Ending Ex-Gay Therapy

[NB This article is the fifth in a series looking at the unfinished business of LGBTI equality in Australia.]

 

One of the many positive outcomes of the passage of same-sex marriage legislation late last year is that it has – finally – given greater space for the discussion of other important (in many cases, more important) issues affecting the LGBTI community.

 

One that is attracting particular attention right now is so-called ‘ex-gay therapy’, or gay conversion therapy (and the related ex-trans or trans conversion therapy).

 

Indeed, a recently released survey of 2,662 LGBTIQ people, undertaken by just.equal and PFLAG, found that ending the practice of ex-gay therapy was the top priority for reform. As reported by the Guardian, “[s]ome 93% of LGBTIQ respondents rated a national ban on ‘conversion’ or ‘reparative’ therapies as of high or very high importance.”

 

This prominence can be attributed to a range of factors including recent coverage by journalists like Farrah Tomazin, and because of campaigning from ex-gay therapy survivor Chris Csabs (I encourage you to sign his Change.org petition, here.)

 

The subject was also the centre of controversy at this year’s Victorian Liberal Party state conference, where religious extremists within the organisation sought to pass a motion in defence of this dangerous and abhorrent practice (disappointingly, Commonwealth Health Minister Greg Hunt not only failed to condemn ex-gay therapy, but when asked instead argued for the right to ‘free speech’ for those who support it).

 

The abuse of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender teenagers through ex-gay and ex-trans therapy is even the subject of two upcoming films, The Miseducation of Cameron Post and Boy Erased.

 

Of course, the attention this important issue is currently receiving is also a result of previous exposes from journalists such as Jill Stark, and the substantial work of ex-gay therapy survivor, and long-term campaigner, Anthony Venn-Brown of Ambassadors and Bridge Builders International (ABBI).

 

Thanks to all of these factors, it seems the time is ripe for long-overdue action to be taken to help end the practice of ex-gay and ex-trans therapy in Australia.

 

On a policy basis, there are two clear options for reform. The first lies in the existing regulation of health practitioners. This could include providing that offering or undertaking ex-gay or ex-trans ‘treatment’ is to be considered serious malpractice, because it is unsupported by any clinical evidence for its effectiveness (with plenty of evidence that it does not and never has worked, and that it nearly always causes severe psychological harm, including contributing to numerous suicides).

 

Any doctor, psychiatrist, psychologist, counsellor or other health care professional subsequently found to engage in these practices would consequently have their registration terminated and be banned from offering any health care services to the community in the future.

 

The second option is for wider legal reform, through the criminalisation of ex-gay and ex-trans therapy. This could cover any activity advertising, offering or undertaking by any individual or organisation seeking to change a person’s sexual orientation from same-sex attracted to heterosexual, or to alter gender identity to a person being cisgender.

 

Given the significant harms caused by this practice this would then be enforced through a possible term of imprisonment. Where any victims (or potential victims) of the ex-gay or ex-trans therapy are minors – who are therefore particularly vulnerable to such abuse – this fact could be treated as an aggravating factor, leading to increased penalties.

 

At this stage, only one Australian jurisdiction has taken concrete actions to prohibit ex-gay and ex-trans therapy, and that is Victoria, which has in fact adopted a ‘hybrid’ approach.

 

In 2017, the Andrews Labor Government created the Health Complaints Commissioner, which can investigate complaints against (some) registered and all ‘unregistered’ health practitioners, with the first appointee confirming that this would include pseudo-counselling services providing ex-gay and ex-trans therapy.

 

Where the Commissioner finds that a service is harmful, they can order the practitioner or organisation to cease providing it – and if they fail to do so, they can then be prosecuted, and potentially imprisoned (section 98 of the Health Complaints Act 2016 (Vic) provides that ‘a general health service provider who has been served with a prohibition order must comply with the order’, with a maximum penalty for a natural person for breaching this order of 240 penalty units or 2 years imprisonment, and for a body corporate of 1200 penalty units).

 

While these provisions are obviously a welcome step forward, it should be noted that there were no formal complaints in the first 12 months of the Commissioner’s operation (something that will hopefully be addressed by the current investigation into ex-gay therapy by the Commissioner).

 

Perhaps the bigger problem (or at least my problem with the Victorian approach) is that the act of providing ex-gay or ex-trans therapy itself is not criminalised. Even in the absence of a prohibition order by the Commissioner, this practice is so dangerous, and so harmful, that I believe it should attract criminal sanction in and of itself.

 

So-called ‘conversion therapy’ is, after all, nothing less than targeted psychological abuse, leading to severe actual or potential harm.

 

As this issue is hopefully addressed by other states and territories in coming months (with commitments already in place from some jurisdictions, such as the Australian Capital Territory) I think they should adopt both approaches:

 

  • The regulation of health practitioners, both registered and unregistered, who offer or undertake ex-gay or ex-trans therapy, and
  • The criminalisation of advertising, offering or undertaking ex-gay or ex-trans therapy by any individual or organisation, subject to potential imprisonment and including higher penalties where the victim (or potential victim) is a minor.

 

By implementing both, hopefully this abhorrent practice will finally be a thing of the past.

 

15545830873miseducatstill

Ex-gay therapy is having a cultural ‘moment’, with films like The Miseducation of Cameron Post (which is great, by the way). The question is whether Australian states and territories will seize the momentum that currently exists and ban this abhorrent practice once and for all.

Advertisements

Identity, not Surgery

[NB This article is the fourth in a series looking at the unfinished business of LGBTI equality in Australia.]

 

Last month, I wrote about the push to end forced trans divorce, which will help to finally deliver marriage equality to trans and gender diverse Australians.

 

However, ending forced trans divorce is only one small part of the wider battle to ensure trans and gender diverse people can access identity documentation, including birth certificates, that reflects who they are.

 

A bigger – and arguably more important – challenge is ensuring that people can update their identification without the need for surgery, and without doctors or other medical professionals acting as ‘gate-keepers’ (that is, the inappropriate medicalisation of gender identity).

 

In practice, I would argue that there are (at least) three principles that should be reflected in the law in this area:

 

  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.

 

Unfortunately, as we shall see below, the laws of most states and territories fail to adopt these principles – in most cases, falling short on all three.

 

NSW

 

In New South Wales, the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 provides that, in order to apply to alter the register to record change of sex, a person must first have ‘undergone a sex affirmation procedure’ (section 32B), which is defined in section 32A as:

 

‘means a surgical procedure involving the alteration of a person’s reproductive organs carried out:

a) for the purpose of assisting a person to be considered to be a member of the opposite sex, or

b) to correct or eliminate ambiguities relating to the sex of the person.’

 

Section 32C then requires any application to ‘be accompanied by… statutory declarations by 2 doctors, or by 2 medical practitioners registered under the law of any other state, verifying that the person the subject of the application has undergone a sex affirmation procedure.’

 

In short, NSW law reflects worst practice in this area, and is in urgent need of reform.

 

Such reform was being considered three years ago by Independent Member for Sydney Alex Greenwich as part of his discussion paper looking at removing the surgical requirements for changes to birth certificates (see my submission to that consultation process here).

 

There were also hopeful comments of possible movement in this area during parliamentary debate on the recent bill that abolished forced trans divorce in NSW, however trans and gender divorce people need more than just indications of possible future co-operation, they need practical action now.

 

Victoria

 

Victoria is another jurisdiction with ‘worst practice’ laws in this area. The Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 requires that, in order to apply to alter sex on the register, the person must have ‘undergone sex affirmation surgery’ (section 30A).

 

This application ‘must include statutory declarations, verifying that the applicant has undergone sex affirmation surgery, by:

a) 2 doctors; or

b) 2 medical practitioners registered under the law of the place where the sex affirmation surgery was performed – who performed the surgery or provided other medical treatment to the applicant in connection with the applicant’s transsexualism.’

 

To its credit, the Victorian Andrews Labor Government attempted to amend these requirements in 2016, although those changes were thwarted by the Liberal and National Parties in the upper house. Hopefully, if the Andrews Government is re-elected in November 2018, they will be more successful on this issue next term.

 

Queensland

 

Queensland is another jurisdiction that falls short on all three criteria, although there is more cause for optimism that these laws will be changed in the near future.

 

Currently, section 22 of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 2003 provides that ‘the reassignment of a person’s sex after sexual reassignment surgery may be noted in the person’s entry in the register of births’.

 

Section 23 then includes the ‘the application must be… accompanied by… statutory declarations, by 2 doctors, verifying that the person the subject of the application has undergone sexual reassignment surgery…’

 

However, when the Queensland Government ended forced trans divorce earlier this year, they indicated they were also actively considering further reforms to identity documentation for trans and gender diverse people. And they supported those statements by undertaking a public consultation process looking at ‘Registering Life Events’ (see my submission to that discussion paper here), which included discussion of removing surgical pre-requisites.

 

Hopefully they follow through on their commitments in this area – and if they don’t, it’s up to the community to put pressure on them to do so.

 

Western Australia

 

Western Australia’s legislation, the Gender Reassignment Act 2000, is also in need of reform, although in this case the High Court has at least helped to clarify that surgery is not a pre-requisite for access to amended identity documentation.

 

First, to the text of the legislation itself. Section 14 provides that applications for recognition certificates may be made by a person that ‘has undergone a reassignment procedure’.

 

Under section 15(b), the Gender Reassignment Board may then issue a certificate if it “is satisfied that the person-

i) believes that his or her true gender is the gender to which the person has been reassigned; and

ii) has adopted the lifestyle and has the gender characteristics of a person of the gender to which the person has been reassigned; and

iii) has received proper counselling in relation to his or her gender identity.”

 

Importantly, section 3 defines ‘reassignment procedure’ as “a medical or surgical procedure (or a combination of such procedures) to alter the genitals and other gender characteristics of a person, identified by a birth certificate as male or female, so that the person will be identified as a person of the opposite sex and includes, in relation to a child, any such procedure (or combination of procedures) to correct or eliminate ambiguities in the child’s gender characteristics.”

 

In practice, however, the Gender Reassignment Board declined to issue gender reassignment certificates to two trans-men who were undertaking testosterone therapy and had undergone bilateral mastectomies on the basis that they had not also had surgery on their genitals.

 

These two men successfully challenged this decision in the High Court, which in AB v Western Australia; AH v Western Australia [2011] HCA 42 6 October 2011, clarified that “a surgical procedure to alter the genitals or other gender characteristics is not required of an applicant for a recognition certificate. The definition of ‘reassignment procedure’ refers to a ‘medical or surgical procedure’” [emphasis in original].

 

Nevertheless, while this decision was welcome, enabling these two men to access updated identity documentation, this decision still does not mean that future access is based on self-identification. As noted by the Court:

 

“The construction placed upon s 15(1)(b)(ii) and the identification which is its concern, does not mean that a recognition certificate is to be provided based only upon a person’s external appearance, and that person’s belief about his or her gender. Section 14 must be satisfied before a person can apply for a certificate.”

 

Therefore, there is still a need for the Western Australian Parliament to amend these laws, to remove all requirements for medical or surgical procedures, and to finally allow trans and gender diverse people to determine their own identities.

 

South Australia

 

South Australia’s Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 is one of the few relevant laws that doesn’t fail on all three criteria – although it still involves unnecessary medicalisation of trans and gender diverse people’s identities.

 

Section 29L of the Act provides that if ‘the Registrar is satisfied that the applicant has undertaken a sufficient amount of appropriate clinical treatment in relation to their sex or gender identity, the Registrar may make an entry about the change of the person’s sex or gender identity in the Register…’

 

Section 29H clarifies that ‘clinical treatment need not involve invasive medical treatment (and may include or be constituted by counselling).’

 

Although the Act still requires that ‘clinical treatment constituted by counselling only cannot be regarded as a sufficient amount of appropriate clinical treatment unless the period of the counselling is equal to or greater than the prescribed period.’

 

Regulation 7C of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Regulations 2011 states that ‘the prescribed period may be comprised of:

a) at least 3 separate counselling sessions aggregating 135 minutes; or

b) counselling sessions occurring over a period of at least 6 months.’

 

And section 29K provides that an application to change sex or gender ‘must be accompanied by… a statement by a medical practitioner or psychologist certifying that the person has undertaken a sufficient amount of appropriate clinical treatment in relation to the person’s sex or gender identity (including in the case of a person whose sex or gender identity has now become determinate)…’

 

So, even though South Australia has thankfully abolished the requirement for surgery in order to have a change of sex recorded, it still places undue emphasis on clinical treatment, and elevates doctors and/or psychologists to the place of ‘gate-keepers’ for trans and gender diverse people accessing identity documents. It should be replaced by a self-identification scheme, based on statutory declarations – nothing more and nothing less.

 

Tasmania

 

Tasmania has best practice LGBTI legislation in a range of areas, including anti-discrimination laws – but sadly identity documentation is not one of them.

 

Section 28A of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1999 provides that application to register change of sex requires that the person ‘has undergone sexual reassignment surgery.’

 

This must ‘be accompanied by a statutory declaration from each of 2 medical practitioners verifying that the person who is the subject of the application has undergone sexual reassignment surgery…’

 

In recent weeks, Tasmanian trans and gender diverse campaigners, under the banner Transforming Tasmania, have initiated a push to achieve a range of reforms to identity documentation laws, calling for better access to birth certificates much more broadly than just ending forced trans divorce.

 

ACT

 

The Australian Capital Territory adopts a similar approach to South Australia on this issue.

 

Section 24 of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1997 provides that a person applying to have the register amended to reflect a change of sex must have ‘received appropriate clinical treatment for alteration of the person’s sex.’ This term does not appear to be defined, meaning it does not explicitly require surgical intervention.

 

However, just like South Australia, the role of doctors and medical professionals as ‘gate-keepers’ is confirmed by section 25, which requires that any application ‘must be accompanied by a statement by a doctor, or a psychologist, certifying that the person has received appropriate clinical treatment for alteration of the person’s sex…’

 

Therefore, while the ACT has the equal-best current regime of any state or territory, it must still be amended to remove the requirement for ‘appropriate clinical treatment’ – as interpreted and approved by a medical professional – and allow trans and gender diverse people to determine their own gender identity.

 

NT

 

The Northern Territory Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act incorporates the worst elements of laws in other jurisdictions.

 

Section 28B limits applications to change the register to people who have ‘undergone sexual reassignment surgery’. This is defined under section 28A as ‘a surgical procedure involving the alteration of a person’s reproductive organs carried out to assist a person to be considered a member of the opposite sex…’

 

Section 28C then provides that the application must ‘be accompanied by the prescribed evidence, if any, that verifies that the adult… the subject of the certificate has undergone sexual reassignment surgery.’

 

Regulation 4A of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Regulations then provides that this evidence must include ‘2 statutory declarations, each by a medical practitioner who is entitled to practise medicine within the Commonwealth, declaring that the adult… has undergone sexual reassignment surgery and has changed sex.’

 

Once again, the Northern Territory needs to amend its laws to ensure that trans and gender diverse people can apply to have their gender identity recognised without the need for surgery beforehand, and without the need for a doctor’s sign-off.

 

**********

 

Trans and gender diverse Australians are exactly that: diverse. Not all will seek medical treatment as part of transition, and only some will undertake surgical interventions (while some others may wish to, but are currently prevented due to the exorbitant costs involved and a lack of Commonwealth Government financial support).

 

But their gender identities should be recognised irrespective of whether they had surgery, and irrespective of the type of other medical interventions they have received (if any). The law should be changed to reflect identity, not surgery. And trans and gender diverse Australians must be in control of that identity, not doctors or other medical professionals.

 

28256

Ending Forced Trans Divorce: Mission Half Accomplished

[NB This article is the second in a series looking at the ‘unfinished business’ of LGBTI equality in Australia]

 

This weekend marks six months since the passage of legislation that finally allowed lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people the right to marry under Australian law.

 

Well, most LGBTI people. Because it did not immediately overrule the laws of some Australian states and territories that prevent people who are married from changing their identity documentation to reflect their gender identity. In effect, making some trans and gender diverse people choose between the recognition of their relationship, and recognition of who they are.

 

Instead, the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017 gave states and territories 12 months in which to update relevant legislation to provide married people with the same opportunity to update their birth certificates as unmarried people.

 

At the end of this 12-month period, the existing exemption under sub-section 40(5) the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 will be repealed:

 

Nothing in Division 2 renders it unlawful to refuse to make, issue or alter an official record of a person’s sex if a law of a State or Territory requires the refusal because the person is married.

 

So, half way to this deadline, how have the states and territories responded?

 

First, there are two jurisdictions that had already abolished forced trans divorce prior to the passage of the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act:

 

The Australian Capital Territory, where section 24(1) of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1997 does not make any distinction on the basis of whether a person is married or unmarried, and

 

South Australia, where sub-section 29I(3) of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 explicitly states that an application to change sex or gender identity ‘may be made under this section even if the person is married.’

 

There are two other states that have passed legislation in the past six months to repeal forced trans divorce:

 

Victoria, where Parliament approved the Justice Legislation Amendment (Access to Justice) Act 2018 on 22 May. Among other things, this law repealed the requirement in section 30A of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 that a person be unmarried in order to apply to alter their details on the register, and

 

New South Wales, which only last week passed the Miscellaneous Amendment (Marriages) Act 2018. Similar to the Victorian Act, this legislation removes the requirement in sub-section 32B(1)(c) of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 that a person be unmarried in order to apply to alter the register to record change of sex.

 

Which means that, half way to the December 2018 deadline, half of Australian jurisdictions have ended forced trans divorce. Mission half accomplished.

 

Of the other jurisdictions, only one has shown movement to abolish this out-dated and unjust law so far:

 

The Queensland Government has introduced the Births, Deaths and Marriages Amendment Bill 2018 into Parliament, which would remove the requirement in section 22 of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 2003 that a person be unmarried for their sexual reassignment to be noted on the register. It has already been the subject of a Parliamentary inquiry, and will hopefully be passed shortly. [NB This legislation was passed on Wednesday 13 June 2018, ending forced trans divorce in Queensland.]

 

Which leaves three jurisdictions that still need to start the process of ending forced trans divorce:

 

Western Australia, where sub-section 15(3) and section 18 of the Gender Reassignment Act 2000 mean a person cannot access a recognition certificate, and therefore new birth certificate, if they are married.

 

Tasmania, where sub-section 28A(1)(c) of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1999 excludes married people from applying to register a change of sex, and

 

The Northern Territory, where sub-section 28B(1)(c) of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act has the same effect.

 

This post will be progressively updated to reflect (hopefully) developments in Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory.

 

The good news is that, even if those jurisdictions fail to take action, the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act will eventually overrule these provisions, thereby allowing trans and gender diverse people who are already married to apply to update their identity documentation.

 

However, it will be much simpler if these jurisdictions take pro-active steps to update their laws before then. It is also a symbolically important step, so that provisions that have had such a negative impact on trans and gender diverse Australians for so long are wiped from the statute books entirely.

 

28256

Unfairness in the Fair Work Act

This article is the first in a planned series looking at some of the outstanding issues that must be addressed in order to achieve genuine equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people in Australia.

 

These posts are not proposed in any order of priority, but will hopefully cover many of the barriers that remain, both big and small, as well as challenges that affect often-marginalised groups within the LGBTI community.

 

The first item of ‘unfinished business’ that I have chosen to write about is the discrimination that remains in the Commonwealth Fair Work Act 2009.

 

This unfairness includes two distinct issues, one relatively well-known (and which exists in other legislation, such as the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984), the other much less so.

 

Starting with the sometimes-overlooked problem first: did you know that the Fair Work Act 2009 does not protect trans, gender diverse and intersex people against workplace discrimination?

 

While this legislation prohibits adverse treatment on the basis of sexual orientation – thereby protecting lesbians, gay men and bisexuals (at least to some extent: see the discussion below) – it does not include equivalent protections for trans, gender diverse and intersex people.

 

For example, sub-section 351(1) provides that ‘An employer must not take adverse action against a person who is an employee, or prospective employee, of the employer because of the person’s race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, family or carer’s responsibilities, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin.’

 

Note that this list excludes both gender identity (which would cover trans and gender diverse people) and intersex status (the term used in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 to protect intersex people, although the intersex community has since advocated for this to be updated to ‘sex characteristics’; see the Darlington Statement).

 

The same list of attributes, with the same exclusions, is found in sub-section 772(1)(f) which protects employees against unlawful termination.

 

In short, the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) does not protect trans, gender diverse and intersex Australians from mistreatment or unfair dismissal based on who they are. This is either a gross oversight, or a deliberate choice to treat transphobic and intersexphobic workplace discrimination less seriously than other forms of mistreatment.

 

Nor are these the only sections of the Fair Work Act to omit trans, gender diverse and intersex people:

 

  • Section 153 provides that discriminatory terms must not be included in modern awards. The list of relevant attributes includes sexual orientation, but excludes gender identity and sex characteristics;
  • Section 195 includes a similar prohibition on discriminatory terms in enterprise agreements, and once again omits trans, gender diverse and intersex people; and
  • Sub-section 578(c) provides that the Fair Work Commission must perform its functions taking into account ‘the need to respect and value the diversity of the work force by helping to prevent and eliminate discrimination on the basis of race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, family or carer’s responsibilities, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin.’

 

There is literally no requirement in the Act for the Fair Work Commission to help prevent or eliminate transphobic and intersexphobic workplace discrimination.

 

There can be no justification for these omissions. Nor can there be any excuse for the Government, or Parliament more broadly, not to pass urgent amendments to ensure trans, gender diverse and intersex Australians are finally included in the Commonwealth Fair Work Act 2009.

 

Here are my letters to the Prime Minister, and the Minister for Jobs and Innovation, asking them to do exactly that:

 

**********

 

The Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP

Prime Minister of Australia

PO Box 6022

House of Representatives

Parliament House

Canberra ACT 2600

 

27 May 2018

 

Dear Prime Minister

 

Please include trans, gender diverse and intersex people in the Fair Work Act

 

On 15 November last year, in your press conference following the announcement of the 61.6% Yes vote in the same-sex marriage postal survey, you said that: ‘we are a fair nation. There is nothing more Australian than a fair go. There is nothing more Australian than equality and mutual respect.’

 

A little later in that same press conference you added: ‘we are a nation of a fair go and mutual respect and we treat people equally. We don’t discriminate against people because of their gender of their sexual orientation, their religion or race or the colour of their skin.’

 

Unfortunately, trans, gender diverse and intersex Australians are still a long way from receiving a ‘fair go’, and that includes being treated unfairly within the Commonwealth Fair Work Act 2009.

 

Section 351 of this legislation includes protections against adverse treatment on the basis of a wide range of attributes, including sexual orientation. However, it excludes both gender identity and sex characteristics (the latter being the term preferred by intersex advocates, as articulated in the Darlington Statement, replacing ‘intersex status’ as used in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984).

 

Similarly, section 772 of the Fair Work Act prohibits unfair dismissal on the same grounds as 351, once again leaving trans, gender diverse and intersex Australians without equivalent protection.

 

Meanwhile, sections 153 and 195 do not prohibit the use of discriminatory terms against trans, gender diverse and intersex people in modern awards and enterprise agreements, respectively.

 

Finally, while section 578 of the Fair Work Act mandates that, in performing its functions, the Fair Work Commission must take into account ‘the need to respect and value the diversity of the work force by helping to prevent and eliminate discrimination’, this does not cover either transphobic or intersexphobic discrimination.

 

I am writing to ask that you, and your Government, introduce amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 to rectify these gross oversights as a matter of priority.

 

Trans, gender diverse and intersex people deserve to be protected against workplace discrimination in exactly the same way as other employees, including lesbians, gay men and bisexuals.

 

If you fail to do so, you will be continuing to deny a ‘fair go’ to trans, gender diverse and intersex Australians, and your words of 15 November last year will ring hollow.

 

Sincerely,

Alastair Lawrie

 

 

**********

 

Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash

Minister for Jobs and Innovation

PO Box 6100

Senate

Parliament House

Canberra ACT 2600

via minister.cash@jobs.gov.au

 

27 May 2018

 

Dear Minister Cash

 

Please include trans, gender diverse and intersex people in the Fair Work Act

 

I am writing to you about the Commonwealth Fair Work Act 2009, which you administer, and specifically its failure to adequately protect trans, gender diverse and intersex employees against workplace discrimination.

 

Section 351 of this legislation includes protections against adverse treatment on the basis of a wide range of attributes, including sexual orientation. However, it excludes both gender identity and sex characteristics (the latter being the term preferred by intersex advocates, as articulated in the Darlington Statement, replacing ‘intersex status’ as used in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984).

 

Similarly, section 772 of the Fair Work Act prohibits unfair dismissal on the same grounds as 351, once again leaving trans, gender diverse and intersex Australians without equivalent protection.

 

Meanwhile, sections 153 and 195 do not prohibit the use of discriminatory terms against trans, gender diverse and intersex people in modern awards and enterprise agreements, respectively.

 

Finally, while section 578 of the Fair Work Act mandates that, in performing its functions, the Fair Work Commission must take into account ‘the need to respect and value the diversity of the work force by helping to prevent and eliminate discrimination’, this does not cover either transphobic or intersexphobic discrimination.

 

I am writing to ask that you, and the Liberal-National Government, introduce amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 to rectify these gross oversights as a matter of priority.

 

Trans, gender diverse and intersex people deserve to be protected against workplace discrimination in exactly the same way as other employees, including lesbians, gay men and bisexuals.

 

If you fail to do so, you will be failing to ensure trans, gender diverse and intersex Australians receive a ‘fair go’ in their jobs.

 

Sincerely,

Alastair Lawrie

 

**********

 

The second, much better-known, issue of unfairness in the Fair Work Act 2009 is its inclusion of extensive ‘religious exceptions’. These are loopholes that allow religious organisations to discriminate against employees on the basis of their sexual orientation (and would likely allow discrimination on the basis of gender identity were it to be included as a protected attribute in the Act in future).

 

The Fair Work Act entrenches these loopholes in two ways.

 

First, the prohibition on adverse treatment in section 351 (described above) does not apply to any action that is ‘not unlawful under any anti-discrimination law in force in the place where the action is taken’ (sub-section (2)(a)).

 

This means that the Fair Work Act reinforces the religious exceptions that already exist in the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984, and its state and territory equivalents (other than the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act 1998),[i] which permit anti-LGBT discrimination.

 

However, the Fair Work Act then includes its own ‘religious exceptions’ in sub-section 351(2)(c), allowing adverse treatment ‘if the action is taken against a staff member of an institution conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed – taken:

(i) in good faith; and

(ii) to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion or creed.’

 

In effect, the Act provides two different avenues for religious organisations to justify mistreating employees simply because of their sexual orientation.

 

The protection against unfair dismissal in section 772 also includes its own ‘religious exception’, while even the terms of modern awards (section 153) and enterprise agreements (section 195) are allowed to be explicitly discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation where it relates to employment by a religious institution.

 

There is, however, one important difference between the religious exceptions in this Act and those that are contained in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984: the Fair Work Act religious exceptions technically apply across all protected attributes.

 

This means that, theoretically at least, a religious organisation could claim its beliefs required it to discriminate on the basis of race, or even physical or mental disability – and that it would therefore be protected from any adverse consequences under the Act.

 

Of course, in practice we all know that religious exceptions are most likely to be used to justify discrimination against women (including unmarried and/or pregnant women) and LGBT people.

 

Unfortunately, the Ruddock Religious Freedom Review recently handed to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull (although not yet publicly released) is likely to recommend that these loopholes are expanded, rather than drastically reduced. That is a subject I am sure I will be writing about further in coming months.

 

Nevertheless, in the meantime we should continue to highlight the injustice of religious exceptions, including those found in the Fair Work Act and elsewhere, and campaign for their removal.

 

One such campaign, called ‘Change the Rules on Workplace Discrimination’, is currently being run by the Victorian Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby. I encourage you to sign their petition, here.

 

Ultimately, we need to collectively work towards a Fair Work Act that covers all parts of the LGBTI community – and that doesn’t feature extensive ‘religious exceptions’ allowing discrimination against us.

 

151222 Turnbull

Malcolm Turnbull claims Australia is a ‘nation of a fair go’. But will he ensure trans, gender diverse and intersex people receive a fair go under the Fair Work Act?

 

Footnotes:

[i] For more information on the differences in these laws, see A quick guide to Australian LGBTI anti-discrimination laws.

Submission re Queensland Registering Life Events Discussion Paper

The following is my submission in response to the Queensland Government Registering Life Events: Recognising sex and gender diversity and same-sex families Discussion Paper. For more information on this review, go here.

 

BDM Act Review Team

PO Box 15188

City East, Brisbane QLD 4002

bdmlegislativereview@justice.qld.gov.au

 

Wednesday 18 April 2018

 

To the BDM Act Review Team

 

Submission re Registering Life Events Discussion Paper

 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission in response to the Registering Life Events: Recognising sex and gender diversity and same-sex families Discussion Paper.

 

I write this submission as a long-time advocate for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) community.

 

I also write this as a cisgender gay man, and am therefore guided by the views of those groups directly affected by the provisions of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 2003.

 

Specifically, with respect to questions 1 to 7 I endorse both the submission to the current review by Intersex Human Rights Australia (IHRA),[i] and the Sex and Gender Advisory Group’s letter to the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department Review of the Australian Government Guidelines on the Recognition of Sex and Gender.[ii]

 

Where there is any inconsistency between this submission and the views of these groups, I defer to them as experts in these areas.

 

Question 1. How should a person’s sex be recorded on the birth, adoption and death registers?

Question 2. Do you have any other comments on this issue?

 

I support the views expressed in Recommendation 3 of the Intersex Human Rights Australia submission that: Queensland should end legal classification of individuals by sex or gender, in line with the Darlington Statement and the Yogyakarta Principles plus 10.

 

I also agree with IHRA that this recommendation is unlikely to be achieved in the short-term and therefore support their recommendation 4, namely that: In the absence of an end to legal classification of individuals by sex or gender, Queensland should recognise ‘non-binary’, alternative (for example, self-affirmed) and multiple sex markers. Changes should be available [via] a simple administrative procedure, for example, via a statutory declaration.

 

I note that this terminology, and in particular the use of the term ‘non-binary’, was also supported by the Sex and Gender Advisory Group in its letter of 24 September 2015.

 

Question 3. Should any changes be considered to the BDMR Act and BDMR Regulation to improve the legal recognition of sex and gender diverse people in Queensland? If so, what should the changes be?

Question 4. Should any changes be made to the BDMR Act’s provisions regarding an application to note a reassignment of sex for children/young people under the age of 18? If so, what should the changes be?

 

Yes, significant changes must be made to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 2003 to improve the legal recognition of sex and gender diverse people in Queensland. This includes the removal of the major hurdles that currently prevent people from accessing accurate and appropriate identity documentation.

 

First, the requirement that trans and gender diverse people must have ‘sexual reassignment surgery’[iii] before being able to update their sex on the birth register must be removed. This requirement is inappropriate as not all transgender people want or are able to undertake such procedures (for a variety or reasons, including financial).

 

Second, the requirement that applications to note the reassignment of a person’s sex ‘must be accompanied by statutory declarations, by 2 doctors, verifying that the person the subject of the application has undergone sexual reassignment surgery’ [section 23(4)(b)] must also be removed. The medicalisation of identity recognition processes is also inappropriate – doctors should not be ‘gatekeepers’ of the identity of trans and gender diverse people.

 

The process for updating sex and gender details should be based on the experience and/or identity of the individual involved – not the opinion of medical ‘experts’ – and should be straight-forward, most likely affirmed through a simple statutory declaration.

 

The same principles should also apply with respect to minors, with no medical gatekeepers involved, and the only caveat being that they are able to demonstrate their capacity for consent. Obviously, this also means that where a minor is able to demonstrate such capacity, they should be permitted to amend their identity documentation in the absence of approval from parent(s) or guardian(s).

 

Finally, I endorse Recommendation 6 of the Intersex Human Rights Australia submission that: In the absence of legislation and regulation that implements prior BDM recommendations, the Queensland government should ensure that a separate, simple and accessible pathway is available for people born with variations of sex characteristics to correct details on birth certificates.

 

Question 5. Should the BDMR Act contain provisions to allow for the reassignment of a person’s sex for individuals who reside in Queensland but whose birth was registered elsewhere?

Question 6. Should BDMR Act allow for the issuing of a gender recognition certificate/identity acknowledgement certificate which can be used by a person as proof of their sex or gender?

Question 7. Do you have any other comments on this issue?

 

Yes, I support the inclusion of provisions to allow for the reassignment of a person’s sex for individuals who reside in Queensland but whose birth was registered elsewhere. This would seem to be an important practical measure for people who are unable to update these details in other jurisdictions, for a variety of possible reasons.

 

I am not in a position to comment on the process for such recognition – including the specific proposal for the issuing of a gender recognition certificate/identity acknowledgement certificate – and defer to the views of trans, gender diverse and intersex organisations on this question.

 

Question 8. Should the BDMR Act be amended to permit same-sex parents to choose how they are recorded on a birth or adoption registration?

 

Yes, although this should not be limited to ‘same-sex parents’ – all parents should be able to nominate how they are recorded. This would better reflect the diversity of modern families, not just in terms of sexual orientation and gender identity, but also in terms of methods of family creation.

 

Question 9. If so, what descriptors should be available and in what combinations?

 

At the very least, parents should have the option of nominating as ‘mother’, ‘father’ or ‘parent’, thereby allowing the combinations of mother/father, mother/mother, father/father, mother/parent, father/parent and parent/parent.

 

I am not in a position to comment on what other terms may be preferable (especially with respect to the potential use of ‘birth mother’ or ‘birth parent’) but encourage the BDM Act Review Team to consult directly with rainbow families on these issues.

 

Question 10. Do you have any other comments on this issue?

 

I note that the Discussion Paper states that ‘[t]he issue of whether or not a child’s birth or adoption registration should include more than two parents and the issuing of integrated birth certificates listing more than two parents will be canvassed in a subsequent discussion paper.’

 

I take this opportunity to pre-emptively express the view that, in contemporary Australia, there is already a wide range of family structures in existence – including where children are raised by three or four different parents – and that the law should be amended to reflect this reality.

 

Additional Comments

 

I also take this opportunity to express my support for the first two recommendations of the Intersex Human Rights Australia submission to the current review, namely that:

 

Recommendation 1. Queensland should protect children’s right to bodily integrity, in line with the Darlington Statement and the Yogyakarta Principles plus 10

and

Recommendation 2. The Queensland government should protect people from discrimination and violence on grounds of ‘sex characteristics’, in line with the attribute defined in the Yogyakarta Principles plus 10.

 

These are important issues and both represent serious shortcomings in Queensland law (as well as in other jurisdictions within Australia). The Queensland Government has in recent years adopted a progressive agenda on LGBTI issues overall – I strongly encourage it to add both of these items to that list.

 

Thank you for considering this submission as part of this important review. Please do not hesitate to contact me at the details below should you require additional information.

 

Sincerely

Alastair Lawrie

 

Palaszczuk

The Palaszczuk Labor Government has already enacted a strong LGBTI reform agenda – but there’s plenty left to do.

 

Footnotes:

[i] Morgan Carpenter, 4 April 2018: https://ihra.org.au/32033/submission-bdm-queensland/

[ii] Gavi Ansara, Sue Webeck, Morgan Carpenter, Peter Hyndal and Sally Goldner, 24 September 2015, as published on the National LGBTI Health Alliance website: https://lgbtihealth.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/FOR-DISTRIBUTION-AGD-Sex-and-Gender-Guidelines-Review-Advisory-Group-Endorsement-Letter.pdf

[iii] Defined in the Act as:

‘means a surgical procedure involving the alteration of a person’s reproductive organs carried out:

(a) to help the person to be considered a member of the opposite sex; or

(b) to correct or eliminate ambiguities about the sex of the person.’

Submission re Queensland Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Amendment Bill 2018

The Queensland Government has introduced legislation to finally abolish ‘forced trans divorce’ in that state. The following is my submission to the Parliamentary Committee which is considering this Bill. More details about this inquiry can be found here.

 

Committee Secretary

Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee

Parliament House

George Street

Brisbane QLD 4000

lacsc@parliament.qld.gov.au

 

Sunday 18 March 2018

 

Dear Committee

 

Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Amendment Bill 2018

 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission in relation to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Amendment Bill 2018.

 

In short, I strongly support this legislation. As noted by Attorney-General, the Hon Yvette D’Ath, in her second reading speech, the Bill ‘makes an important and necessary amendment to ensure true marriage equality is realised for sex and gender diverse Queenslanders.’

 

The existing provisions of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 2003, which require that married transgender people must divorce their spouses before they are able to have the reassignment of their sex noted on the birth register, are a gross violation of human rights.

 

Forced trans divorce does not respect the right to personal autonomy and self-determination of trans and gender diverse people.

 

Forced trans divorce also does not respect the ability of all people to choose who they marry, and then to decide between themselves whether they remain married – rather than having that decision made for them by government.

 

Forced trans divorce is in direct contravention of Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which provides that:

 

All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

 

The amendments proposed in this Bill will help address these human rights breaches. If passed, it will ensure that nobody is left in the impossible situation of having to choose between staying married to the person they love and being able to access identity documentation that reflects their gender identity.

 

I therefore urge the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee to recommend the passage of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Amendment Bill 2018 and for all members of Queensland Parliament to act on that recommendation.

 

Before I conclude this submission I would also note that forced trans divorce is not the only aspect of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 2003 which breaches the human rights of trans and gender diverse people in Queensland.

 

In particular, their right to personal autonomy and self-determination is violated in three key ways:

 

  1. The requirement that people must have ‘sexual reassignment surgery’[i] before being able to update their sex on the birth register. This is inappropriate as not all transgender people want or are able to undertake such procedures (for a variety or reasons, including financial).

 

  1. The requirement that applications to note the reassignment of a person’s sex ‘must be accompanied by statutory declarations, by 2 doctors, verifying that the person the subject of the application has undergone sexual reassignment surgery’ [section 23(4)(b)]. The medicalisation of identity recognition processes is also inappropriate – doctors should not be ‘gatekeepers’ of the identity of trans and gender diverse people.

 

  1. The requirement that sex be marked as either male or female on the register. This binary categorisation does not recognise the diversity of sex and gender which exists in the community, and therefore imposes inaccurate identity documentation on some people.

 

I note that in her second reading speech Ms D’Ath stated that:

 

The Palaszczuk government is strongly committed to ensuring our laws support the rights of sex and gender diverse Queenslanders. The focus of the first public discussion paper for the recently commenced review of the BDMR Act is examining how Queensland life event registration services can improve legal recognition of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Queenslanders and their families. I encourage all Queenslanders to access the discussion paper on the Get Involved website and have their say.

 

[NB The Registering life events: Recognising sex and gender diversity and same-sex families Discussion Paper can be found here. Submissions are due by 4 April.]

 

I look forward to the three human rights violations identified above being addressed through that process. However, I believe it is important they are highlighted here because, while the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Amendment Bill 2018 is an important step forward, it is by no means the end of the journey towards the full recognition and acceptance of trans and gender diverse Queenslanders.

 

If you would like additional information, or to clarify any of the above, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Sincerely

Alastair Lawrie

 

MemberImgHandler.ashx

Queensland Attorney-General, the Hon Yvette D’Ath MP.

 

 

Footnotes:

[i] Defined in the Act as:

‘means a surgical procedure involving the alteration of a person’s reproductive organs carried out:

(a) to help the person to be considered a member of the opposite sex; or

(b) to correct or eliminate ambiguities about the sex of the person.’

Submission to NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into Youth Suicide

 

The NSW Parliamentary Committee on Children and Young People is currently holding an inquiry into the prevention of youth suicide. Full details can be found here. The following is my personal submission:

 

c/- childrenyoungpeople@parliament.nsw.gov.au

Sunday 27 August 2017

 

Dear Committee

 

Submission to Inquiry into Youth Suicide in NSW

 

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

 

In this submission, I will be focusing on items (g) and (h) from the inquiry’s terms of reference: ‘Approaches taken by primary and secondary schools’ and ‘Any other related matters’ respectively.

 

Specifically, I will be discussing these terms of reference and how they relate to one of the groups that is disproportionately affected by mental health issues, depression and suicide: young lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people.

 

The National LGBTI Health Alliance confirms that LGBTI people, and especially young LGBTI people, are at much higher risk of suicide than non-LGBTI people. From the Alliance’s July 2016 ‘Snapshot of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Statistics for LGBTI People’:

 

“Compared to the general population, LGBTI people are more likely to attempt suicide in their lifetime, specifically:

 

  • LGBTI young people aged 16 to 27 are five times more likely
  • Transgender people aged 18 and over are nearly eleven times more likely
  • People with an intersex variation aged 16 and over are nearly six times more likely
  • LGBT young people who experience abuse and harassment are even more likely to attempt suicide.

 

Statistics for LGBTI Population:

 

  • 16% of LGBTI young people aged 16 to 27 reported that they had attempted suicide
  • 35% of Transgender people aged 18 and over have attempted suicide in their lifetime
  • 19% of people with an Intersex variation aged 16 and over had attempted suicide on the basis of issues related [to] their Intersex status
  • 8% of Same-Gender Attracted and Gender Diverse young people aged between 14 and 21 years had attempted suicide, 18% had experienced verbal abuse, and 37% of those who experienced physical abuse.

 

Statistics for General Population:

 

  • 2% of people (4.4% females; 2.1% males) aged 16 and over have attempted suicide in their lifetime; 0.4% of general population (0.5% females; 0.3% males) in the last 12 months
  • 1% of people (1.7% females; 0.5% males) aged 16 to 24 have attempted suicide in the past 12 months.”

 

These statistics are obviously incredibly alarming, and reveal the scale of the challenge of mental health issues experienced by LGBTI people, and especially young LGBTI people.

 

What should not be forgotten is that there is nothing inherently ‘wrong’ with LGBTI people, and LGBTI young people – their disproportionate rates of suicide are in response to external factors, including a lack of acceptance (or feared lack of acceptance) from parents, other family members and friends, as well as society-wide homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and intersexphobia.

 

Another contributing factor to high rates of LGBTI youth suicide – and perhaps most relevantly to this inquiry – is the school environment. While some schools are welcoming to all young people, including those of diverse sexual orientations, gender identities and sex characteristics, other schools are far less welcoming – and some are even outright hostile.

 

For the purposes of this submission, I would nominate two key factors that help determine whether a school is welcoming of LGBTI young people:

 

  • Whether it has an explicit program addressing anti-LGBTI bullying (such as Safe Schools), and
  • Whether it has an inclusive curriculum for LGBTI students, with content that is relevant to their needs.

 

The importance of these two factors is confirmed by the 2010 Writing Themselves In 3 Report (by La Trobe University), which found that:

 

  • “61% of young people reported verbal abuse because of homophobia.
  • 18% of young people reported physical abuse because of homophobia.
  • School was the most likely place of abuse – 80% of those who were abused” (p39).

 

This last statistic is perhaps the most disturbing. Instead of being a place of learning, for far too many LGBTI young people, school is a place of intimidation, intolerance, and fear.

 

Although even more worrying is the fact that the proportion of students nominating school as a site of abuse increased from 1998 to 2004, and then again from 2004 to 2010 (p45) – rather than being more welcoming today, the schoolyard and the classroom is becoming more abusive.

 

Similarly, the Writing Themselves In 3 Report demonstrated that, in far too many schools, LGBTI students are not being included in the curriculum, both generally and specifically in relation to Health & Physical Education (including sex education).

 

From page 79: “10% of young people reported that their school did not provide any form of Sexuality Education at all.”

 

Even where some sexuality education was provided, it was primarily targeted at cisgender and heterosexual students. While almost 60% of students reported that the school provided information about heterosexual relationships, less than 20% received education about gay or lesbian relationships (p81).

 

And, while approximately 70% reported education about safe heterosexual sex, less than a quarter were instructed about safe gay sex and less than 20% about safe lesbian sex (p82).

 

Finally, roughly 1 in 10 reported learning that ‘homophobia is wrong’ as part of their sexuality education (p83), meaning that almost 90% of students were not receiving this important message.

 

Unfortunately, on both of these issues (anti-bullying programs, and an inclusive curriculum) NSW is clearly failing in its obligations to LGBTI young people.

 

First, in terms of Safe Schools, it was incredibly disappointing that the NSW Government abandoned this vital LGBTI anti-bullying program in April 2017.

 

Yes, there were some significant problems with this program – although not the ones that religious fundamentalists lied about in their dishonest campaign to undermine and destroy it.

 

Chief among the actual shortcomings of Safe Schools was the fact that it was an entirely optional program, meaning only a small proportion of schools had even begun to implement it by the time it was axed. Further, the schools that chose to implement it were likely the same schools that were already LGBTI-inclusive, while those that were less inclusive were far less likely to adopt the program.

 

Instead of abolishing Safe Schools, the NSW Government should have been working to ensure that it was rolled-out more widely, and ultimately to reach every school in the state (following the lead of Victoria) – because LGBTI students and young people exist in every school in the state.

 

Perhaps even worse than axing this program is the fact it has been replaced with a ‘general’ anti-bullying program and one that, based on media reports, does not include appropriate materials and resources to address the specific needs of LGBTI students and young people.

 

As reported in the Star Observer (Experts Slam NSW Anti-Bullying Resource as ‘Missed Opportunity for LGBTI Youth’, 21 July 2017:

 

“Leading health organisation ACON has expressed concern over the lack of LGBTI-specific tools and information in the new [anti-bullying] resource, despite liaising with the government in the months leading up to its launch.

 

Chief Executive of ACON Nicolas Parkhill said the new resource failed to meaningfully address the bullying, abuse, and discrimination faced by young LGBTI people.

 

“Bullying is an acute problem for young LGBTI people and this resources does not respond to their unique needs,” he said.

 

“Of concern is the absence of tools and resources that specifically address LGBTI bullying in schools – especially when we know it affects a significant proportion of young people.

 

“The government’s own report released earlier this month stated that 16.8 per cent of secondary school students in Australia are attracted to people of the same sex. That’s one in six students…

 

“We believe this resource falls short in responding to LGBTI bullying and there needs to be more emphasis placed on the needs of young LGBTI people.”

 

Based on this critique, it appears that the NSW Government has axed a program that was specifically designed to address anti-LGBTI bullying – which, as we saw earlier, is a contributing factor to LGBTI youth suicide – and replaced it with a ‘generalist’ anti-bullying program that does little to reduce this behaviour.

 

That is clearly not good enough.

 

Recommendation 1: The NSW Government should roll-out the Safe Schools program, or a similar program that specifically and explicitly deals with anti-LGBTI bullying, in every school across the state.

 

The Personal Development, Health and Physical Education (PDHPE) Syllabus is also not good enough in terms of how it includes – or, in many cases, excludes – LGBTI students and information that is relevant to their needs.

 

Earlier this year, the NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA) released a new draft PDHPE K-10 Syllabus for public consultation. Unfortunately, it fell far short of what is necessary to educate LGBTI students across the state, or to contribute to a reduction in youth suicide among this group.

 

As I outlined in my submission to NESA about the draft Syllabus (see Every Student. Every School. Submission on Draft NSW Personal Development, Health and Physical Education (PDHPE) Syllabus K-10), its problems include that:

 

  • It does not define the terms lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex
  • It does not guarantee that all students in all schools will learn about these sexual orientations, gender identities or sex characteristics
  • It does not include sufficient LGBTI anti-bullying content, and
  • It does not offer appropriate, or adequate, sexual health education for students who are not cisgender and heterosexual, including a lack of information about sexually transmissible infections and diverse sexual practices.

 

If the PDHPE K-10 Syllabus is implemented without significant and substantive changes to the draft that was released, another generation of LGBTI young people will grow up without being told in the classroom that who they are is okay, and without learning vital information on how to keep themselves safe.

 

That would represent a failure of the NSW Government to exercise the duty of care that it owes to all students across the state.

 

Recommendation 2: The NSW Government should ensure that the PDHPE K-10 Syllabus is inclusive of LGBTI students, and provides content that is relevant to their needs, including comprehensive sexual health education.

 

The previous two issues – anti-bullying programs, and an inclusive curriculum – relate to term of reference (g) (Approaches taken by primary and secondary schools).

 

However, there is one final, non-school related matter that I would like to raise in this submission (under term of reference (h) – ‘Any other related matters’).

 

That is the issue of ‘ex-gay therapy’ or ‘gay conversion therapy’. As the name suggests, this practice aims to convince LGBT people that who they are is wrong, and that they should try to stop being who they are and instead attempt to be cisgender and heterosexual.

 

Let us be clear – ‘ex-gay therapy’ or ‘gay conversion therapy’ is not therapy, and does not offer anything ‘therapeutic’ to the people who are subjected to it. It is not counselling, nor does it have any basis in medical or scientific fact.

 

It is fundamentally harmful, and preys upon vulnerable people, exploiting their fears, their isolation and their insecurities. It leaves the vast majority of people feeling far worse, and can cause, or exacerbate, depression and other mental health issues, including leading to suicide.

 

Ex-gay therapy is psychological abuse, and the people who continue to ‘offer’ this practice are psychological abusers.

 

The NSW Government should outlaw this practice both because it is wrong, and because it is inherently harmful. This should be implemented by a criminal penalty for anyone conducting ex-gay therapy, with a separate penalty for advertising such services.

 

The imposition of ex-gay therapy on young LGBT people is particularly heinous, given they are especially vulnerable. Therefore, the fact that a person being subjected to ex-gay therapy is under 18 should be an aggravating factor for these criminal offences, attracting an increased penalty.

 

The prohibition of ex-gay therapy, and the protection of vulnerable LGBT people – and especially young LGBT people – from this practice is urgently required to help remove another cause of mental health issues, including possible suicide, of LGBTI youth in NSW.

 

Recommendation 3: The NSW Government should ban the practice of ‘ex-gay therapy’ or ‘gay conversion therapy’, making both conducting this practice, and advertising it, criminal offences. Offering these services to LGBT people under the age of 18 should be considered aggravating factors, attracting increased penalties.

 

Thank you for taking this submission into consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact me at the details provided should you require additional information, or to clarify any of the above.

 

Sincerely

Alastair Lawrie

 

There's no place for discrimination in the classroom-7

NSW schools have an important role to play in preventing LGBTI youth suicide – one that they are currently failing to fulfil.