination or appointment of priests, ministers of religion or members of any religious order; or

(b) the training or education of persons seeking ordination or appointment as priests, ministers of religion or members of a religious order; or

(c) the selection or appointment of persons to perform duties or functions for the purposes of or in connection with, or otherwise to participate in any religious observance or practice; or

(d) any other act or practice of a body established for religious purposes, being an act or practice that conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of that religion or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion.’

While there may be some possible justification for sub-sections (a) through (c) (although I would argue (c) needs to be more narrowly drafted), in order to respect the ability of religious bodies to employ, train and appoint people to engage in religious ceremonies, there can be no possible justification for granting religious organisations an effective ‘blank cheque’ to discriminate against people in all areas of public life, and in relation to all protected attributes, including sexual orientation and gender identity.

In this respect, the Western Australian Equal Opportunity Act has fallen well behind best practice, and in particular the approach to religious exceptions adopted by Tasmania 23 years ago.

Under the Tasmania Anti-Discrimination Act 1998, the circumstances in which religious organisations may discriminate are more narrowly constrained. More importantly, such discrimination is only allowed on the ground of religious belief or activity or religious activity, and therefore not on other grounds such as sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex variations of sex characteristics.

Not only is this, in my view, a preferrable accommodation of the legitimate needs of religious organisations to form communities of faith, but it has also operated successfully for more than two decades, thereby setting an example I would strongly encourage Western Australia to follow.

The arguments against allowing religious organisations to discriminate against LGBT people generally are even stronger in relation to LGBT students, teachers and other staff in the context of religious schools.

Under section 73 of the Equal Opportunity Act, religious schools are permitted to discriminate against:

  • LGBT teachers (sub-section (a))
  • LGBT contract workers (sub-section (b)), and
  • LGBT students and/or families (sub-section (c)).

This is unacceptable. LGBT teachers should be free to impart their knowledge, and utilise their skills, in any environment without having to fear that their sexual orientation, gender identity or relationship status will be used to discipline them in, or even dismiss them from, their role. 

LGBT students should also be free to learn without fearing that their place of learning will discriminate against them. The parents of LGBT students, as well as rainbow families with children, should be able to feel confident in sending their children to any school in the knowledge they will not be mistreated because of who they, or their families, are.

Currently, Western Australia’s anti-discrimination laws fall well short of this ideal.

Instead, both in relation to religious exceptions broadly, and in relation to religious schools specifically, I submit that Western Australia should adopt similar provisions to those already successfully operating in the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act 1998, namely:

51. Employment based on religion

(1) A person may discriminate against another person on the grounds of religious belief or affiliation or religious activity in relation to employment if the participation of the person in the teaching, observance or practice of a particular religion is a genuine occupational qualification or requirement in relation to the employment.

(2) A person may discriminate against another person on the ground of religious belief or affiliation or religious activity in relation to employment in an educational institution that is to be conducted in accordance with the tenets, belief, teachings, principles or practices of a particular religion if the discrimination is in order to enable, or better enable, the educational institution to be conducted in accordance with those tenets, beliefs, teachings, principles or practices.

51A. Admission of person as student based on religion

(1) A person may discriminate against another person on the ground of religious belief or affiliation or religious activity in relation to admission of that other person as a student to an educational institution that is or is to be conducted in accordance with the tenets, beliefs, teachings, principles or practices of a particular religion.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who is enrolled as a student at the educational institution referred to in that subsection.

(3) Subsection (1) does not permit discrimination on any grounds referred to in section 16 other than those specified in that subsection.

(4) A person may, on a ground specified in subsection (1), discriminate against another person in relation to the admission of the other person as a student to an educational institution, if the educational institution’s policy for the admission of students demonstrates that the criteria for admission relates to the religious belief or affiliation, or religious activity, of the other person, the other person’s parents or the other person’s grandparents.

52. Participation in religious observance

A person may discriminate against another person on the ground of religious belief or affiliation or religious activity in relation to-

(a) the ordination or appointment of a priest; or

(b) the training and education of any person seeking ordination or appointment as a priest; or

(c) the selection or appointment of a person to participate in any religious observance or practice; or

(d) any other act that-

(i) is carried out in accordance with the doctrine of a particular religion; and

(ii) is necessary to avoid offending the religious sensitivities of any person of that religion.

There is obviously a lot of detail in these sections, but one particular point I would like to draw to the Commission’s attention is that it does allow religious schools to discriminate on the basis of religious belief or affiliation or religious activity against students, but only at admission or enrolment, and not post-enrolment.

Preferencing students of a particular religion is a concession to the ability of denominations to form communities of faith in which to educate children. However, the limitation – only allowing discrimination at enrolment and not beyond – is just as important, for two reasons.

First, it allows the child to determine their own religious beliefs as they age. Schools should not be able to discriminate against students who, as they grow older, question the faith of the school, or particular elements of that faith, adopt a different faith, or decide to have no faith at all.

Second, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religious belief beyond enrolment is a necessary safeguard against religious schools imposing discrimination on the basis of other attributes, including sexual orientation or gender identity, via alternative or indirect routes.

For example, were religious schools permitted to discriminate on the basis of religious belief throughout a student’s education, they could potentially ask students to sign codes of conduct which state that ‘homosexuality is intrinsically disordered’ or that ‘sex is binary and determined at birth’ (thereby erasing trans and gender diverse children).

The school in these circumstances could claim students who refused to sign such a document, and were subsequently punished, were not being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, but because of the specific tenets of the faith of the school. This discrimination would nevertheless inflict the same harmful outcome on LGBT students and should be prohibited.

Indeed, each of the four Australian jurisdictions which have already legislated to protect LGBT students in religious schools against discrimination (Queensland, the Northern Territory and the ACT, in addition to Tasmania) only allow religious schools to discriminate against students on the basis of religious belief, and only at the point of enrolment.

Finally, in relation to religious exceptions, I would like to highlight three alternative approaches to this issue which I would caution against being adopted in the Western Australian Equal Opportunity Act.

First, the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act 1991, and specifically section 25, establishes what I describe as a ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ scheme, whereby religious schools are not allowed to ask teachers about their sexual orientation or gender identity.

However, where LGBT teachers and other staff members are ‘out’, disclose anything about their orientation, identity or relationship status – or ‘openly act in a way that the person knows or ought reasonably to know is contrary to the employer’s religious beliefs’ (sub-section 25(3)(a)) – they can be fired.

Forcing LGBT teachers into the closet in order to teach is inhumane. Compelling them to continually watch over the shoulders, and be ever-vigilant in policing their own sexual orientation and/or gender identity, is intolerable.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was a failed policy in the US military. It is an awful approach under the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act. And it must not be replicated in Western Australia.

Second, the South Australian Equal Opportunity Act 1984, and specifically section 4, adopts what I consider to be an unsatisfactory approach in allowing discrimination by religious schools against LGBTI teachers, but only where the person discriminated against was provided with a publicly-available policy spelling out this discrimination.

Specifically, subsection 34(3) states:

This Division does not apply to discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status in relation to employment or engagement for the purposes of an educational institution if-

(a) the educational institution is administered in accordance with the precepts of a particular religion and the discrimination is founded on the precepts of that religion; and

(b) the educational authority administering the institution has a written policy stating its position in relation to the matter; and

(c) a copy of the policy is given to a person who is to be interviewed for or offered employment with the authority or a teacher who is to be offered engagement as a contractor by the authority; and

(d) a copy of the policy is provided on request, free of charge-

(i) to employees and contractors and prospective employees and contractors of the authority to whom it relates or may relate; and

(ii) to students, prospective students and parents and guardians of students and prospective students of the institution; and

(iii) to other members of the public.

In my view, the publication of such a policy does not ameliorate the discrimination involved. It does not make discrimination against LGBTI teachers any more acceptable, only more public.

Indeed, attempting to justify such a policy on the basis of ‘transparency’ is akin to suggesting the White Australia Policy was something less than racist because it was written down. Anti-LGBTI prejudice is just as unacceptable when it is published.

Third, the Victorian Government recently proposed amendments to the religious exceptions in their Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (via the Equal Opportunity (Religious Exceptions) Amendment Bill 2021, currently awaiting debate).

While passage of this legislation would result in significant improvements to their anti-discrimination framework, including removing the ability of religious schools to discriminate against LGBT students, teachers and other staff, it also introduces a dichotomy into the Act, establishing different protections in some circumstances based on whether the services being delivered are government funded or not (proposed new section 82B).

Where those services are not government funded – even if they are in the public sphere (such as community services) – religious organisations would retain the ability to discriminate against people accessing those services on the basis of ‘religious belief or activity, sex, sexual orientation, lawful sexual activity, marital status, parental status or gender identity’ (existing section 82(2)).

In my view, the discrimination itself remains unacceptable irrespective of the source of the funds used in its execution. This is both a practical consideration – that the individuals who are discriminated against in this way would suffer adverse and unjustified impacts.

And a normative one. A primary function of anti-discrimination laws is to signal to society what types of discrimination are acceptable, and what types are not. Retaining provisions which explicitly state there will be certain situations in which it is acceptable to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity reinforces negative anti-LGBT attitudes. 

In this way, while a large step forward, the proposed Victorian amendments still fall short of the best practice Tasmanian approach.

Recommendation 4:

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in Western Australia should be protected against discrimination by religious organisations, both in employment and in relation to access to services.

This should include protection for LGBT students and their families, and for teachers and other staff members, in relation to religious schools and other religious educational institutions.

Where discrimination by religious schools is allowed in relation to students, this must be limited to the ground of religious belief or activity, and must not be legally permitted beyond enrolment.

This should be achieved by using the best practice provisions of the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 – and specifically sections 51, 51A and 52 – as a starting point.

*****

Anti-Vilification Protections

I welcome the Discussion Paper’s focus on the issue of anti-vilification protections, from page 150 onwards, including acknowledgement that in Western Australia, only racial harassment and some aspects of racial vilification are prohibited, and not general vilification on the basis of other protected attributes.

In my view, this is a significant weakness of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA), especially given the ongoing high levels of anti-LGBTI harassment and hate speech in the community.

It also means that, in yet another core area of anti-discrimination legislation, Western Australia has fallen behind the standard set by other jurisdictions.[v]

Specifically, Tasmania and the ACT both prohibit vilification against all parts of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community.

Meanwhile, Queensland prohibits vilification against lesbian, gay, bisexual and some transgender people (those with binary gender identities), but does not prohibit vilification against nonbinary people or people with innate variations of sex characteristics.

Finally, NSW provides different parts of the LGBTI community with different levels of protection – all LGBTI people are protected by the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) offence of publicly threatening or inciting violence (section 93Z), but only lesbian, gay and some transgender people (those with binary gender identities) are able to access civil anti-vilification protections under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW).

Importantly, it should be noted that the Victorian Government recently committed to extending its own vilification protections to cover sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics, meaning a clear majority of Australian jurisdictions have already, or will soon, cover the LGBTI community against vilification either in part or in full.

In my view, LGBTI people in Western Australia should also be protected against vilification by the introduction of explicit vilification protections in the Equal Opportunity Act 1984. These should cover the protected attributes of:

  • sexual orientation
  • gender identity, and
  • sex characteristics

as defined earlier in this submission.

Recommendation 5:

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people in Western Australia should be protected against vilification.

This should be achieved by the inclusion of prohibitions on vilification within the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 which cover (at least):

  • sexual orientation
  • gender identity, and
  • sex characteristics.

In terms of what form these provisions should take, I believe the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 demonstrates best practice in this area.

Specifically, Tasmania adopts a bifurcated approach. Section 17(1) provides that:

‘A person must not engage in any conduct which offends, humiliates, intimidates, insults or ridicules another person on the basis of an attribute… 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.’

While section 19 states that:

‘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-

(a) the race of the person or any member of the group; or

(b) any disability of the person or any member of the group; or

(c) the sexual orientation or lawful sexual activity of the person or any member of the group; or

(d) the religious belief or affiliation or religious activity of the person or any member of the group; or

(e) the gender identity or intersex variations of sex characteristics of the person or any member of the group.’

This approach – a broad-based prohibition on conduct which offends, humiliates, intimidates, insults or ridicules, supplemented by a narrower prohibition on the even more serious acts of inciting hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule – ensures that all types of behaviour which should be banned are in fact covered.

Recommendation 6:

LGBTI people in Western Australia should enjoy both broad-based protections against conduct which offends, humiliates, intimidates, insults or ridicules, as well as narrower protections against conduct which incites hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule.

This should be achieved by adopting the bifurcated model of the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act 1998, and specifically sections 17(1) and 19 of that legislation.

I note that the Discussion Paper asks the following questions on page 153:

Should or how may vilification provisions address concerns about the impact on other rights and exemptions under the Act?

and

Should or how may vilification provisions address concerns around the loss of freedom of speech?

In response, I would like to highlight that we are talking about harmful speech, objectively-determined (the test in section 17(1) of the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act provides that it must be ‘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’).

It is not a question of how the victim of such harmful speech feels, but about whether such harmful speech would be seen by others as causing offence, humiliation, intimidation, insult or ridicule.

Having said that, Tasmania, like all other jurisdictions which have adopted prohibitions on vilification, does provide an exception for speech which is for a public purpose. Section 55 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas) states:

‘The provisions of section 17(1) and section 19 do not apply if the person’s conduct is-

(a) a fair report of a public act; or

(b) a communication or dissemination of a matter that is subject to a defence of absolute privilege in proceedings for defamation; or

(c) a public act done in good faith for-

(i) academic, artistic, scientific or research purposes; or

(ii) any purpose in the public interest.’

These carve-outs are relatively broad, especially sub-section 55(c)(ii), and would seem to provide adequate and appropriate balance in the interests of free speech where that speech is in good faith and for a public purpose.

I should note that some other jurisdictions go slightly further. For example, civil vilification prohibitions in NSW include the following carve-out (taken from section 49ZT(2)(c) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, which deals with homosexual vilification):

‘a public act, done reasonably and in good faith, for academic, artistic, religious instruction, scientific or research purposes or for other purposes in the public interest, including discussion or debate about and expositions of any act or matter.’

I do not support the express inclusion of ‘religious instruction’ in this context. There does not appear to be a legitimate reason why religious instruction should be elevated above other ‘public purposes’ in this way (noting that it is already exempt under the Tasmanian provisions where it is ‘done in good faith for any purpose in the public interest’). 

Indeed, there was an attempt in 2016 and 2017 to amend the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act in a similar way, which was thankfully defeated by their Legislative Council.

In my view, section 55 of the Tasmanian Act remains the best attempt to ensure that harmful speech is prohibited while legitimate speech is allowed.

Recommendation 7:

In order to ensure legitimate speech continues to be allowed, there is a need to introduce a provision exempting conduct which is done in good faith and for a public interest purpose.

This should be achieved by adopting the best practice exemption found in section 55 of the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act 1998:

‘The provisions of section 17(1) and section 19 do not apply if the person’s conduct is-

(a) a fair report of a public act; or

(b) a communication or dissemination of a matter that is subject to a defence of absolute privilege in proceedings for defamation; or

(c) a public act done in good faith for-

(i) academic, artistic, scientific or research purposes; or

(ii) any purpose in the public interest.’

*****

Other Issues

Removing Barriers to Identity Documentation for Trans and Gender Diverse People

The current restriction of anti-discrimination protections in the Act to ‘gender reassigned persons on gender history grounds’ inevitably raises the issue of lack of access to identity documentation, including birth certificates, for trans and gender diverse people.

Even if, as recommended earlier, a new protected attribute of gender identity replaces gender history, there is still an urgent need to remove barriers to this documentation.

Indeed, the terms of the Gender Reassignment Act 2000 (WA) make Western Australia the third worst jurisdiction in Australia for trans and gender diverse people to access birth certificates reflecting their gender identity.[vi]

The only reason it is not equal worst, with NSW and Queensland, is because the High Court decision in AB v Western Australia; AH v Western Australia [2011] HCA 42 removed the requirement for genital surgery – although there remains a requirement for physical treatment of some kind.

In this way, the approach to this issue in Western Australia falls a long way behind the best practice of other jurisdictions, a fact acknowledged by the WA Law Reform Commission previously in 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’ (Project 108). The final report of that review recommended both that:

‘The Gender Reassignment Act 2000 (WA) and Gender Reassignment Regulations 2001 (WA) be repealed’ (Recommendation 10), and

‘The Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1998 (WA) be amended to provide an administrative process to change the gender classification on a Gender Identity Certificate’ (Recommendation 11).

From my perspective, legislation which provides trans and gender diverse people access to identity documents, including birth certificates, that reflect their gender identity, should meet at least the following three principles:[vii]

  1. Access to amended identity documentation must not depend on surgery or other medical treatments
  2. Access to amended identity documentation must not depend on approval by doctors or other medical professionals, and
  3. Access to amended identity documentation should be granted on the basis of self-identification, through a statutory declaration.

Currently, only one Australian jurisdiction’s birth certificate framework satisfies these criteria: the Tasmanian Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1999, which – following amendments in 2019 – now allows for complete self-identification of gender identity.[viii]

In modernising its approach to identity documentation, Western Australia should therefore follow the best practice example of Tasmania.

Recommendation 8:

Trans and gender diverse people in Western Australia should be able to access identity documents, including birth certificates, that reflect their gender identities, without the need for surgery or other medical treatments, and without doctors or other medical professionals playing the role of gate-keeper. Access to identity documents should be based on self-identification alone.

This should be achieved by adopting the best practice provisions of the Tasmanian Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1999.

Prohibiting Coercive Surgeries and Other Medical Treatments on People with Innate Variations of Sex Characteristics

Earlier in this submission, I called for the inclusion of a new protected attribute of sex characteristics, to ensure that people with innate variations of sex characteristics are protected against discrimination in all areas of public life.

While the introduction of this attribute would be an important step towards recognition of the human rights and dignity of intersex people, it is not nearly as important as ending what I consider to be the greatest violation of LGBTI rights in Australia: the ongoing performance of coercive surgeries and other involuntary medical treatments on people with innate variations of sex characteristics, and especially intersex children.

I therefore fully endorse the recommendation made by Intersex Human Rights Australia in its submission to the current consultation, that:[ix]

‘Protections from harmful practices in medical settings

In line with evolving best practice, as described in public commitments and action in the Australian Capital Territory and Victoria, and in line with recommendations of UN Treaty Bodies to Australia, we recommend that the Western Australian government enact separate protections from harmful practices in medical settings for people with innate variations of sex characteristics.’

Recommendation 9:

People with innate variations of sex characteristics in Western Australia should be legally protected from harmful practices in medical settings. Prohibitions on these practices should be developed in partnership with the intersex community and its representatives, including Intersex Human Rights Australia.

Prohibiting Conversion Practices

I welcome the Discussion Paper’s inclusion of a section on the prohibition of sexual orientation and gender identity conversion practices (on page 193).

In my view, such practices constitute psychological torture, and should be prohibited in all settings, including religious environments. This should apply irrespective of whether the person undergoing this torture is a minor or an adult (on the basis that it is not possible to give ‘informed consent’ to torture).

As to the question of whether Western Australia should adopt the models already in place in Queensland, the ACT, or Victoria, a combination of these approaches, or a new approach – and therefore whether this prohibition should be included in the Equal Opportunity Act or elsewhere – I defer to the views of survivors of conversion practices, and encourage the Commission to consult directly with the Brave Network and other survivor organisations.

Recommendation 10:

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in Western Australia should be protected against sexual orientation and gender identity conversion practices. Prohibitions on these practices should be developed in partnership with survivors of these practices and their representatives, including the Brave Network.

Long Title and Objects Clause

Both the Long Title of the Act, and the Objects Clause (in section 3), should be updated to reflect improvements recommended above. This includes:

  • Replacing gender history with gender identity
  • Removing limitations in relation to gender identity (ie removing the qualifier ‘in certain cases’)
  • Adding sex characteristics, and
  • Updating sub-section 3(d) to provide that ‘to promote recognition and acceptance within the community of the equality of persons…’ applies to all protected attributes, including gender identity and sex characteristics.

This last change to the objects should also be reflected in the substantive provisions of the Act. For example, section 35ZD of the of Act currently provides an exemption covering ‘measures intended to achieve equality’ for people on the basis of sexual orientation:

‘Nothing in Division 2 or 3 renders it unlawful to do an act a purpose of which is-

(a) to ensure that persons of a particular sexual orientation have equal opportunities with other persons in circumstances in relation to which provisions is made by this Act; or

(b) to afford persons of a particular sexual orientation access to facilities, services or opportunities to meet their special needs in relation to employment, education, training or welfare.’

There is no equivalent provision in relation to gender identity – but there should be.

Interpretive Provision

I note the discussion of a possible interpretive provision on pages 104 to 106 of the Discussion Paper. This includes an interpretive provision proposed by Christian Schools Australia on page 105.

This interpretive provision appears to be taken directly from the One Nation Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Religious Freedoms and Equality) Bill 2020 in NSW – and it should be rejected for the same reasons it should be rejected in NSW, too.

This is best explained by looking at the Explanatory Memorandum for the One Nation Bill, and in particular the example of the Jewish employer of a publisher:

‘As for the remaining provisions of the Act, section 22L must be interpreted in accordance with new section 3 [the interpretive provision proposed by Christian Schools Australia], Principles of Act. In particular, the Siracusa Principles apply the requirement that limitations on religious manifestation must ‘pursue a legitimate aim and be proportionate to that aim’. The following example assists in clarifying this intended operation.

Example: A Satanist requests that a publisher prints material that promote the teachings of Satanism. A Jewish employee of the publisher requests that she not be required to facilitate the order. Having fundamental regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it would not be necessary or proportionate, for the employer to require her involvement in the order where alternative employees who do not have a genuine religious objection are available to facilitate the order. Similarly, it would not be necessary or proportionate for the employer to require her involvement in the order where alternative publishers are reasonably available to facilitate the order. In both of these cases, for the employer to require her involvement in the order would use ‘more restrictive means than are required’. In addition, to require such conduct would not be compatible with the international instruments stated at section 3.’

As I wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald last October,[x] this outcome is perverse, and creates more rather than less discrimination:

‘[A]n employee can refuse to perform the core component of their role (in this case, publishing materials) solely on the basis of their personal religious beliefs, even if this means sending the customer’s business to a competitor.

This would give employees the right to veto the decisions of their employer, including what goods and services are offered and to whom.

And what of the customer? In this example, they are turned away by the publisher because their religious belief does not accord with that of the employee, which is surely the type of discrimination that should be prohibited under a genuine Religious Discrimination Bill.

It’s important also to get a sense of how far this would go. If this is how the bill is intended to operate, employees may refuse to provide goods or services to a wide range of people because of the employee’s religious beliefs: not just to people from different religions, or no religion, but to single parents, unmarried couples, women, people with disability and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex people, among others.

Importantly, from the customer’s perspective, there is no way of knowing in advance whether a particular business will refuse to serve them. Based on the scenario set out in the explanatory notes, any commercial busines could turn away any customer based on the religious beliefs of an individual worker. That is a recipe for chaos.

And it will leave employers around the state in an invidious position: either they compel their employee to perform the inherent requirements of their job and risk the employee claiming discrimination on the basis of religious belief, or they refuse to provide goods and services to customers on the basis of who they are and guarantee not just loss of income, but risk a discrimination complaint for the customer instead.

It’s an unholy mess.’

Western Australia must avoid making the same mistakes as the extreme and unprecedented Bill proposed by One Nation in NSW, where one human right (‘religious freedom’) is prioritised over and above other human rights, including what is the fundamental purpose of anti-discrimination laws: the right to live free from discrimination.

Interpretive provisions which single out ‘religious freedom’ must therefore be rejected.

Additional Protected Attributes

I would like to express my in-principle support for the inclusion of additional protected attributes within the Equal Opportunity Act, particularly where those attributes may be disproportionately relevant to the LGBTI community. These include:

  • Lawful sexual activity (discussed on page 123), and
  • Irrelevant medical record (discussed on page 121).

In terms of this latter attribute, I also endorse the recommendation made by Intersex Human Rights Australia in their submission to the current inquiry that:[xi]

‘In line with best practice international developments and recommendations for Australian jurisdictions, we recommend that the Western Australian government prohibit genetic discrimination in insurance and employment.’

Finally, I support the inclusion of a new protected attribute of ‘irrelevant criminal record’ (as discussed on page 120). I note the Discussion Paper’s acknowledgement there are already some protections for ‘expunged homosexual convictions’ in relation to work as created by the Historical Homosexual Convictions Expungement Act 2018 (WA).

While I believe expunged homosexual convictions would likely fall within irrelevant criminal record – and therefore be protected against discrimination in areas beyond work – this should include clarification that expunged homosexual convictions will always be ‘irrelevant’.

This is in recognition of the fact such convictions are solely the product of state-sponsored homophobia, biphobia and transphobia, and should never have constituted offences in the first place.

Definition of Religious or Political Conviction

I note the Discussion Paper considers whether to add a definition in relation to the existing protected attribute of ‘religious or political conviction’.

As part of this Discussion, an overly-expansive, and in my view, entirely-inappropriate definition for religion is provided by Christian Schools Australia (see page 122). In fact, this definition appears to be taken directly from the One Nation Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Religious Freedoms and Equality) Bill 2020 in NSW.

This would introduce an unnecessarily vague test for determining whether something constitutes religious belief or activity. It would be almost impossible to apply in practice, and should be rejected.

Instead, I submit that, should the Commission recommend the inclusion of definitions for political conviction and religious conviction, it should do so on the basis of the definitions in the ACT Discrimination Act 1991, namely:

‘political conviction includes-

(a) having a political conviction, belief, opinion or affiliation; and

(b) engaging in political activity; and

(c) not having a political conviction, belief, opinion or affiliation; and

(d) not engaging in political activity.’

‘religious conviction includes-

(a) having a religious conviction, belief, opinion or affiliation; and

(b) engaging in religious activity; and

(c) the cultural heritage and distinctive spiritual practices, observances, beliefs and teachings of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people; and

(d) engaging in the cultural heritage and distinctive spiritual practices, observances, beliefs and teachings of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; and

(e) not having a religious conviction, belief, opinion or affiliation’ and

(f) not engaging in religious activity.’

Discrimination in Provision of Goods and Services Where Motivated by Religious Belief

While on the subject of religious belief, I would like to express my strong opposition to any proposal to allow individuals and businesses to refuse to provide goods and services, including on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, where that refusal is motivated by religious belief (as discussed on page 173).

Such a proposal would allow significant new discrimination against LGBT people individually, and LGBT couples. This discrimination would also be unpredictable in its operation – LGBT people going about their everyday life would know that any potential interaction could involve being lawfully discriminated against because of how they identity, or who they love.

The introduction of a new ‘exception’ of this kind would seriously undermine the purpose of having an anti-discrimination law in the first place, and should be categorically rejected.

*****

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

Sincerely

Alastair Lawrie


Footnotes:

[i] For a comparative analysis of LGBTI anti-discrimination laws across Australia, please see: ‘A Quick Guide to Australian LGBTI Anti-Discrimination Laws. https://alastairlawrie.net/2017/07/29/a-quick-guide-to-australian-lgbti-anti-discrimination-laws/

[ii] These three areas draw from my article about the WA legislation: ‘What’s Wrong With Western Australia’s Equal Opportunity Act 1984?’ https://alastairlawrie.net/2016/10/23/whats-wrong-with-western-australias-equal-opportunity-act-1984/

[iii] While the definition of ‘recognised transgender person’ in section 4 of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 is similarly restrictive, the interpretive clause in section 38A makes it clear that NSW anti-discrimination protections apply to transgender people with binary gender identities irrespective of whether their gender identity has been recognised by the State.

[iv] Intersex Human Rights Australia, Submission to the WA Law Reform Commission on Anti-Discrimination Law Reform, 13 October 2021, available at: https://ihra.org.au/39075/walrc-anti-discrimination-2021/

[v] For a comparative analysis of LGBTI anti-vilification laws across Australia, please see: ‘Did You Know? Most Australian Jurisdictions Don’t Prohibit Anti-LGBTI Vilification’. https://alastairlawrie.net/2020/06/01/did-you-know-most-australian-jurisdictions-dont-prohibit-anti-lgbti-vilification/

[vi] For a comparative analysis of birth certificate legislation across Australia, please see: ‘Did You Know? Trans People in NSW and Queensland Still Require Surgery to Update Their Birth Certificates’. https://alastairlawrie.net/2020/05/02/did-you-know-trans-people-in-nsw-and-queensland-still-require-surgery-to-update-their-birth-certificates/

[vii] As articulated in this post from my website: ‘Identity, Not Surgery’. https://alastairlawrie.net/2018/07/17/identity-not-surgery/

[viii] The approach in Victoria, via the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Amendment Act 2019, comes close, including that it removes requirements for medical treatment, and removes medical gatekeepers to accessing new identity documents. However, it does not fully satisfy the criteria of self-determination, because under section 30A, an applicant must include a ‘supporting statement’ from another person who both ‘believes that the applicant makes the application to alter the record of the sex of the applicant in good faith, and supports the application.’

[ix] Intersex Human Rights Australia, Submission to the WA Law Reform Commission on Anti-Discrimination Law Reform, 13 October 2021, available at: https://ihra.org.au/39075/walrc-anti-discrimination-2021/

[x] Alastair Lawrie, ‘Religious discrimination bill will create an unholy mess’, Sydney Morning Herald, 26 October, 2020, available here: https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/religious-discrimination-bill-will-create-an-unholy-mess-20201022-p567jx.html

[xi] Intersex Human Rights Australia, Submission to the WA Law Reform Commission on Anti-Discrimination Law Reform, 13 October 2021, available at: https://ihra.org.au/39075/walrc-anti-discrimination-2021/

Why there MUST be a Senate Inquiry into the Religious Discrimination Bill

There is a *lot* of news happening at the moment. In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, and now during COP26 – and with it humanity’s last best chance to address the existential threat of global heating – it can be difficult to keep track of other serious challenges to our human rights.

In Australia, one of those is the Morrison Liberal/National Government’s proposed Religious Discrimination Bill, which they remain committed to introducing into Commonwealth Parliament before the end of 2021.

While most people outside the Government still don’t know what form the final Bill will take (unlike a select few, like religious fundamentalists including the Australian Christian Lobby, with whom the Government has been negotiating – more on that later), we did learn something new last week:

Attorney-General Michaelia Cash is seeking to avoid the scrutiny of a Senate Inquiry into the Religious Discrimination Bill.

As reported in the Sydney Morning Herald last Sunday (24 October):

‘Attorney-General Michaelia Cash signalled the government would ramp up pressure on Labor to not hold a Senate inquiry because the government “has conducted two rounds of public consultation on draft legislation, and met face to face with over 90 stakeholders in a series of roundtables”.’

This position – Attorney-General Cash wanting to avoid the usual scrutiny of a Senate Inquiry – was then confirmed during Senate Estimates last Tuesday (26 October), via the following exchange with Greens Senator Janet Rice:

Senator Rice: … Given the far-reaching impacts of this proposed legislation, will you commit to having a full and thorough Senate inquiry into the bill once it’s introduced?

Senator Cash: That’s a decision for the Senate.

Senator Rice: Is the government committed and supportive?

Senator Cash: That is a decision for the Senate.

Senator Rice: It will be a decision for the Senate, but will the government be supporting having a Senate inquiry into this legislation?

Senator Cash: Again, that is a decision for the Senate.

Senator Rice: Will the government support that by helping to provide the numbers in the Senate?

Senator Cash: If the Senate determines that there should be an inquiry then there will be an inquiry.

Senator Rice: Do you think that there should be an inquiry?

Senator Cash: That is a decision for the Senate.

Senator Rice: Do you think that there should be an inquiry given it is your legislation?

Senator Cash: The normal process would be that a bill goes to an inquiry.

*****

Count them: that’s six separate opportunities for the Attorney-General to confirm the Government would support a Senate Inquiry into the Religious Discrimination Bill. And six refusals to do so.

The closest Cash came was stating it would be a ‘normal process’ to hold such an inquiry, not that the Government would agree to one.

Why does it matter?

This isn’t just a technical question of whether the Senate follows ‘normal process’ in holding an inquiry. Whether or not the Senate conducts an investigation into the Religious Discrimination Bill really matters, for two key reasons:

First, the Religious Discrimination Bill has the potential to affect the everyday lives of *all* Australians, religious and non-religious alike, including women, lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people, people with disability, divorced people and people in de facto relationships.

Everyone.

We know this because of the content of the first two Exposure Draft Bills, released in August and December 2019 respectively, with the most recent of those including the following features:

  • Allowing health practitioners, including doctors, nurses, pharmacists and psychologists, to ‘conscientiously object’ to providing health services – even where this has disproportionate adverse impacts on particular groups (for example, refusing to provide puberty blockers, to the detriment of trans and gender diverse young people), and
  • Allowing people to make offensive, humiliating, intimidating, insulting or ridiculing comments against women, LGBTI people, people with disability and even people of minority faiths, in all areas of public life, as long as those comments are motivated by religious belief. 

Both the right to access health care, and the ability to go about your daily life – in workplaces, and schools and universities, and community services, and public transport, and other public spaces – without being subjected to vile comments on the basis of who you are, are at risk.

[For more detail on these and other serious problems with the Bill, see: The ‘Bad Faith’ Religious Discrimination Bill Must Be Blocked’.] 

Legislation which carries such serious consequences deserves the highest level of scrutiny, and that must include a Senate Inquiry.

Second, the Religious Discrimination Bill has the potential to be the biggest change to Commonwealth anti-discrimination law for almost four decades.

Since the passage of the Racial Discrimination Act in 1975, and Sex Discrimination Act in 1984, the basic framework of Commonwealth anti-discrimination laws has remained relatively consistent.

This includes the general tests for what constitutes direct and indirect discrimination, and in what circumstances religious organisations are permitted to discriminate. It also includes the ‘complementary’ structure of Commonwealth, state and territory anti-discrimination laws, where they operate alongside each other, without seeking to override the other.

The Disability Discrimination Act 1992Age Discrimination Act 2004, and even the addition of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status as protected attributes in the Sex Discrimination Act in 2013, did not fundamentally alter these arrangements.

However, the Second Exposure Draft Religious Discrimination Bill marks a radical departure from these precedents.

For example, the ability to make offensive, humiliating, intimidating, insulting or ridiculing ‘statements of belief’ is included in a provision (clause 42) which limits the operation of all other anti-discrimination legislation: Commonwealth (including the Fair Work Act 2009), and state and territory (singling out the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 in particular).

In practice, this would be the first time the Commonwealth Government directly sought to override the anti-discrimination laws of other Australian Governments.

The ‘conscientious objection’ provision (in clause 8) discussed earlier also involves a significant departure from standard practice. That is because it seeks to amend how the test for indirect discrimination operates, in favour of health practitioners who wish to discriminate in the types of services they provide.

One of the Religious Discrimination Bill’s other, more-infamous provisions – the so-called ‘Folau clause’ (also in clause 8) – is similarly-designed, altering the test for indirect discrimination to ‘stack the decks’ in favour of employees who make otherwise discriminatory statements outside core business hours.

Meanwhile, its proposed ‘religious exceptions’ (in clause 11, and scattered elsewhere throughout the Bill) dramatically re-write the existing scope of these special privileges. Not only do they apply to an expanded range of organisations, but the two different tests for whether a ‘religious exception’ applies are *both* far easier for organisations to use than the tests in the Sex Discrimination Act (section 37) and Age Discrimination Act (section 35).

Legislation which seeks to override state and territory anti-discrimination laws for the first time, and which significantly departs from existing practice in the test for indirect discrimination and significantly expands the scope and test for religious exceptions, deserves the highest level of scrutiny. That must include a Senate Inquiry.

What is the Government’s excuse?

Attorney-General Cash did not attempt to either clarify, or justify, the Government’s opposition to sending the Religious Discrimination Bill to an inquiry in her exchange with Senator Rice.

Which means we are left with her quote in the Sydney Morning Herald, namely that she does not support an inquiry: because the government “has conducted two rounds of public consultation on draft legislation, and met face to face with over 90 stakeholders in a series of roundtables”.

This rationale does not withstand the application of even the slightest skerrick of scrutiny.

Yes, the Government released two Exposure Draft Bills, which were open for public submissions. And yes, both the Bills, and associated submissions, have been published (see the Attorney-General’s Department website for the First Exposure Draft Bills here, and for the Second Exposure Draft Bills here.)

However, unlike a Senate Inquiry, there is little transparency about these processes:

  • There is no report document summarising feedback from either process
  • There is no public list of attendees at the roundtables mentioned by Senator Cash, and
  • There is no transcript of the evidence provided by these witnesses to the Government.

Also, unlike a Senate Inquiry, there was a lack of independence to these processes:

  • They were conducted by the Attorney-General’s Department, acting on the instructions of their Minister
  • Attendees of the roundtables were presumably selected by, or with the close involvement of, the Attorney-General, and
  • There was no opportunity for Opposition, Greens and cross-bench Senators to interrogate the evidence being provided to the Government.

In short, Government-run consultation processes are no substitute for the independence and transparency of a Senate Inquiry.

But there is an even bigger problem with Attorney-General Cash’s attempted justification for not supporting a Senate Inquiry into the Religious Discrimination Bill – and that is the First and Second Exposure Draft Bills were released in August and December 2019 respectively. That is more than, and just under, two full years ago.

Indeed, submissions in response to the Second Exposure Draft Bill closed in January 2020, less than a week after the first case of novel coronavirus was detected in Australia. A *lot* has changed in the intervening 21 months, including the Attorney-General (with Michaelia Cash replacing former Attorney-General Christian Porter in March 2021).

It is highly likely some aspects of the Religious Discrimination Bill will have changed in that period too – perhaps for the better, maybe for the worse.

Most members of the Australian community, and the community groups which represent them, will not be aware of those changes until the final Bill is introduced to Parliament. They deserve the opportunity to comment on the Bill’s final provisions, not past versions that have potentially been superseded.

Of course, some groups *are* aware, and have been closely involved in negotiations about the Bill’s contents for the past two years. This includes religious fundamentalists, such as the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL).

Indeed, the same Sydney Morning Herald article in which Cash argued against a Senate Inquiry was primarily about the ACL revealing the final Religious Discrimination Bill will include some version of the ‘Folau clause’.

The article is titled ‘Christian Lobby boasts religious freedom laws will include ‘Folau clause’, and goes on to quote ACL boss Martyn Iles:

‘Mr Iles said the ACL was “very, very strongly applying pressure from a grassroots level and from our lobbying level to ensure the Folau clause remains in the bill. It was fought tooth and nail, it was really at risk for a long time there[. O]ne great win is that the final draft of the bill will contain a Folau clause. It’s not perfect, but it’s not bad. And it does exist within the bill.”’

The Government’s consultations with the ACL were not denied by Attorney-General Cash, once again at Senate Estimates:

Senator Rice: Minister, we’ve seen media reports – and I’m tabling the media report that I was reading last week, that the Australian Christian Lobby say that they’re in the final days of negotiations with the Prime Minister’s office over the bill. The ACL are claiming they are ‘part of a coalition of faith leaders who jointly have been negotiating very closely with the Attorney-General, and with the Prime Minister’s Office’. Is that an accurate summation of what’s been happening with the negotiations on the bill?

Senator Cash: I’ve been negotiating far and wide in relation to the bill.

Senator Rice: Who else have you been negotiating with over the last month, for example?

Senator Cash: I’ve been negotiating with stakeholders across the board. I would take on notice whether or not they want their names provided, though, with all due respect to them. Some actually don’t want their name provided formally.

Senator Rice: Could I take on notice a list of all the stakeholders, as far as they are willing to be named?

Senator Cash: I’m more than happy to do that, absolutely. I need to go to them to get their permission, but-

Senator Rice: Can you name some others, other than those that will be part of this coalition of faith leaders?

Senator Cash: I would prefer not to, in the event they don’t want their names publicly disclosed as having discussions with me, but I’m more than happy to take it on notice for you.

Senator Rice: Have you been negotiating with any of the human rights organisations or LGBTIQ+ organisations?

Senator Cash: Yes. They’re a very important stakeholder.

*****

This exchange is deeply unsatisfactory, for a number of reasons.

The Attorney-General was unwilling to divulge the name of *any* stakeholder with whom she had been negotiating, or even consulting, over the biggest change to Commonwealth anti-discrimination law in almost four decades.

Even though Cash eventually agreed to take this question on notice (meaning she will need to respond in writing in coming months), this will unlikely be revealed until after the Bill itself has been introduced, and even then stakeholders who wish to remain secret will apparently have their names withheld from the public.

Cash’s answers also do not reveal the level of engagement with each group. For example, it is possible for the Government to be ‘negotiating’ with religious fundamentalists about the text of the Bill, but only ‘consulting’ with other groups in high-level or non-specific terms.

The final answer is also worrying; Cash uses the singular form (‘They’re a very important stakeholder’) in response to a question about negotiating with ‘human rights organisations or LGBTIQ+ organisations’.

This could imply she may only be meeting with one such body, and it is unclear who that would be, especially when there is no generalist national LGBTIQ+ organisation that is accountable to the LGBTIQ+ community (LGBTIQ+ Health Australia is the closest there is although, as the name suggests, its primary focus is health).

In fact, there are a wide range of organisations that either represent particular sections of the community (like Intersex Human Rights Australia), or advocate on LGBTIQ+ issues generally (such as Just.Equal Australia and Equality Australia), as well as several state and territory membership-based LGBTIQ organisations. Senator Cash should be ‘negotiating’ with all of them.

All of this is to say that the broader community has almost no idea who has been meeting with Attorney-General Cash about the Religious Discrimination Bill, or how much access and influence each organisation has been able to achieve. Based on her evidence to Senate Estimates last week, it is possible we will never be permitted to know.

Which simply confirms that the *only* way there can be a truly independent, and transparent, consultation process – where the names of witnesses are published, hearings are held in public with everyone able to know who has been advocating for what, as well as an opportunity for all Parties to interrogate those views – is for there to be a Senate Inquiry.

What is Labor’s position?

It remains unclear what Labor’s position is on whether there should be a Senate Inquiry into the Religious Discrimination Bill.

Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus is quoted in the same Sydney Morning Herald article as Senator Cash, although he does not address this issue (to be fair, he may not have been asked about it, or he may have provided quotes on this topic that were not included).

Of more concern is the lack of public position on this by Labor in the period since then. I am not aware of any criticism from ALP MPs or Senators about Cash’s push to avoid the scrutiny of a Senate Inquiry, nor did any Labor Senators on the Estimates Committee alongside Senator Janet Rice join her in challenging this position.

It is possible the Labor Opposition will push for a Senate Inquiry when the final parliamentary sitting fortnight of the year starts on Monday 22 November (which is presumably when the Government will introduce the Religious Discrimination Bill).

However, it is also possible that the ALP, under Leader Anthony Albanese, does not support referral to a Senate Inquiry. If so, their rationale for doing so would be just as weak as Attorney-General Cash’s.

In the Opposition’s case, they may seek to avoid any criticism they are ‘holding up’ so-called ‘religious freedom’ laws in the lead-up to the federal election, due in the first half of 2022 (even though it is the Morrison Government’s own delays that have led to this timing).

But that cannot be justification for not closely scrutinising the biggest change to Commonwealth anti-discrimination laws in nearly four decades. Nor would it excuse failing to support at least an inquiry into legislation that is a serious threat to the rights of women, LGBTI people, people with disability, divorced people and people in de facto relationships, even people of minority faiths.

If Labor fails to support a Senate Inquiry into the Religious Discrimination Bill in an attempt to avoid being politically ‘wedged’, then it seems highly likely they would subsequently also just ‘wave through’ the Government’s legislation.

That course of events would be reminiscent of the Labor Opposition’s actions under then-Leader (and now One Nation NSW Leader) Mark Latham in supporting John Howard’s Bill banning same-sex marriage in 2004. A ban which took a long and painful 13 years to overturn.

If Albo does not support a Senate Inquiry into the Religious Discrimination Bill, and instead simply votes for the legislation, it would be the biggest display of Labor spinelessness on LGBTI rights since Latham revealed himself to be an invertebrate on marriage equality.

Why there MUST be a Senate Inquiry into the Religious Discrimination Bill

I know that, for some of you, whether or not there is a Senate Inquiry on the Religious Discrimination Bill might seem like a fairly technical discussion. 

I hope I’ve convinced you that’s not the case, and shown why holding a Senate Inquiry is essential to independently and transparently scrutinise the biggest change to Commonwealth anti-discrimination law in 37 years.

And why we need this investigation to shine a light on any proposals that undermine the rights of women, LGBTI people, people with disability, divorced people and people in de facto relationships, and even people of minority faiths.

Of course, a Senate Inquiry is no guarantee this harmful legislation (if that’s what it turns out to be, because most of us have yet to see the final version) is ultimately defeated, or that its worst aspects are amended or at least ameliorated. It may still end up being passed.

But it would be a terrible sign if the Government is successful in avoiding a Senate Inquiry.

Perhaps think of it like this: if the Government was proud of this Bill and its key features, if it thought it could stand up to the rigour of independent and transparent consideration by a multi-partisan Committee, then it would gladly agree to it.

That Attorney-General Cash has publicly argued against doing so, suggests the final Religious Discrimination Bill will be a fundamentally bad law.

Instead, it seems they hope to ram it through Parliament, either late this year, or early next year, while everyone is distracted by other news: COVID-19, COP26 and global heating, the impending election campaign itself, and plenty more besides.

If they are successful, then the first time some people are aware it has even happened will be when they are refused a vital health care service. At their doctor. Or by their nurse. Or pharmacist. Or psychologist.

Or when they are subjected to vile comments about who they are. In their workplace. Or at their school or university. Or at another community service. Or on public transport.

Or any other public space in which making offensive, humiliating, intimidating, insulting or ridiculing comments about other people has been permitted as long as it’s motived by religious belief.

Attorney-General Michaelia Cash came empty-handed to Senate Estimates last week, unwilling to answer whether the Government supports a Senate Inquiry into the Religious Discrimination Bill, and unwilling to disclose who she has been ‘negotiating’ with about this legislation.

It’s time Scott Morrison stopped running away from his promise to LGBT kids

Today marks an unhappy milestone for LGBT Australians: 1,000 days since Scott Morrison first committed to ending discrimination against LGBT students by religious schools, saying ‘We do not think that children should be discriminated against.’

It was a promise made amidst the significant backlash following the leaking of the Religious Freedom Review recommendations, from a public who were surprised to learn taxpayer-funded faith schools could mistreat, and even expel, kids just because of who they are. And it was made in the middle of the Wentworth by-election campaign.

In committing to remove these special privileges before the end of 2018, Morrison said what he needed to say to get himself out of a tricky political situation. But he never did what was needed to be done to ensure LGBT students were finally protected under the Sex Discrimination Act.

Instead, Morrison has been running away from his promise ever since. If only he ran the national vaccine rollout as quickly, maybe I wouldn’t be writing this from lockdown.

Morrison never even introduced amendments to Parliament to give effect to his commitment, let alone tried to pass them. And refused to support Labor legislation which would have achieved the same goal.

By April 2019 – on the day before the writs were issued for the federal election – Morrison’s then-Attorney-General Christian Porter referred the broader issue of ‘religious exceptions’ to anti-discrimination law to the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) for review.

After his re-election, Morrison preferred to prioritise granting even more special privileges to religious organisations through the ‘Religious Freedom Bills’, and put the fate of LGBT students on hold. Literally. In March 2020, Porter amended the ALRC reporting deadline to be ’12 months from the date the Religious Discrimination Bill is passed by Parliament.’

With the Religious Discrimination Bill delayed by the pandemic, the earliest it could be passed is the end of 2021, meaning the ALRC won’t report until at least late 2022.

And, of course, given the serious problems of the first two exposure draft Religious Discrimination Bills – including undermining inclusive workplaces and access to healthcare – there are many who will be trying to stop it from passing (myself included).

Either way, based on current ALRC timelines, and assuming both that Morrison wins re-election and still feels bound by a promise first made in October 2018, he will not even start drafting legislation until 2023. LGBT students in religious schools would not be protected against discrimination until 2024. At the earliest.

Put another way, LGBT students in year 7 when Scott Morrison first promised to protect them will have finished school before he finally gets around to doing it. If he ever does.

Today might mark 1,000 days since Morrison’s broken promise, but I am more concerned about a larger number: the thousands, and perhaps even tens of thousands, of LGBT students who have been, and are still being, harmed because of his inaction.

For many, that harm will be long-lasting, scarring them far beyond the school gates. I know, because that’s what happened to me.

Not only was my religious boarding school in 1990s Queensland deeply homophobic, from rules targeting same-sex students to a pastor implying gay kids should kill themselves, it helped create a toxic environment which encouraged verbal, and physical, abuse by students against any kid who exhibited any kind of difference. I suffered both.

Like Scott Morrison, I attempted to run away; I spent more than a decade trying to outrun the depression caused by those experiences. But it eventually caught up to me, and age 29 I almost succeeded in what that pastor had hinted I should do.

I was extremely lucky to survive, and even luckier that, with self-care, plenty of support and the love of a good man, I finally managed to thrive.

But whether LGBT kids are able to survive their childhoods should not be a matter of chance. Every LGBT student, in every school, deserves the right to thrive.

As dark as my story is, there is also hope. Because in 2002, the Queensland Government amended their Anti-Discrimination Act to remove the ability of religious schools to discriminate against LGBT students. And I am reliably informed, by multiple sources, that my boarding school is now vastly more accepting of diversity of sexual orientation.

All it takes is a commitment to actions, not just words. Indeed, the ACT Government also responded to the 2018 Religious Freedom Review with a promise to protect LGBT students, and teachers, in religious schools – something they passed before the end of that year.

In contrast, Prime Minister Morrison is still running. Running away from his October 2018 promise. And running away from his obligation to ensure all students have the right to learn in a safe environment. It’s time Morrison stopped running, and allowed LGBT kids to thrive.

*****

Take Action

It is clear from the history of this issue that Prime Minister Morrison is not going to take action just because it is the right thing to do. He will only make this change if we put enough pressure on him. On that basis, it’s up to all of us to tell Morrison that:

  • It’s time to honour your October 2018 promise to protect LGBT students in religious schools against discrimination on the basis of who they are
  • It’s time to help LGBT kids thrive no matter which school they attend, and
  • It’s time to stop delaying this much-needed reform and just get it done already.

There are a variety of ways you can let him know your thoughts:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/ScottMorrisonMP

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/scottmorrison4cook

Email webform: https://www.pm.gov.au/contact-your-pm

Mail: The Hon Scott Morrison MP Prime Minister Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600

Telephone (Parliament House Office): (02) 6277 7700

Don’t forget to add a personal comment explaining why this issue is important to you.

Oh, and just in case Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese feels like he can avoid this issue, we also need the ALP to be much clearer on where it stands. In particular, we should be asking ‘Albo’:

  • Do you publicly commit to protecting LGBT students in religious schools against discrimination on the basis of who they are? and
  • Will you pass legislation giving effect to this commitment in the first six months of your term if you win the next federal election?

Anthony Albanese’s contact details include:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/AlboMP

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AlboMP

Email: A.Albanese.MP@aph.gov.au

Mail: The Hon Anthony Albanese MP PO Box 6022 House of Representatives Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600

Telephone (Parliament House Office): (02) 6277 4022

So, readers, it’s time to get writing/calling. Thanks in advance for standing up for LGBT kids.

*****

For LGBTI people, if this post has raised issues for you, please contact QLife on 1800 184 527, or via webchat: https://qlife.org.au/

Or contact Lifeline Australia on 13 11 14.

[Scott Morrison with Member for Wentworth, Dave Sharma]. Morrison first committed to protecting LGBT students in religious schools against discrimination during the October 2018 Wentworth by-election – a promise he has been running away from ever since.

Finally, 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

Friends, Jagged Little Pill and Transphobia in the NSW Legislative Council

In 1996, Australians were watching Friends and listening to Alanis Morissette while the NSW Upper House was the site of a toxic debate about trans law reform.

In 2021, Australians are watching the Friends Reunion, can book tickets to Jagged Little Pill: The Musical and the NSW Legislative Council is once again hosting hostile discussion about the rights of its trans citizens.

It is perhaps disappointing to realise how little progress has been made in terms of pop culture and representations of transgender people – with the Friends Reunion refusing to address the recurring transphobic jokes made at the expense of Chandler’s parent, and Jagged Little Pill: The Musical erasing the gender identity of a fictional nonbinary character on its journey to Broadway.

But it is downright depressing comparing the circumstances surrounding the Transgender (Anti-Discrimination and Other Acts) Act 1996 – which received royal assent 25 years ago this Saturday (19 June 1996) – and the current Parliamentary inquiry into the Education Legislation Amendment (Parental Rights) Bill 2020.

For a start, much of the language in the two debates, a quarter of a century apart, is disturbingly similar, with both deliberate misgendering,[i] and scaremongering about trans women in sports, playing starring roles in each.

With more than a hint of hyperbole, Liberal MLC Marlene Goldsmith declared in 1996 ‘This legislation will mean the end of women’s sports as a concept, an entitlement and a right.’

In 2021, Katherine Deves, speaking on behalf of something called ‘Save Women’s Sport Australasia’, complained that ‘gender identity’ requires women and girls ‘to forego their right to compete on a level playing field in sport because fair competition is destroyed, athletic opportunities are lost and players’ safety is completely disregarded.’

Meanwhile, any small advances – multiple references to ‘tranys’ in the 1996 Hansard[ii] thankfully haven’t been repeated more recently – don’t begin to overcome larger retreats elsewhere.

In the intervening 25 years, opponents of legal equality for trans people have pivoted from expressing pity about their plight, while dismissing trans issues as unimportant,[iii] to portraying trans people as potential predators, and a fundamental threat to ‘Western civilisation’.

This dramatic escalation in rhetoric comes not just from the mover of the latter Bill (One Nation’s Mark Latham, who described trans-inclusive education as ‘part of the post-modernist attack on the nuclear family’ in his Second Reading Speech), but also from multiple witnesses who appeared at April’s hearings into his horrific law.

For example, Mark Sneddon of the Institute for Civil Society said (rather uncivilly, and somewhat ominously) in supporting the Bill: ‘What we are trying to do – or what I understand this Bill is trying to do – is to reduce the social contagion influence of putting more people onto the conveyor belt of gender transition.’

Even fear campaigns about women’s bathrooms have worsened, rather than improved, over the past quarter century.

The only reference to toilets I could find in the 1996 Legislative Council debate came from Fred Nile (yes, the same one still sitting in that chamber), who said: ‘Because I am obviously not a woman, I do not know [how] a woman would feel to have a transsexual who was born a male sitting beside her in a woman’s washroom or powder room in a factory, office or club.’

In 2021, this argument has been weaponised, much more explicitly utilising the language of ‘threat’, with Terri Kelleher of the Australian Family Association giving evidence that ‘Is it not discrimination against natal girls if natal male students who identify as female are allowed to use their toilets, change rooms and showers and share overnight school camp accommodation? What about their right to feel safe and to their privacy in spaces where they may be in a state of undress or asleep?’ and later ‘Now, that is not saying that all males or all boys who identify as girls are going to be a threat, but it sets up a situation where that can occur. That is very serious in the light of the child-on-child sexual abuse in schools.’

And, although most participants in the 1996 debate seemed to at least accept that transgender people are who they say they are, by 2021 a number of extremists appearing before Latham’s Committee were regularly making points about high rates of ‘de-transitioning’ and distinguishing between ‘genuine’ and ‘non-genuine’ trans people, before citing ‘social contagion’ and ‘rapid onset gender dysphoria’ (despite all four arguments being completely unsupported by any evidence whatsoever).

However, the toxic atmosphere surrounding Latham’s anti-trans kids Bill, and the fact contemporary discussion seems to be even worse than it was two and a half decades ago, is merely one small part of much larger frustrations about the situation we find ourselves in today.

At the very least, the 1996 debate was about legislation that would ultimately deliver multiple steps forward for trans rights in this state. Not only did the Transgender (Anti-Discrimination and Other Acts) Act insert transgender as a protected attribute in the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, it also saw NSW become the first jurisdiction in Australia to legally prohibit transphobic vilification (something that still hasn’t happened under Commonwealth law, nor in Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory).

The same Act also amended the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 to allow transgender people who had undergone gender affirmation surgery to access identity documentation reflecting their gender identity.

These were genuinely historic reforms.

In contrast, the deceptively-named Education Legislation Amendment (Parental Rights) Bill 2020 seeks to completely erase real-life trans and nonbinary students from classrooms and schoolyards across NSW, censoring the curriculum and denying them affirmation and support from teachers, principals and even school counsellors.

As I have written elsewhere, this legislation is the worst legislative attack on LGBTI rights in Australia this century.

Some people might be tempted to dismiss this threat given it is merely the product of fringe extremists in the NSW Upper House (one of the chamber’s perennial features). Except the positions of the major parties on this Bill are, so far, worse than when a generation of young people were mislearning the definition of ironic (myself included).

Back then, the Carr Labor Government relentlessly pursued their reforms to anti-discrimination and birth certificate laws. And, while the Collins Liberal/National Opposition ultimately voted against them (because of baseless concerns about the impact of birth certificate changes to women’s sport, including nonsensical statements about the Sydney Olympics), they at least expressed in-principle support for trans anti-discrimination protections.[iv]

In contrast, in the 10 months since Latham introduced his legislative assault on trans kids, neither the Berejiklian Liberal/National Government nor the McKay, and now Minns, Labor Opposition have publicly condemned it.

Indeed, they both voted in the Legislative Council for the Bill to be considered in more detail by a Committee chaired by Latham himself, while the Liberal Parliamentary Secretary for Education Kevin Conolly has expressed his personal support for it.

In failing to reject Latham’s transphobia, could the major parties be any more pathetic?

But the most frustrating part of all is that we need to expend significant time and energy working to defend existing rights, instead of campaigning for improvements to those same reforms passed in 1996.

Because those changes were far from perfect, even when they were first passed.

For example, the amendments to the Anti-Discrimination Act inserted a definition of ‘recognised transgender person’, applying to people who have undergone gender affirmation surgery and had that recognised under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, even though it is irrelevant to determining whether anti-trans discrimination was prohibited under Part 3A (poor drafting which is still causing confusion in 2021, as demonstrated by transphobic discrimination by McIver’s Ladies Baths in Coogee earlier this year).

Unfortunately, neither the definition of ‘recognised transgender person’ nor Part 3A introduced protections against discrimination for trans and gender diverse people whose gender identity was nonbinary (instead only covering people who ‘identify as a member of the opposite sex’).[v]

The 1996 Anti-Discrimination Act reforms also permitted discrimination against trans students and teachers in publicly-funded ‘private educational authorities’, including (but not limited to) religious schools.[vi] Something that was difficult to justify 25 years ago, and is impossible to defend now.[vii]

Finally, in limiting access to updated birth certificates to people who have undergone gender affirmation surgery,[viii] the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act changes excluded the majority of trans and gender diverse people who are either unable to access such procedures (including for financial reasons) or who do not wish to. After all, trans people should be in control of their gender identity, not the(ir) doctor.

This weakness is not brand new information, either. The serious limitations of the birth certificate changes were raised by both Democrat[ix] and Greens MLCs[x] at the time.

Indeed, over the last decade, South Australia, the ACT, Northern Territory, Tasmania and Victoria have all removed any requirement for transgender people to have physically invasive medical treatment in order to obtain new identity documentation.

While the re-elected McGowan Labor Government in WA is under pressure to implement the recommendations of a 2018 WA Law Reform Commission Report which supported the same, and the Palaszczuk Labor Government has committed to introduce its own changes later this year.

Which means it is likely that at some point this term NSW will become the only jurisdiction in Australia which still requires trans people to undergo surgery to access a new birth certificate. Just in time to be subjected to (well-deserved) global scorn as Sydney hosts World Pride in February and March 2023.

Nevertheless, just as the Liberal, National and Labor Parties have refused to publicly reject Latham’s anti-trans kids Bill, none are currently promising to fix the problems in the Anti-Discrimination Act first introduced back in 1996, nor have any committed to finally bring the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act into the 21st century by allowing people to update their birth certificates without surgery or other physically invasive medical treatments.

This ongoing silence, on the fundamental human rights of the trans community, is simply not good enough. We really oughta know where the major parties stand on Latham’s anti-trans kids Bill, anti-discrimination reform and birth certificate requirements by now.

We must use whatever influence we have to demand more on these issues from our elected representatives. And by ‘we’ here I’m not talking about trans and gender diverse people, who are already fighting just for the ability to live their lives without discrimination, and to learn without erasure.

It’s time for cisgender members of the LGBT community, as well as our cis-het allies, to step up, and put pressure on Gladys Berejiklian and her Cabinet, and Chris Minns and his Shadow Ministers, to prioritise the dignity and equality of NSW’s trans and nonbinary citizens.

We must do so urgently, too. Because right now, trans and gender diverse people have very few friends in the NSW Legislative Council, and NSW Parliament more broadly.

While there remains a real chance their legal rights will go backwards, rather than forwards, in the near future. Which would be a very jagged little pill to swallow.

*****

Take Action

Following correspondence I sent in February calling on NSW MPs to reject the Education Legislation Amendment (Parental Rights) Bill 2020, today I sent the below short email to the Premier, Opposition Leader, and the Education Minister and Attorney General, plus their shadows. I encourage you to do the same (their contact details are included underneath the text):

Dear Premier

I am writing to urge you to publicly oppose the Education Legislation Amendment (Parental Rights) Bill 2020, legislation which would erase trans and nonbinary students from classrooms and schoolyards across NSW, as well as censor the curriculum and deny them access to affirmation and support from teachers, principals and even school counsellors.

This Bill is the worst legislative attack on LGBTI rights anywhere in Australia this century. It is simply not good enough that, more than 10 months after it was introduced, the people of NSW still don’t know whether you and your Party condemn or condone the harm it will inevitably cause.

Nor is it good enough that trans and gender diverse people in NSW are forced to live with second-rate anti-discrimination and identity documentation laws.

Therefore, I also urge you to publicly commit to amend the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 to:

  • Remove the unnecessary and confusing definition of ‘recognised transgender person’,
  • Replace the protected attribute of ‘transgender’ with an attribute of ‘gender identity’ and a definition which ensures nonbinary people are protected against discrimination, and
  • Remove the special privileges which allow publicly-funded ‘private educational authorities’, including religious schools, to discriminate against trans and gender diverse students and teachers simply because of who they are.

Finally, I urge you to amend the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 to allow trans and gender diverse people to self-determine their gender identity without the need for physically invasive medical treatment, such as surgery, as well as to recognise a wider range of gender identities, including nonbinary.

If the NSW Parliament fails to amend these laws, it is highly likely we will soon be the only jurisdiction in Australia which places this unfair and unnecessary barrier in front of its trans and gender diverse citizens. These hurdles must be removed as a matter of priority.

Sincerely

Alastair Lawrie

*****

Premier Gladys Berejiklian webform: https://www.nsw.gov.au/premier-of-nsw/contact-premier

Education Minister Sarah Mitchell webform: https://www.nsw.gov.au/nsw-government/ministers/minister-for-education-and-early-childhood-learning

Attorney General Mark Speakman webform: https://www.nsw.gov.au/nsw-government/contact-a-minister/attorney-general-and-minister-for-prevention-of-domestic-and-sexual-violence

Opposition Leader Chris Minns email: kogarah@parliament.nsw.gov.au

Deputy Opposition Leader and Shadow Minister for Education Prue Car email: londonderry@parliament.nsw.gov.au

Shadow Attorney General Michael Daley email: maroubra@parliament.nsw.gov.au

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] In the 1996 debate, trans women were erroneously described by opponents as ‘transsexual males’, while in the 2021 hearings trans girls were commonly called ‘biological males’ or ‘natal males’. Mark Latham also deliberately used the deadname of a prominent transgender Australian on 20 April.

[ii] The term ‘tranys’ was used by both supporters and opponents of the 1996 legislation, perhaps indicating that this language did not carry the same pejorative connotations it does today. Either way, it was confronting seeing the frequency with which the term was used back then.

[iii] National Party MLC Duncan Gay opposed the 1996 reforms, stating: ‘I am going to be brief in my opposition to this bill. I am amazed about the amount of time spent by honourable members on what I believe is the most stupid and most unnecessary bill to ever come before this Parliament.’

[iv] With Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council, John Hannaford, stating: ‘I accept the need to deal with discrimination against members of the transgender community. I acknowledge that violence is committed against such members of the community and also that those members suffer discrimination. It is necessary to address such elements of violence and discrimination.’

[v] Unfortunately, this problem – only protecting trans people with binary gender identities – is shared by the anti-discrimination laws of Queensland, Western Australian and the Northern Territory. For more, see: A Quick Guide to Australian LGBTI Anti-Discrimination Laws.  

[vi] One of many reasons why the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act is the worst LGBTI anti-discrimination law in Australia. For more, see: What’s Wrong with the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977?

[vii] Disturbingly, these represent only the most prominent of the problems with trans protections in the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act. One of the provisions inserted in 1996 provided an exception allowing discrimination by superannuation funds:

‘Section 38Q: A person does not discriminate against a transgender person (whether or not a recognised transgender person) on transgender grounds if, in the administration of a superannuation or provident fund or scheme, the other person treats the transgender person as being of the opposite sex to the sex with which the transgender person identifies.’

Interestingly, the then Attorney General, Jeff Shaw, made the following comment about this provision in his Second Reading Speech:

‘Granting legal recognition also has implications for the superannuation sector in terms of differential contributions and benefits. These implications have not yet been fully determined. The legislation therefore provides for an exemption to legal recognition in this area. Nevertheless, I wish to advise the House that the Government is currently examining this matter with a view to possible further amendments at a later date.’

Except, as you’ve probably guessed by now, those changes never happened – and this exception remains, with the exact same wording, today.

[viii] Interestingly, the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 provisions were amended in 2008, to replace the original terminology of ‘sexual reassignment surgery’ with ‘sexual affirmation procedure’, but the requirement for surgery was not altered.

[ix] Democrat MLC Elisabeth Kirby stated: ‘Although I support the Government’s amendments to the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages Act, I request that the Government give serious future consideration to an expansion of the criteria under which a new birth certificate can be obtained’ before highlighting that only a minority of transgender people undergo surgery.

[x] Greens MLC Ian Cohen also expressed his ‘reservations’ about ‘the certificate provisions not including transgender members of our community who, for whatever reasons, decline surgical intervention’ and later that ‘By using medical interventions as the benchmark for altering documents of identity, the legislation leaves out in the cold 80 per cent of the transgender members of our community who do not avail themselves of medical interventions.’ Perhaps with misplaced confidence he subsequently noted that ‘I am certain that with the passage of time this flaw will be recognised and rectified.’ Well, we’re now at 25 years and counting…

A Pride Flag for NSW

Today (26 March 2021) marks exactly ten years since the election of the NSW Liberal/National Government.

In that decade, and especially in their early years, they have passed a few important LGBT law reforms, including the long-overdue abolition of the homosexual advance defence (or ‘gay panic’ defence) in 2014 and establishing a scheme to expunge historical criminal records for same-sex intercourse in the same year.

However, the pace of reform has slowed markedly in recent times. The last new LGBTI laws were both passed in 2018, with the removal of ‘forced trans divorce’ (although this was necessitated by the passage of marriage equality in Commonwealth law, while NSW failed to seize the opportunity to amend identity laws more generally) and the introduction of an offence for publicly threatening or inciting violence against others, including on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status (although it replaced existing criminal vilification offences on the basis of homosexuality and transgender status, and as far as I am aware has not been enforced since it commenced).

Indeed, with this week also marking the halfway point of the Liberal/National Government’s third term, there have been no new laws passed addressing LGBTI issues since then, and none appear to be on the horizon.

This is not because the job of LGBTI law reform in NSW is complete. Far from it. As I have written previously, NSW now has the worst LGBT laws in Australia, and is only saved from that title with respect to intersex issues because some other jurisdictions are similarly appalling.

At least part of the problem is that many people, both inside and especially outside our communities, erroneously believe the struggle is over. Which is where my idea for a pride flag for NSW comes in.

From my perspective, the pride flag is inherently political. A symbol of our strength and resilience in overcoming anti-LGBTI prejudice and abuse, as well as a reminder to continue fighting until all lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people are truly ‘free and equal’.

With that in mind, here is what I think the six colours of the ‘traditional’ pride flag[i] could stand for in NSW today, as a way of bringing attention to at least some of the essential reforms which are still yet to be won here.

Red: Ban conversion practices

Anti-gay and anti-trans conversion practices (sometimes described as ‘ex-gay’ or ‘ex-trans’ therapy) continue in Australia today. Several jurisdictions have already taken steps to ban these practices, with general prohibitions, including in religious environments, now law in Victoria and the ACT, and a more limited ban, only covering health settings, in Queensland. Other states, including Tasmania, are actively considering their own legislation.

To date, the Berejiklian Liberal/National Government has given no firm indication they are considering laws to outlaw these destructive practices. They need to be pressured into taking urgent action to stop them.

Amber/Orange: Protect LGBT students & teachers

By now, we are all familiar with ‘amber alerts’ in the media to draw attention to vulnerable children in danger. Well, every day in NSW there should be an amber alert for LGBT kids – because, in 2021, religious schools are still legally permitted to discriminate against them on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

That is in part because of Scott Morrison’s broken promise from 2018 to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1984(Cth) to remove the special privileges allowing religious schools to abuse, mistreat, suspend or even expel students just because of who they are.

But it is also because the Berejiklian Liberal/National Government refuses to repeal the special privileges contained in its own law, the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW). Indeed, the exceptions in NSW are actually worse, because they permit all private schools, colleges and universities to discriminate, not just those that are religious (making NSW the only jurisdiction in Australia to do so).

Of course, LGBT students are not the only victims of such discrimination. The same provisions also allow private educational authorities to discriminate against LGBT teachers.

If we genuinely want our schools to be safe learning environments where all people are encouraged to reach their full potential, then the NSW Government must protect both LGBT students and teachers from discrimination.

Yellow: End coercive intersex surgeries

As I have written elsewhere, the worst human rights abuses currently affecting any part of the Australian LGBTI community are coercive medical treatments, including surgeries and other interventions, on children born with intersex variations of sex characteristics.

These egregious human rights violations carry lifelong consequences which is why they must be deferred until intersex people can consent, or not consent, to them. Some jurisdictions, including Tasmania and the ACT, appear to be moving in that direction. As yet, there is no sign of similar progress in NSW.

[NB The yellow comes from the intersex pride flag, which is yellow and purple.]

Green: Improve birth certificate access

NSW now has the equal worst birth certificate laws in Australia, alongside Queensland. 

Under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 (NSW), trans and gender diverse people must undergo ‘a surgical procedure involving the alteration of a person’s reproductive organs… for the purpose of assisting a person to be considered a member of the opposite sex’ before being allowed to update their birth certificate to reflect their gender identity.

This requirement is both unnecessary and inappropriate, especially when some people may not wish to undergo such surgeries, while others cannot afford to do so given the prohibitive costs involved.

NSW has fallen behind the majority of other Australian jurisdictions which have updated their birth certificate laws to allow access based on self-identification only (which is best practice), or at least without physical medical interventions. It is time the Government gave the green light to trans and gender diverse people here to access birth certificates without any medical gate-keeping.

Blue[ii]: Trans discrimination law reform

Trans and gender diverse people in NSW are also let down by confusing and outdated anti-discrimination protections, as amply demonstrated by the controversy surrounding discriminatory efforts to prevent trans women who have not undergone surgery from accessing McIver’s Ladies Baths in Coogee.

On one hand, there is a definition of ‘recognised transgender person’ in section 4 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) which some people might, mistakenly, try to use to justify limiting access on the basis of surgery:

‘recognised transgender person means a person the record of whose sex is altered under Part 5A of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995[iii] or under the corresponding provisions of a law of another Australian jurisdiction.’

Except the substantive protections against transgender discrimination apply irrespective of whether the person has had surgery. According to section 38A:

‘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’ [emphasis added].

Which means discriminating against transgender women who have not had surgery would probably be found to be unlawful.

Given this, the misleading definition of ‘recognised transgender person’ should be removed from section 4.

However, that would still not address a far bigger problem, including with the broader definition in section 38A: it likely only applies to people with ‘binary’ gender identities, because of its use of the outdated concept of ‘opposite sex’.

In other words, non-binary people in NSW are not explicitly covered by the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. The NSW Government must remedy this by replacing ‘transgender’ with ‘gender identity’, potentially based on the definition in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth):

‘gender identity means the gender-related identity, appearance or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of a person (whether by way of medical intervention or not), with or without regard to the person’s designated sex at birth’.

Lavender/Purple: Bisexual discrimination law reform

The definition of transgender is not the only outdated terminology in the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW). The other protected attribute covering (some parts) of the LGBTI community is currently ‘homosexual.’ Section 4 of the Act defines that term to mean ‘male or female homosexual.’

That narrow definition means NSW’s anti-discrimination laws are the only such laws in Australia that fail to protect bisexuals against discrimination.

This omission is truly appalling. It is well beyond time for the NSW Government to update the Anti-Discrimination Act to cover sexual orientation generally, in line with other jurisdictions including the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984:

‘sexual orientation means a person’s sexual orientation towards:

(a) persons of the same sex; or

(b) persons of a different sex; or

(c) persons of the same sex and persons of a different sex.’

[NB The lavender comes from the bisexual pride flag, which is pink, lavender and blue.]

The six issues discussed above are of course not an exhaustive list. There are plenty of other LGBTI laws and policies which also need to be amended by NSW to provide genuine equality to its citizens irrespective of sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics.[iv]

But, in my opinion, these are some of the most essential reforms in order for people to feel pride that we are making real progress in overcoming homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and intersexphobia.

I started this article by highlighting the fact today is the 10th anniversary of the election of the NSW Liberal/National Government.

Coincidentally, today also marks 100 weeks until the planned opening ceremony of World Pride 2023 in Sydney.

That means Premier Gladys Berejiklian has exactly 100 weeks to deliver on each of the six issues identified here.

If her Liberal/National Government fails to make these long-overdue and much-needed changes in that time, then I suggest we fly this ‘pride flag for NSW’ at half-mast during that opening ceremony to acknowledge the damage inflicted and pain caused by their ongoing inaction.

If you have enjoyed reading this post, you can sign up to receive updates about this and other issues from this blog, via the right-hand scroll bar on desktop, or near the bottom of the page on mobile. You can also follow me on twitter @alawriedejesus [NB Given the events of the past month – with this website being blocked by Facebook for being ‘news’ – it is more important than ever to sign up if you want to receive updates, especially with the possibility of further disruptions].

Footnotes:


[i] I also personally support the newer ‘Progress’ version of the pride flag, incorporating both elements of the trans flag, and black and brown stripes to represent people of colour.

[ii] The blue here could either represent part of the trans pride flag – which is blue, pink and white – or the blue of the Pacific Ocean at McIver’s Ladies Baths.

[iii] Which, as we have seen, only allows the granting of new identity documentation following invasive surgeries.

[iv] Indeed, the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) also needs to be updated to include a new protected attribute of ‘sex characteristics’ covering intersex people, and to remove the general exception in section 56(d) which allows a wide range of religious organisations to discriminate against LGBT employees and people accessing their services.

Letter to WA Political Parties re Anti-Discrimination and Birth Certificate Reform

The writs for the Western Australian state election will be issued at 6pm today (3 February 2021). The upcoming poll, on Saturday 13 March, is an opportunity to make long-overdue progress on a range of important policy issues affecting the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) community.

As with elections last year in the Northern Territory, Australian Capital Territory and Queensland, I am writing to political parties contesting the WA election asking for their commitments on LGBTI law reform.

While there are a variety of different policy issues that must be addressed, my letter focuses on two areas where I have the most expertise:

  • Reform of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA),[i] and
  • Changes to identity documentation for trans and gender diverse people.[ii]

This letter has been sent to the leaders of the WA Labor Party, Liberal Party and National Party, as well as to all MLCs from other parties: The Greens; One Nation; Liberal Democrats; Shooters, Fishers and Farmers; and Western Australia Party. As with previous elections, I will post any responses I receive from these parties below.

*****

Given the upcoming Western Australian state election, I am writing to ask about your Party’s positions on two important issues for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) community.

I do so as a long-term advocate for the LGBTI community, including via my website www.alastairlawrie.net where I focus on anti-discrimination and anti-vilification law reform around Australia, among other topics.

The first issue I would like to ask about is reform of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA), which is necessary to address its serious shortcomings in relation to discrimination against and vilification of LGBTI people in Western Australia. Specifically:

  1. Will you protect intersex people against discrimination by introducing a new protected attribute of ‘sex characteristics’?
  2. Will you protect all trans and gender diverse people against discrimination by replacing the current inappropriate, ineffective and outdated protected attribute of discrimination against ‘a gender reassigned person on gender history grounds’ with a protected attribute of ‘gender identity’?
  3. Will you protect LGBT students, teachers and other staff at religious schools against discrimination by removing the special privileges which currently allow them to discriminate?
  4. Will you protect LGBT employees at, and people accessing services from, religious organisations in health, housing and other community services against discrimination by amending religious exceptions generally, based on the best practice approach in Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Act 1998?
  5. Will you protect LGBTI people against hate speech by introducing prohibitions on vilification on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics?

The second issue I would like to ask about is access to identity documentation, including birth certificates, for trans and gender diverse people, which is another area where Western Australia’s legislative approach has fallen far behind most other jurisdictions. Specifically:

  1. Will you allow trans and gender diverse people to update their birth certificates and other identity documents without requiring surgery, other medical treatments or counselling?
  2. Will you allow trans and gender diverse people to update their birth certificates and other identity documents based on self-identification alone?
  3. Will you allow trans and gender diverse people to update their birth certificates and other identity documents by identifying as male, female, non-binary or ‘other, please specify’, in line with recent reforms in both Tasmania and Victoria?

Thank you in advance for your prompt consideration of this request. Please note that any answers provided will be published via my website, to assist LGBTI people in Western Australia make an informed choice on Saturday 13 March.

Please do not hesitate to contact me, at the details provided, should you require clarification of the above.

Sincerely

Alastair Lawrie

*****

Update: 13 February 2021

During the week, I received the first formal Party response to the above correspondence, from the WA Greens. Their commitments are reproduced below:

Dear Alastair

Thank you for your email to WA Greens MPs.

I am pleased to advise that the Greens are committed to removing discrimination on the grounds of gender identity or sexuality from all federal and state laws. We want the process for legal recognition of gender in Western Australia to be simplified and for Western Australian birth certificates to have an X gender marker, in line with most of the rest of Australia.

The Greens (WA) will encourage and support legislation and actions that ensure that intersex and transgender people, without undertaking surgeries, are able to alter their sex on all official documents, consistent with how they live and identify, and irrespective of their marital status.

As the Member for the North Metropolitan Region and Greens (WA) spokesperson I have been a long term advocate in this space. In 2018 I introduced a Private Members Bill into the WA Legislative Council, the Equal Opportunity (LGBTIQ Anti-Discrimination) Amendment Bill 2018, seeking to end discrimination against LGBTIQ parents, students and staff by religious schools. Disappointingly, this bill has not received the support necessary from other political parties for it to be passed and to become law.

The Greens will continue to fight to remove all exceptions in the Equal Opportunity Act that permit discrimination against people on the basis of their gender identity and/or sexuality.

If you would like more information, the Greens (WA) Sexuality & LGBTQIA+ Issues and Gender Identity policies provide more information about our party’s commitments in these areas.

The Greens have also proposed a WA Charter of Rights to provide further protections against rights-based infringements including discrimination.

Thank you for your interest and advocacy in this important area.

Kind regards

Alison

Hon Alison Xamon MLC (BA, LLB, Cert IV HS, Cert Adv Arb)

Member for the North Metropolitan Region, Legislative Council, Parliament of Western Australia

*****

Update: 25 February 2021

On Tuesday (23 February 2021), I received the following reply from the Leader of the WA Nationals, Mia Davies, which, as you will see, does not give specific commitments on either LGBTI anti-discrimination law reform or improved access to birth certificates for trans and gender diverse people – other than that Nationals MPs would be granted conscience votes on both issues.

Dear Mr Lawrie

2021 STATE ELECTION: LGBTI LEGISLATIVE REFORM

Thank you for your correspondence dated 3 February 2021. I appreciate your advocacy in relation to LGBTI legislation and the need for reform.

One of the founding principles of The Nationals WA is that regional West Australians deserve access to relevant services and protections against discrimination, regardless of their postcode. As you would be aware the day-to-day issues faced by LGBTI people are often exacerbated by remoteness and isolation from services and support networks.

If legislation to resolve the issues raised was introduced to Parliament, voting on it would be a matter of conscience for Members of The Nationals WA team. I encourage you to send your questions to each local candidate in The Nationals WA team for their individual responses. Their details can be found on our website http://www.nationalswa.com/

Although not specific to LGBTI individuals and families, The Nationals WA have made the following election commitments to date which may be of interest:

-$15 million for an office of the State Rural Health Commissioner, to complement the work done at a national level. This office would be independent of Government, providing advice and reporting on rural and regional health concerns.

-$140 million for regional mental health services, including demographically targeted funding for regional community support hours.

Further details on these and other election commitments can be found on our website.

Yours sincerely

Hon Mia Davies MLA

LEADER

Footnotes:


[i] For example, see What’s wrong with Western Australia’s Equal Opportunity Act 1984?  and A Quick Guide to Australian LGBTI Anti-Discrimination Laws.

[ii] For example, see Identity, Not Surgery and Did You Know? Trans People in NSW and Queensland Still Require Surgery to Update Their Birth Certificates.

LGBTIQ Law Reform Priorities for 2021

ANU Gender Identity + Sexuality Law Moot Webinar Presentation

In October 2020, I was invited to be a judge for the round robin stage of the inaugural ANU Gender Identity + Sexuality Law Moot. In the lead-up to the moot itself, I participated in a webinar for participants about the state of LGBTIQ law reform in Australia, including being asked to address the following two questions:

What are, in your view, the most significant issues that need legal reform with respect to LGBTIQ rights and inclusion? and

How can we ensure that workplaces are inclusive and safe for people from all backgrounds but in particular for the LGBTIQ community?

While the panel ultimately adopted a more ‘free-wheeling’ approach to its discussion, I prepared the below, more detailed responses to these questions. Now that, at the end of a busy year, I’ve finally had the chance to tidy them up, I thought they might be worth sharing. I’m also keen to hear other people’s views, including on what you think the most significant issues that need legal reform are today – please leave your comments below.

**********

Question 1. What are, in your view, the most significant issues that need legal reform with respect to LGBTIQ rights and inclusion?

Despite what many people might assume – and what far too many members of our political and media classes seem to believe following the recognition of LGBTI marriage in 2017 – there remain a large number of outstanding legal reforms necessary for LGBTIQ rights and inclusion in 2020 [and I guess we can say 2021 now, too]. The following are my top three:

  1. Ending coercive medical interventions on children born with intersex variations of sex characteristics

Intersex people, and especially children born with intersex variations of sex characteristics, currently experience the worst human rights abuses of any group within the Australian LGBTIQ community.

Intersex people are born with physical sex characteristics that do not neatly fit medical norms for female or male bodies. Infants, children, adolescents and adults born with intersex variations risk or suffer forced and coercive medical interventions, designed to make their bodies more typically female or male. These interventions are not medically necessary, but instead rely on social or cultural rationales.[i]

The consequences of early and unnecessary deferrable interventions can include pain, trauma, shame, loss of sexual function and sensation, urinary incontinence and urgency, a need for ongoing medical treatment or repeat surgeries, experiences of violation and sexual assault, reinforcement of incorrect sex assignment and loss of choice.

These coercive medical interventions breach a large number of human rights principles, including the right to bodily integrity. They also adversely impact on rights to liberty, security, non-discrimination, privacy and freedom from torture, experimentation and harmful practices.

Unfortunately, coercive medical interventions on intersex people, and especially children born with intersex variations, have not been legally prohibited in any Australian jurisdiction. 

Instead, they are self-governed by clinical guidelines which support coercive interventions despite a lack of supporting medical evidence. And they are enabled by a legal system, including family law, which have permitted coercive interventions on the basis of (often poorly-informed) parental consent. The most infamous decision was the 2016 Family Court decision of Re: Carla, although it was merely one of a long line to contravene the human rights of intersex children.

In terms of law reform, there has been disappointingly little progress in this area. This month (October 2020) marks seven years since a bipartisan Senate Committee recommended new guidelines be developed that ‘should favour deferral of normalising treatment until the person can give fully informed consent, and seek to minimise surgical intervention on infants undertaken for primarily psychosocial reasons’ (among other recommendations).[ii]

Unfortunately, the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison Governments have effectively done nothing to implement even these modest proposals.

More encouragingly, in June 2020 the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute released the final report of its inquiry into the legal recognition of sex and gender. It made a number of recommendations about intersex law reform, including:

Recommendation 7

The Criminal Code should be reformed to criminalise non-consensual medical interventions in the following terms:

178F Unnecessary medical intervention to change the sex characteristics of children.

(1) Any person who performs a surgical, hormonal or other medical intervention to alter or modify the sex characteristics of a child is guilty of a crime, unless:

(a) it is performed to address a clear danger to the life or health of the child and it cannot be deferred until the child is able to give informed consent; or

(b) it takes place with the informed consent of the child.

(2) Nothing in this Section is intended to apply to interventions involving a consenting transgender child seeking treatment to delay puberty or secondary sexual differentiation.

Charge: Performing unnecessary medical intervention to change the sex characteristics of a non-consenting child.

Recommendation 8 of that report also recommended that:

‘intersex people should be able to pursue claims for compensation for personal trespass and breach of professional duty against doctors where medical interventions to alter intersex variations of sex characteristics have resulted in physical or mental harm, irrespective of any parental consent to the intervention at the time it was performed.’

The Tasmanian Government is now considering these recommendations, meaning it is possible it will become the first Australian jurisdiction to criminalise coercive medical interventions on children born with intersex variations.

Before moving on, I should note the Australian Human Rights Commission has also been undertaking a long-running project on these issues.[iii] I understand it is (finally) nearing completion, and my personal hope is it recommends all Australian jurisdictions criminalise these human rights abuses.

2. Trans and gender diverse birth certificate reform

Trans and gender diverse people should have access to birth certificates, and other identity documentation, based solely on self-identification, and without medical approval (because gender identity is exactly that, identity, and not a ‘medical’ issue). Currently only one Australian jurisdiction has completely achieved this model: Tasmania, following its historic 2019 birth certificate reforms.

Victoria is a close second, also following changes in 2019, which removed the involvement of medical gatekeepers, although unfortunately it does not fully realise self-identification, because applications must be accompanied by a statement from someone who has known the applicant for at least 12 months and ‘supports’ the application.

Three other jurisdictions – South Australia, the ACT and the Northern Territory – have removed requirements for surgery or other physically invasive treatments. However, they still adopt a medical model, because they require engagement with psychologists or counsellors prior to approval. Ultimately, these laws will need to be updated.

However, the largest problems are in the other three states. NSW and Queensland still require surgery in order to access new identity documents, which is completely inappropriate not just because it unnecessarily medicalises gender identity, but also because not all trans and gender diverse people want surgery (or can afford it).[iv]

Western Australia’s legislation also requires surgery, although thanks to a favourable High Court decision, this has been interpreted to ‘only’ require some forms of physical treatment (such as hormone therapy).

Nevertheless, all three states – NSW, Queensland and Western Australia – must urgently amend their births, deaths and marriages laws to support self-identification for their trans and gender diverse residents [for more on this topic, see Did You Know? Trans People in NSW and Queensland Still Require Surgery to Update Their Birth Certificates].

3. LGBTIQ refugees in Papua New Guinea and Nauru

One LGBTIQ human rights abuse that is not technically in Australia, but is perpetrated by Australia, is the detention, processing and resettlement of LGBTIQ refugees and people seeking asylum in countries that criminalise them.

In particular, there remain LGBTIQ refugees and people seeking asylum who are trapped in Papua New Guinea – because the Australia Government put them there – a country which retains a maximum penalty of up to 14 years imprisonment for male same-sex activity.

And, even though Nauru decriminalised homosexuality in 2016, that does not necessarily translate into it being a safe environment for the LGBTIQ refugees and people seeking asylum which the Australian Government imprisoned there.

Of course, for anyone interested in international human rights law, all offshore detention, processing and resettlement is abhorrent, and should be ended for all refugees irrespective of their sexual orientation, gender identity or sex characteristics (or other attributes).

However, we must not overlook the fact Australia’s immigration framework has a particularly awful impact on people fleeing persecution on the basis of being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex or queer. They should be brought to Australia immediately.[v]

Anti-Discrimination Reform

While there is no individual LGBTI anti-discrimination law reform issue which is as important as the above three topics, I would argue that addressing our inadequate, incomplete and inconsistent LGBTI anti-discrimination and vilification framework overall must also be a high priority. Specifically, the majority of Commonwealth, state and territory anti-discrimination laws should be updated across three main areas:

Ensuring everyone is protected against discrimination. Most state and territory laws currently exclude at least some parts of our community. The NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 is the worst – it doesn’t even protect bisexuals.[vi] While NSW, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory don’t cover people with non-binary gender identities – and the same jurisdictions exclude intersex people as well.

Repealing the special privileges enjoyed by religious organisations. Loopholes allow faith bodies to discriminate against LGBT people, in employment and against people accessing services, even when they are delivering public services using public funding. Nearly all Australian anti-discrimination laws, including the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), need to be reformed – although the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 provides a template for how this can be done, by permitting religious organisations to preference people from their own faith (in limited circumstances), while not allowing discrimination on the basis of other attributes like sexual orientation or gender identity.[vii]

Obviously, the religious exceptions which have received the most public debate, at least in the past few years, are those allowing religious schools to discriminate against LGBT students, teachers and other staff. Positively, four jurisdictions (Tasmania, Queensland, the ACT and Northern Territory) have already legislated to cover LGBT students, although only two (Tasmania and the ACT) fully protect LGBT teachers and other staff. On the negative side, Scott Morrison’s Broken Promise to Protect LGBT Students is Now Two Years Old, and there’s little chance he will act on it for several years to come either.

Introducing prohibitions on anti-LGBTI vilification. There is currently no prohibition on anti-LGBTI vilification under Commonwealth law. Although they are by no means alone – currently Most Australian Jurisdictions Don’t Prohibit Anti-LGBTI Vilification. Of those that do (NSW, Queensland, Tasmania and the ACT), only Tasmania and the ACT protect all sections of the LGBTI community. Given homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and intersexphobia are just as damaging, and harmful, as racism, I firmly believe anti-LGBTI vilification should be prohibited on the same basis as racial vilification (equivalent to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth)). 

[For more on the overall state of LGBTI anti-discrimination and vilification law, see A Quick Guide to Australian LGBTI Anti-Discrimination Laws.]

Other LGBTIQ Law Reform Issues

There are a range of other LGBTIQ law reform issues which still need to be addressed, including:

  • Sexual orientation and gender identity conversion practices (sometimes called ex-gay or ex-trans therapy) should be outlawed across Australia. The Queensland Government recently introduced the first ban on these practices – although disappointingly it only applied in health care settings, and not in the religious environments where most anti-gay and anti-trans conversion practices occur. The ACT Government followed shortly thereafter, and their legislation has been welcomed by survivor groups because it covers both health care and religious settings. I understand that there are also moves to outlaw these practices in Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia – although sadly not in my adopted home state of NSW [NB Since the webinar, Victoria has introduced their own Bill to ban conversion practices, which appears to be stronger than both Queensland and the ACT, while the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute has released an Issues Paper on ‘Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Conversion Practices’, with submissions due 7 January 2021].
  • South Australia still needs to abolish the gay panic defence (or homosexual advance defence). Thankfully, after much prompting, the South Australian Government has finally released draft legislation that does just that, for public consultation. Hopefully it is finally removed from the statute books later this year or in early 2021. [NB South Australian Parliament passed legislation finally abolishing the gay panic defence on 1 December 2020].
  • Expungement regimes – which allow for historical convictions for same-sex sexual activity to be expunged from a person’s criminal record – should also be strengthened. In particular, there is a serious limitation in the Queensland scheme, which does not allow gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men who were convicted as a result of the unequal age of consent for anal intercourse between 1991 and 2016 to have their records expunged,[viii] and
  • The Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) needs to be amended to remove the unjustified special privileges that were introduced for existing civil celebrants, and religious organisations, as part of the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017. Note that I usually do not refer to that legislation as providing ‘marriage equality’ as a result of these exceptions, because they mean LGBTI couples marrying now can be discriminated against in ways that divorced people remarrying before 2017 could not. We can get married, but it is still not equal.[ix]

Protecting Existing Rights

Some people take the quote ‘the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice’ a little too literally, and consequently fail to appreciate LGBTIQ rights can go backwards. Something which has happened multiple times in the past decade, including the Newman LNP Government in Queensland winding back civil partnership laws passed by the Bligh Labor Government.

In the area of anti-discrimination, we should also remember the Baillieu Coalition Government in Victoria undid the introduction of a modest ‘inherent requirements’ test for religious exceptions passed by the Brumby Labor Government in 2010 – before they had even commenced. While the Hodgman Liberal Government tried multiple times to undermine vilification protections for LGBTI Tasmanians (and other groups) as long as that vilification was religiously-motivated (although thankfully those efforts failed).

There are currently three major efforts to undermine LGBTIQ rights:

The Commonwealth Government’s proposed Religious Discrimination Bill, of which we have seen two Exposure Drafts and was due to be introduced in March 2020 but has been delayed because of the coronavirus pandemic. This legislation would:

  • Make it easier to make comments that ‘offend, humiliate, intimidate, insult or ridicule’ LGBTI Australians
  • Make it easier for health practitioners to refuse to provide services to LGBTI patients
  • Make it easier for religious organisations to discriminate against others
  • Make it more difficult for big business to promote diversity and inclusion
  • Create a Religious Freedom Commissioner at the Australian Human Rights Commission (when we still don’t have a Commissioner for Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Sex Characteristics)
  • Entrench unjustified religious exceptions in the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth), and
  • Explicitly protect charities advocating against LGBTI relationship recognition in the Charities Act 2013 (Cth), despite it being completely unnecessary.

[For more, see The ‘Bad Faith’ Religious Discrimination Bill Must Be Blocked.] 

The Mark Latham/One Nation Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Religious Freedoms and Equality) Bill 2020 in NSW, which, similar to the Commonwealth Religious Discrimination Bill, seeks to privilege the rights of religious individuals and organisations over the rights of others, including the right of LGBTI people in NSW to be protected against discrimination [since the webinar, I had this opinion piece published in the Sydney Morning Herald, outlining just one of the many serious problems created by the NSW ‘Religious Freedoms’ Bill], and

The Mark Latham/One Nation Education Legislation Amendment (Parental Rights) Bill 2020, also in NSW. This legislation does (at least) three awful things:

  • Prohibiting the teaching of ‘gender fluidity’ – where teaching includes anything to do with a school (including counselling) by anyone connected to a school (including volunteers), and ‘gender fluidity’ means acknowledging that gender identity can be different to biological sex at birth. In effect, it will mean erasing trans and gender diverse students, as well as teachers, in schools across NSW
  • Introducing a UK section 28-style law against ‘promotion’ of ideological views about sexuality and gender identity – which, just like section 28 did there, will impose a silence on LGBT students struggling with invisibility at the most vulnerable point in their lives, and
  • Enacting an erroneous and stigmatising definition of intersex in NSW law for the first time (‘disorders of sexual differentiation’).

[For more, see I Stand with Trans Kids, and Against Mark Latham.]

Of course, ordinarily, we wouldn’t be too concerned about legislation being proposed by fringe extremists in the NSW Legislative Council. However, the NSW Government and Opposition have both supported both One Nation Bills being referred to Committee for inquiry – with the anti-trans kids inquiry chaired by Mark Latham himself. Which means we must resist the laws themselves, as well as fighting against toxic debate surrounding them which has the potential to harm vulnerable younger members of our community, and especially trans and gender diverse kids.

**********

Question 2. How can we ensure that workplaces are inclusive and safe for people from all backgrounds but in particular for the LGBTIQ community?

My answer to this will (thankfully) be significantly shorter than for the previous question, in part because we’ve already discussed some of the reforms that are needed, especially in terms of anti-discrimination law reform, such as repealing the special privileges that allow religious organisations to discriminate against LGBT employees.

This includes amending the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) to protect LGBT teachers in religious schools, as well as reforms in the other jurisdictions where LGBT school staff are not fully protected (all states and territories bar Tasmania and the ACT).[x]

It also means ensuring LGBT employees in Government-funded aged care services operated by religious organisations are protected (where people accessing these services are currently covered under the SDA, but staff in those same facilities are not). There are several reasons for this, including because it is unfair on employees:

‘People should be hired, not hired or even fired, on the basis of how well they are able to provide care and support to the people accessing aged care services, not who they are attracted to or how they identify.’[xi]

It is also unfair on people accessing these services, who ‘have the right to expect the highest possible standard of care. That is not provided when an aged care service refuses to employ highly-qualified people simply because they are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.’[xii]

The same reasons also apply in terms of fighting against the Commonwealth Government’s proposed Religious Discrimination Bill, especially in the era of coronavirus. That’s because the 2nd Exposure Draft Religious Discrimination Bill allows hospitals to hire the most religious, not the most qualified: 

‘Surely, that must have an impact on the standard of care that patients will receive. Imagine the worry if one of your loved ones is taken to the emergency department of a faith-based hospital and you can’t be certain whether the health practitioner is there because of what they believe, not what they can do.’

Likewise, the proposed Religious Discrimination Bill allows aged care facilities to hire the most religious, not the most qualified. As I wrote earlier this year: ‘As someone with a grandmother who turned 99 last Wednesday, and who is in a nursing home, I would hate to think she is being cared for by someone who is there because of their views and not their vocational skills’.

[Both quotes taken from my March 2020 article Coronavirus and the Religious Discrimination Bill which I think holds up pretty well, 9 months later, as a strong argument against the RDB when the Morrison Government inevitably brings it back it in the first half of 2021.] 

But repealing religious exceptions is not the only law reform needed to make workplaces inclusive and safe for people from all backgrounds, and in particular for the LGBTIQ community.

One specific reform that should be introduced as a matter of priority are amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) to ensure it treats trans, gender diverse and intersex employees exactly the same as lesbian, gay and bisexual ones.

Currently, the adverse action protections in section 351(1), and unlawful termination protections in section 772(1)(f), of that Act cover sexual orientation, but do not explicitly include gender identity or sex characteristics.[xiii]

Unfortunately, despite this issue being raised repeatedly with the Turnbull and Morrison Governments, they do not appear to be in any hurry to remedy this omission.

A broader structural reform to anti-discrimination law is ensuring it is able to deal with real-life people, who are complex and have multi-faceted characteristics (covering race, sex, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex characteristics and more attributes besides).

Often, it is impossible for people to know whether they have been discriminated against because of a particular protected attribute, or a combination of attributes. Any definition of discrimination must be able to deal with this complexity, and uncertainty. In my perspective, one of the best approaches is found in section 8 of the ACT Discrimination Act 1991:

‘Meaning of discrimination

(1) For this Act, discrimination occurs when a person discriminates either directly, or indirectly, or both, against someone else.

(2) For this section, a person directly discriminates against someone else if the person treats, or proposes to treat, another person unfavourably because the other person has 1 or more protected attributes.

(3) For this section, a person indirectly discriminates against someone else if the person imposes, or proposes to impose, a condition or requirement that has, or is likely to have, the effect of disadvantaging the other person because the other person has 1 or more protected attributes.’

One final point that should be mentioned, if we are genuine about making workplaces inclusive and safe for people from all backgrounds, is that there is a gap in terms of anti-discrimination protections around religious belief, and lack of belief.

It is unacceptable that the Commonwealth, NSW and South Australian anti-discrimination regimes do not protect people of faith, and no faith, against discrimination – this is something that should be addressed.

But it must not be addressed in the way proposed by the Commonwealth Religious Discrimination Bill, or the Mark Latham/One Nation Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Religious Freedoms and Equality) Bill 2020 in NSW. Because they are just as unacceptable.

People of faith, and no faith, should be protected against discrimination on exactly the same terms as everyone else, including to the same standard as sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics.

People of faith, and especially faith-run organisations, must not be given new special privileges to discriminate against others, including people of minority faiths or no faith, as well as women, LGBTIQ people, single parents, divorced people and people in de facto relationships, people with disability and plenty more.

Doing this one simple thing – protecting everyone against discrimination, equally – would help create an Australia where all people are accepted for who they are. And it would be a great leap forward for LGBTIQ people of faith too, many of whom experience discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation/gender identity/sex characteristics and faith.

Footnotes:


[i] The information in this, and following, paragraph(s) is summarised from the website of Intersex Human Rights Australia. Please check them out here.

[ii] I made a submission to this inquiry way back in July 2013.

[iii] Please see my Submission to AHRC Consultation re Medical Interventions on People Born with Variations of Sex Characteristics.

[iv] This issue – financial barriers to trans healthcare – is something we don’t discuss enough. For more, see: Trans out-of-pocket medical costs.

[v] For more, see: Australia’s (Mis)Treatment of LGBTI Refugees.

[vi] For more, see: Did You Know? The NSW Anti-Discrimination Act Doesn’t Protect Bisexuals Against Discrimination.

[vii] For more, see: What’s Wrong With Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Act 1998? 

[viii] An issue I raised in my Submission re Queensland Criminal Law (Historical Homosexual Convictions Expungement) Bill 2017

[ix] For more, see: No, We Don’t Have Marriage Equality Yet.

[x] For more, see: Back to School, Back to Discrimination for LGBT Students and Teachers

[xi] From my Submission to [the] Royal Commission into Aged Care.

[xii] Ibid.

[xiii] For more, see: Unfairness in the Fair Work Act.

Private Lives. Public Discrimination. Political Exacerbation.

In November, La Trobe University’s Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society (ARCSHS) released ‘Private Lives 3: The Health and Wellbeing of LGBTIQ People in Australia’. 

Building on reports in 2005 and 2011, Private Lives is Australia’s largest national survey of the health and wellbeing of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) people.

Covering a diversity of topics, from households and relationships, to housing and homelessness, general health and wellbeing, mental health and wellbeing, alcohol, tobacco and other drug use, and intimate partner and family violence (among others), it makes for both fascinating reading and invaluable research. I strongly encourage you to download and read it.

However, as someone with a particular interest in all things LGBTIQ discrimination, it is their section on ‘Discrimination, harassment and feelings of acceptance’ I will focus on today.

The Private Lives 3 findings in this area are, frankly, disturbing.

Asked, ‘to what extent do you feel accepted in the following situations?’, just 60.7% of LGBTIQ Australians answered ‘a lot’ or ‘always’ in relation to work.

That figure dropped to 55.3% in educational institutions, and 43.4% when accessing a health or support service.

Only 30.5% of LGBTIQ people said they felt accepted a lot or always in public (eg in the street/park), and a perhaps unsurprising but still shockingly low figure of 10.5% at religious or faith-based events or services.

It is also unsurprising that cisgender members of the LGBTIQ community reported higher rates of acceptance than trans and non-binary people.

For example, while 68.5% of cisgender men and 61% of cisgender women felt accepted a lot or always at work, this fell to 50% for trans women, 48.8% for trans men and just 43% for non-binary people.[i]

There was a similar divergence in terms of acceptance by sexual orientation, with gay and, to a lesser extent, lesbian respondents reporting higher rates than bisexual, pansexual, queer and asexual people.

For example, while 69.6% of gay and 63.8% of lesbian people said they felt accepted at work always or a lot, just 53.6% of bisexual, 54.5% of pansexual, 54.5% or queer and 47.4% of asexual people said the same thing.[ii]

The responses to the question ‘In the past 12 months, to what extent do you feel you have been treated unfairly because of your sexual orientation or gender identity?’ are just as disturbing (if not more). As the authors (Hill, Bourne, McNair, Carman and Lyons) observe on page 40:

‘Almost six in ten participants reported that they had been treated unfairly to some degree (either a little, somewhat, a lot or always) because of their sexual orientation in the past 12 months, with 4.5% reporting a lot or always. Over three quarters (77.5%) of trans and gender diverse participants reported that they had been treated unfairly to some degree because of their gender identity in the past 12 months, with 19.8% reporting a lot or always.’

Even more shocking are the high reported rates of experiences of vilification – and worse – based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity. In the previous 12 months:[iii]

  • 34.6% of respondents reported experiencing verbal abuse (including hateful or obscene phone calls) due to their sexual orientation or gender identity
  • 23.6% experienced harassment such as being spat at and offensive gestures
  • 22.1% received written threats of abuse via emails or social media
  • 14.6% experienced threats of physical violence, physical attack or assault without a weapon
  • 11.8% experienced sexual assault
  • 11.4% received written threats of abuse in other ways
  • 10% experienced refusal of service
  • 9.9% experienced refusal of employment or being denied promotion
  • 5.3% received written threats of abuse via graffiti, and
  • 3.9% experienced physical attack or assault with a weapon (knife, bottle, stones).

‘Overall, trans and gender diverse participants reported higher levels of harassment and abuse than cisgender participants. For example, a greater proportion of trans women (51.6%), non-binary participants (49.4%) and trans men (45%) reported verbal abuse in the past 12 months due to their sexual orientation or gender identity compared to 28.7% of cisgender women and 32.7% of cisgender men.’

This is nothing short of an epidemic of discrimination, harassment, vilification and violence against LGBTQ Australians on the basis of their sexual orientation and, especially, gender identity. And it is getting worse, not better.

For example, reported rates of verbal abuse increased from 25.5% in Private Lives 2 (released in 2011) to 34.6% in Private Lives 3; harassment such as being spat at and offensive gestures rose from 15.5% in PL2 to 23.6% in PL3; physical attack or assault with a weapon doubled, from 1.8% to 3.9%; and sexual assault quadrupled, from 2.9% to 11.8%.

Let me think, what happened in the period between Private Lives 2, and the survey period for Private Lives 3 (from 24 July to 1 October 2019), which could have caused greater homophobia, biphobia and transphobia in the Australian community?

It seems undeniable that the Coalition Government’s proposed plebiscite on same-sex marriage, and actual postal survey – and the toxic public debate surrounding both – has directly contributed to increased anti-LGBTQ prejudice.

Nor should we underestimate the negative impact of the ‘religious freedom’ movement which they deliberately unleashed, with the Religious Freedom Review in 2018, and the Morrison Government’s First Exposure Draft Religious Discrimination Bill which was released right in the middle of the Private Lives 3 survey period, in August 2019.

What should happen from here?

The Private Lives 3 survey results show us the scale of the problem: appalling rates of discrimination, harassment, vilification and violence against LGBTQ Australians on the basis of their sexual orientation and, especially, gender identity. And we have a pretty good idea about who is to blame (at least for making the situation much, much worse than it already was). But what is the solution?

I would argue the following three actions would be a good place to start (although I’m sure readers of this blog could offer other useful suggestions, via the comments section below):

  1. Improve LGBTI anti-discrimination laws

The introduction of Commonwealth anti-discrimination protections for the LGBTI community, through the historic Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013, was an important step, although by no means the end of the journey.

As I have written previously, these laws need to be strengthened, including by:

  • Updating ‘intersex status’ to ‘sex characteristics’
  • Protecting LGBT students, teachers and other staff in religious schools against discrimination
  • Limiting overly-generous religious exceptions that permit discrimination against LGBT people across many areas of public life, and
  • Appointing a Commissioner for Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Sex Characteristics at the Australian Human Rights Commission.

Discrimination in employment, especially against trans and gender diverse employees as identified in Private Lives 3, also needs to be addressed by explicitly including gender identity and sex characteristics in adverse action and unlawful termination provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). 

2. Introduce LGBTI anti-vilification protections

One of the long-standing, missing pieces of LGBTI law reform, at least at Commonwealth level, is protection against anti-LGBTI vilification. The high rates of hate-speech reported through Private Lives 3 has merely confirmed the urgency of addressing this gap.

As I hav consistently advocated over many years,[iv] given homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and intersexphobia can be just as harmful as racism, the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) should be amended to prohibit anti-LGBTI vilification on an equivalent basis to the prohibition of racial vilification in section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).

3. Publicly-fund programs against homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and intersexphobia

Being an advocate for LGBTI law reform, it is easy to forget that changing the law can only ever be one part of the solution – and often only a small part at that.

To address the ongoing, high levels of anti-LGBTQ discrimination in employment, healthcare, education and other areas of public life identified in Private Lives 3, we need well-funded, publicly-funded campaigns explicitly targeting homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and intersexphobia.

We also need our elected representatives to lead by example, by calling out prejudice on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics, and making sure anti-LGBTIQ comments are never acceptable in public debate.

What is actually happening?

Unfortunately, when we examine what is being done in relation to the three actions described above, the answer is not much. In fact, worse than just political inaction, the Coalition Government seems intent on exacerbating these problems rather than solving them.

For example, the proposed Religious Discrimination Bill – which Attorney-General Christian Porter recently confirmed remained part of the Government’s legislative agenda – would make it easier for religious individuals and organisations to discriminate against LGBTIQ Australians, including by refusing to provide healthcare services that benefit members of our communities (for more, see The ‘Bad Faith’ Religious Discrimination Bill Must Be Blocked).

That same legislation also calculatingly, and explicitly, undermines state and territory anti-vilification laws (where they exist), by making it easier for people to make comments that ‘offend, humiliate, intimidate, insult or ridicule’ LGBTI people as long as those comments are motivated by faith. This includes over-riding the ‘best practice’ Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas).

As for culture change, then-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull first ‘gutted’ then abolished entirely the national, evidence-based program targeting bullying against LGBT kids in schools (Safe Schools).

Meanwhile, current Prime Minister Scott Morrison has publicly attacked school counsellors who support trans and gender diverse children, deriding them as ‘gender whisperers’ in a now-infamous tweet. And he has taken more concrete action to remove trans-inclusive toilet door signs in the Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet, than he has to implement his 2018 promise to protect LGBT students in religious schools against discrimination (for more, see ‘Scott Morrison’s Broken Promise to Protect LGBT Students is Now Two Years Old).

The findings of Private Lives 3 reveal a bushfire of bigotry is burning in the Australian community – but far-too-often our elected representatives are the ones who are fanning the flames.

Of course, it isn’t just the Commonwealth Government who should be taking action to address discrimination, harassment, vilification and violence against LGBTQ Australians. Our state and territory governments, too, need to step up, including by modernising their own anti-discrimination laws.[v] The Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), and Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA) in particular have fallen far, far below community standards.

Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory also need to introduce their own LGBTI anti-vilification laws (in addition to the Commonwealth), while it is probably fair to say all Governments could be doing more to combat homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and intersexphobia in their respective jurisdictions.

Nevertheless, I would argue that the sheer size of the challenge which confronts us, as so disturbingly revealed in the ‘Discrimination, harassment and feelings of acceptance’ pages of Private Lives 3, demonstrates a national approach is desperately needed.

That obviously means stopping those things which would simply make the problem worse – including by abandoning any Religious Discrimination Bill that would undermine the rights of LGBTIQ Australians. But it also requires positive steps to make things better.

We’ll find out in 2021 whether the Commonwealth Government, and Parliament more broadly, is willing to do that which is necessary – or allow anti-LGBTIQ prejudice to rage on.

Footnotes:


[i] The rates of acceptance at health services were even lower, showing a significant drop-off for cisgender women. Specially, while 55.5% of cisgender men felt accepted ‘a lot/always’, this fell to 42.4% for cisgender women, 46.5% for trans women, 30.1% for trans men and just one in five non-binary people (21.5%).

[ii] The rates of acceptance at health services were even lower. Only gay respondents felt accepted ‘a lot/always’ more often than not (54.8%), compared to just 40.1% of lesbian, 43.8% bisexual, 37.3% pansexual, 26.7% queer and 33.3% asexual respondents. 

[iii] Check out the full list on page 40 of the Private Lives 3 Report.

[iv] See also: ‘Did You Know? Most Australian Jurisdictions Don’t Prohibit Anti-LGBTI Vilification‘.

[v] For a comprehensive discussion of LGBTI anti-discrimination protections around the country, see: A Quick Guide to Australian LGBTI Anti-Discrimination Laws

Submission re: South Australia’s Equal Opportunity (Religious Bodies) Amendment Bill 2020

22 November 2020

Attorney-General’s Department

Legislative Services

GPO Box 464

Adelaide SA 5001

Via email: LLPSubmissions@sa.gov.au

To whom it may concern

Submission re: Equal Opportunity (Religious Bodies) Amendment Bill 2020

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission on the draft Equal Opportunity (Religious Bodies) Amendment Bill 2020.

I do so as a long-term advocate for the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) community, and as someone with particular expertise in anti-discrimination legislation, including comparative analysis of LGBTI anti-discrimination protections across Australia.[i]

First, I welcome the intention of the draft legislation, which is to narrow the scope of the excessive and extreme religious exceptions currently found in section 50 of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA). These exceptions allow religious organisations to discriminate against LGBTI South Australians in a wide range of everyday situations, causing direct and significant harm to a vulnerable population.

Second, I particularly welcome proposed section 50(1)(c)(ix), which would have the effect of protecting LGBTI students in religious schools against discrimination on the basis of who they are. This protection is long overdue, with change in South Australia made necessary because of the failure of the Morrison Government to deliver on his October 2018 promise to prohibit such discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth).[ii]

However, while passage of this legislation would represent an improvement in terms of the rights of LGBTI South Australians to participate in public life without fear of discrimination, I would like to highlight three major problems with the Bill as drafted:

  1. The scope of areas where LGBTI people will be protected – or not

The draft Equal Opportunity (Religious Bodies) Amendment Bill 2020 effectively creates a ‘carve-out’ from the general religious exception found in section 50(c)[iii] of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA) so that it does not apply in relation to certain areas of public life.

This approach appears to be based on section 37(2) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), which provides that the general religious exception in section 37(1) of that Act does not allow aged care services operated by religious organisations to discriminate against LGBT people accessing those services (although, disappointingly, it continues to allow religious aged care services to discriminate against LGBT employees).

It is encouraging that the draft South Australian Bill extends this carve-out to a wider range of areas of public life, including:

  • Children’s education
  • Health care and disability support
  • Aged care
  • Emergency accommodation
  • Public housing, and
  • Foster care placement.

In another welcome development, the carve-out also applies to employees in these areas (other than in relation to educational institutions, an issue which is discussed further below).

However, the carve-out approach has inherent limitations. In particular, the boundary between areas of public life where LGBTI people will be protected, and those where they will not, may appear arbitrary and difficult to justify.

For example, while proposed sections 50(1)(c)(ix) and 50(1)(c)(x) mean that religious pre-schools, primary schools and secondary schools will not be able to discriminate against LGBTI students, the absence of a similar carve-out for tertiary education means that religious universities will nevertheless still be able to discriminate against LGBTI students.

In an environment when many university-age students are exploring and ultimately affirming their sexual orientation and/or gender identity, I do not believe it is acceptable to allow religious universities to discriminate against those students simply because of who they are (and especially where religious universities use public funds to do so).

In a similar way, while it is pleasing that emergency accommodation services operated by religious organisations will not be able to turn away LGBTI people in need of their assistance, it seems arbitrary that other essential service providers (such as food services or other forms of welfare support)[iv] will be able to reject people on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.[v]

Finally, proposed section 50(1)(c)(i) would ensure that religious foster care agencies will not be able to discriminate against LGBTI people (including employees, potential foster carers and children being placed). However, the absence of a similar provision in relation to adoption agencies presumably means that religious organisations providing that particular service will be able to discriminate in this way.

This double-standard – where rainbow families are ‘good enough’ to be foster carers, but can still be rejected as adoptive parents just because of who they are – cannot be justified.

Therefore, if the carve-out approach is retained, in my view it should at a minimum be extended to include tertiary education, broader welfare services and adoption agencies.

Recommendation 1: If the ‘carve-out’ approach in section 50(1)(c) of the draft Bill is retained, the following areas of public life should be added:

  • Tertiary education
  • Welfare services generally, and
  • Adoption agencies.

2. The ongoing ability of religious organisations to discriminate on the basis of gender identity, sexual orientation and intersex status

I have framed the above recommendation in a qualified manner because I believe the ‘carve-out’ approach is itself problematic. That is because, in any area of public life that is not listed in section 50(1)(c), religious organisations will continue to be permitted to discriminate on the basis of gender identity, sexual orientation and intersex status, including in terms of who they employ and who they provide their services to.

This will obviously have a negative impact on LGBTI South Australians by restricting their ability to participate in public life without fear of discrimination. And it falls well below the best practice approach to religious exceptions, which has been adopted in the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas), and in a more limited way the Discrimination Act 1991 (ACT).[vi]

The Tasmanian ‘gold standard’ allows religious organisations to discriminate – but only on the basis of religious belief or activity, and not on other grounds, such as sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex variations of sex characteristics.

For example, section 51 allows religious organisations to discriminate in employment in the following way:

(1) A person may discriminate against another person on the ground of religious belief or affiliation or religious activity in relation to employment if the participation of the person in the teaching, observance or practice of a particular religious is a genuine occupational qualification or requirement in relation to the employment.

(2) A person may discriminate against another person on the ground of religious belief or affiliation or religious activity in relation to employment in an educational institution that is or is to be conducted in accordance with the tenets, beliefs, teachings, principles or practices of a particular religion if the discrimination is in order to enable, or better enable, the educational institution to be conducted in accordance with those tenets, beliefs, teachings, principles or practices.

Section 51A then allows discrimination on the ground of religious belief or affiliation or religious activity in relation to enrolment at religious educational institutions (although not after the point of admission), while section 52 allows discrimination by religious organisations on the ground of religious belief or affiliation or religious activity in relation to ‘participation in religious observance’.[vii]

From my perspective, this is a fairer way in which to allow religious organisations to prioritise people from their own faith, while not infringing upon the rights of others – including LGBTI people – to live their lives free from discrimination.

I strongly urge the South Australian Government to improve the proposed Equal Opportunity (Religious Bodies) Amendment Bill 2020 by moving to a model where religious organisations are only allowed to discriminate on the basis of religious belief or activity, and not in relation to other protected attributes, including gender identity, sexual orientation and intersex status.

Recommendation 2: The South Australian Government should consider adopting the Tasmanian best practice approach to religious exceptions, allowing religious organisations to discriminate on the basis of religious belief and activity, but not in relation to other protected attributes including gender identity, sexual orientation and intersex status.

3. The ongoing ability of religious schools and universities to discriminate against LGBTI teachers, lecturers and other staff

The final, and arguably most important, problem with the Equal Opportunity (Religious Bodies) Amendment Bill 2020 is something it does not do – it does not remove the ability of religious education institutions (including schools and universities) to discriminate against LGBTI teachers, lecturers and other staff (which is currently permitted under section 34(3) of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA)).

In my view, this exception is unacceptable, for several reasons.

First, it is unfair on LGBTI teachers, lecturers and other staff. They may be the best qualified person for a job, but they can be denied employment (or, where they already work for a religious school or university, fired), on the basis of something which has no connection to their ability to perform the role. This is especially egregious given the large amounts of public funding provided to these institutions.

Second, it is unfair to students generally – who are denied being taught by the best possible teacher or lecturer for their class.

Third, it is unfair on LGBTI students in particular. Not only are they denied positive role models, they are also enrolled in an educational institution which has adopted a hostile attitude towards LGBTI teachers, lecturers and other staff, something which will inevitably influence the broader culture of the school or university.

Fourth, I do not believe the supposed ‘safeguard’ contained in sections 34(3)(b), (c) and (d) – which requires educational institutions wishing to rely on this exception to have a written policy stating its (discriminatory) position, that is provided to employees and potential employees, and on request to students, their families and members of the public – is sufficient.[viii]

Transparency doesn’t make prejudice any less real, or any more acceptable. LGBTI teachers, lecturers and other staff members can still be denied employment simply because of their gender identity, sexual orientation or intersex status – attributes which have absolutely nothing to do with their ability to perform the role.

Further, and even more damagingly, LGBTI students at these institutions who are aware of such policies will be acutely aware their presence there is only ‘tolerated’ because the institution is legally prohibited from discriminating against them (in other words, they would discriminate against these students if they could). They will know that they will never be truly accepted for who they are.

This last reason alone justifies removal of the exception for religious educational institutions in section 34(3) of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA) and instead prohibit all religious schools and universities from discriminating against LGBTI employees.

Recommendation 3: The exception allowing religious education institutions to discriminate against LGBTI teachers, lecturers and other staff in section 34(3) of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA) must be repealed, with these institutions prohibited from discriminating against employees on the basis of gender identity, sexual orientation and intersex status.

In conclusion, I should reiterate that, despite the problems identified above, the draft Equal Opportunity (Religious Bodies) Amendment Bill 2020 would, if passed in its current form, still significantly improve the rights of LGBTI people in South Australia to go about their lives free from discrimination.

In particular, I welcome the commitment of the South Australian Government to protect LGBTI students at religious schools against discrimination. This is much needed, and would have an immediate and appreciable benefit for vulnerable students across the state.

Nevertheless, I firmly believe the proposed legislation can be substantially strengthened, including by extending the scope of areas in which LGBTI people are protected to include tertiary education, welfare services and adoption agencies – or, even better, to adopt the best practice Tasmanian approach to religious exceptions (as discussed earlier).

Above all, I strongly encourage the South Australian Government to remove the ability of religious educational institutions to discriminate against LGBTI teachers, lecturers and other staff members, so that these places can become welcoming and inclusive places for all people seeking to learn, or impart knowledge, irrespective of their gender identity, sexual orientation or intersex status.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this submission. Please contact me at the details provided should you wish to clarify any of the above, or for further information.

Sincerely,

Alastair Lawrie

Footnotes:


[i] See: A Quick Guide to Australian LGBTI Anti-Discrimination Laws.

[ii] For more information, see: Scott Morrison’s Broken Promise to Protect LGBT Students is Now Two Years Old

[iii] ‘This Part does not render unlawful discrimination in relation to- any other practice of a body established for religious purposes that conforms with the precepts of that religion or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of the adherents of that religion.’

[iv] In many cases, these services will be using local, state and/or Commonwealth funding to do so. In nearly all cases, they will be relying on tax exemptions supporting them to carry out this work.

[v] Intersex status is the protected attribute currently included in the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA). However, I support the replacement of intersex status with ‘sex characteristics’, as called for by Intersex Human Rights Australia, as well as intersex advocates in the March 2017 Darlington Statement.

[vi] The ACT has adopted the Tasmanian approach in relation to religious schools (only allowing discrimination on the basis of religious conviction, and not on the ground of sexuality, gender identity or sex characteristics), but not for other religious organisations.

[vii] Noting that section 52(d) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas) is quite generous: ‘A person may discriminate against another person on the ground of religious belief or affiliation or religious activity in relation to- (d) any other act that- (i) is carried out in accordance with the doctrine of a particular religion; and (ii) is necessary to avoid offending the religious sensitivities of any person of that religion.’

[viii] Even if, in some circumstances, it may be useful in applying external pressure on religious educational institutions whose employment practices fall short of community standards.