Invisibility in the Curriculum

Did you know that the NSW Personal Development, Health and Physical Education K-10 Syllabus does not require schools to teach students what lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex mean, or even that they exist?

 

The NSW Education Standards Authority reviewed the PDHPE curriculum in 2017 (see my submission to that consultation here), and released its consultation report and final K-10 syllabus in early 2018.

 

It is now being progressively rolled out in NSW classrooms, with full implementation by the start of the 2020 school year.

 

This is despite the fact the new PDHPE curriculum is entirely unfit for the 21st century, contributing to the ongoing invisibility of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) content, and therefore of LGBTI students.

 

This can be seen in a number of ways. The first, and perhaps most important, is in its use – or, more accurately, lack of use – of the terms lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex themselves.

 

In the 138 pages of the syllabus, these words occur three times each.[i] However, two out of these three appearances are found in the document’s glossary – with a definition of each term, and then as part of the broader definition of LGBTI people.

 

But teachers do not teach the glossary to their students. Instead, they are only required to teach the content for each year stage of the syllabus. And the terms lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex can be found only once in the prescribed content, together on page 96:

 

‘investigate community health resources to evaluate how accessible they are for marginalised individuals and groups and propose changes to promote greater inclusiveness and accessibility eg people in rural and remote areas, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people (LGBTI), people from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds, people with disability.’

 

The problem with this is that LGBTI comes after ‘for example’ and therefore even referring to LGBTI people in this exercise is, on a prima facie reading, optional.

 

This issue – the status of content that appears after ‘eg’ in the syllabus – was raised, by myself and others, during the consultation process. The answer at the time was that whether this information was taught was at the discretion of the school and/or teacher. This appears to be confirmed in the consultation report, which states on page 18 that:

 

‘The content defines what students are expected to know and do as they work towards syllabus outcomes. Content examples clarify the intended learning. Teachers will make decisions about content regarding the sequence, emphasis and any adjustments required based on the needs, interests, abilities and prior learning of students.’

 

In practice, LGBTI people appear just once in the entire NSW PDHPE K-10 Syllabus, as part of an exercise about marginalised groups and inclusiveness, but schools and/or teachers can choose to remove even this most cursory of references.[ii]

 

This marginalisation, and exclusion, of LGBTI content and students is simply not good enough.

 

Another cause of the curriculum’s problems can be found if we return to the glossary, and inspect the definition of sexuality:

 

‘A central aspect of being human throughout life. It is influenced by an interaction of biological, psychological, social, economic, political, cultural, ethical, legal, historical, religious and spiritual factors. It is experienced and expressed in thoughts, feelings, desires, beliefs, attitudes, values, behaviours, practices, roles and relationships.’

 

On a philosophical level, this is actually quite an inclusive and even progressive view of the complexity of human sexuality. But on a practical level, the absence of specificity in this definition undermines any obligation for schools and/or teachers to teach about real-world diversity of sexual orientation.

 

This lack of prescription means that, on page 96 – which is the only place in the general syllabus where ‘sexuality’ appears not following an ‘eg’ (and therefore is the only reference that isn’t optional)[iii] – content to ‘explore external influences on sexuality and sexual health behaviours and recognise the impact these can have on their own and others’ health, safety and wellbeing’ does not necessarily include lesbian, gay or bisexual sexualities.

 

It is a similar story in terms of gender,[iv] with the glossary definition (‘Refers to the concepts of male and female as well as the socially constructed expectations about what is acceptable for males and females’) not particularly useful in ensuring students learn about the diversity of gender identities. There also do not appear to be any references to non-binary or gender diverse identities.[v]

 

These definitions of sexuality and gender, and how they are employed throughout the syllabus, could be interpreted by some supportive schools and teachers to include lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender subject matter. But there is absolutely nothing that ensures schools and/or teachers must teach this content.

 

This erasure, or invisibilisation, of LGBTI people in the NSW PDHPE K-10 Syllabus is nothing short of homophobic, biphobic, transphobic and intersexphobic.

 

Which makes it somewhat ironic then that there are more references to homophobia and transphobia in its content than there are to LGBTI people.

 

On page 77: ‘describe forms of bullying, harassment, abuse, neglect, discrimination and violence and the impact they have on health, safety and wellbeing, eg family and domestic violence, homophobic and transphobic bullying, racism, cyberbullying, discrimination against people with disability.’

 

And on page 88: ‘propose protective strategies for a range of neglect and abuse situations, eg family and domestic violence, bullying, harassment, homophobia, transphobia and vilification.’

 

Although note of course that both times homophobia and transphobia appear after an ‘eg’, meaning whether they are taught in these contexts remains optional (and obviously neither of these sections explicitly refers to biphobia or intersexphobia either).[vi]

 

Another major problem with the new NSW PDHPE K-10 Syllabus is its approach to sexual health.

 

There are only two compulsory references to sexual health in the content of the syllabus, one of which we have already seen (on page 96: ‘explore external influences on sexuality and sexual health behaviours and recognise the impact these can have on their own and others’ health, safety and wellbeing’).

 

The other reference, on page 95, describes ‘identify methods of contraception and evaluate the extent to which safe sexual health practices allow people to take responsibility for managing their own sexual health.’

 

There are two problems with this statement. First, it puts the emphasis on ‘contraception’ when sexual health, and LGBTI sexual health especially, is a much broader concept. Second, it does not specifically mandate that schools and teachers instruct students about sexually transmissible infections (STIs).

 

In fact, quite astoundingly, the only reference to STIs in the general syllabus,[vii] on page 84 (‘identify and plan preventive health practices and behaviours that assist in protection against disease, eg blood-borne viruses, sexually transmissible infections’) makes teaching about them optional. The only time the term HIV even appears in the entire document is in the glossary.[viii]

 

In terms of STI-prevention, it seems the NSW PDHPE syllabus has actually gone backwards from the previous 2003 document, which at least prescribed that students learn about:

 

‘sexual health

-acknowledging and understanding sexual feelings

-expectations of males and females

-rights and responsibilities in sexual relationships

-sexually transmitted infections, blood-borne viruses and HIV/AIDS’ as well as to

‘identify behaviours that assist in preventing STIs, BBVs and HIV/AIDS and explore the interrelationship with drug use.’[ix]

 

**********

 

The aim of the PDHPE K-10 Syllabus is explained on page 12 of the document:

 

‘The study of PDHPE in K-10 aims to enable students to develop the knowledge, understanding, skills, values and attitudes required to lead and promote healthy, safe and active lives.’

 

Unfortunately, the more than 100 pages of the new syllabus which follow that statement make clear that it does not, and cannot, promote healthy, safe and active lives for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex students. After all, it is impossible for students to learn everything they need to be safe when they cannot see themselves in the curriculum.

 

This document represents a complete derogation of duty by the NSW Education Standards Authority, and Education Minister Rob Stokes and the Berejiklian Liberal-National that have overseen them.

 

They have also failed in their duty to keep all students safe, LGBTI and non-LGBTI alike, given the paucity of sexual health information, and specific content around sexually transmissible infections, in the syllabus.

 

To some extent it is perhaps a little unfair to single out NSW for these failures, because they are not alone in responsibility for them.

 

As this author has previously written, the national Health and Physical Education curriculum (which provides the framework for the NSW syllabus) developed earlier this decade by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), also abjectly fails to take the needs of LGBTI students seriously.

 

Despite repeated calls for him to intervene, then-Commonwealth Education Minister Christopher Pyne refused to take action to make LGBTI-inclusive content a priority either.

 

Ensuring that all teachers, in all schools, provide health and physical education content that is inclusive of all students and their needs has been placed in the ‘too hard basket’ by educational authorities, and Ministers, at multiple levels of government over multiple years.

 

It seems they would prefer to pretend LGBTI students do not exist rather than to take on the influence of religious schools and others who see anything that promotes the view that LGBTI people are part of the natural, beautiful diversity of humanity as some sort of ‘radical agenda’.

 

In this respect, the exclusion of LGBTI content from the NSW PDHPE K-10 Syllabus shares a lot in common with the current debate about the exceptions to anti-discrimination law that allow religious schools to discriminate against LGBT students, something the NSW Government has also ruled out fixing.

 

As with that issue, the losers out of the new PDHPE curriculum are the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex kids who have the right to learn about themselves, and to receive the information they need to keep themselves safe, but who are instead being made to feel invisible.

 

55d947e87811a0c2c684e8ea8a5b3a90fa7ed982

NSW Education Minister Rob Stokes has overseen the development of a PDHPE K-10 Syllabus that is almost completely silent on LGBTI issues.

 

Footnotes:

[i] The term bisexual actually appears four times, with an additional appearance in the glossary in the definition of ‘same-sex attracted’, alongside ‘homosexual’ in its only appearance.

[ii] This interpretation – that teaching the examples which are included in the content is optional – is supported by page 24 of the consultation report, which states: ‘The content is presented to be inclusive and provide the flexibility for delivery based on the context and the ethos of schools. Schools will make decisions about the scope and range of examples to illustrate the diversity of groups in Australian society.’

[iii] There is a separate reference to ‘sexuality’ that is not optional on page 119 in the Life Skills section, for students with special needs, although it does not specifically refer to diversity of sexual orientations.

[iv] The definition of sex on page 135, described as ‘The biological characteristics that define humans as female or male. While these sets of biological characteristics are not mutually exclusive, as there are individuals who possess both, they tend to differentiate humans as males and females’, also does not ensure students learn about variations of sex characteristics.

[v] The definition of transgender or trans on page 137 states ‘A general term for a person whose gender is different to their sex at birth’.

[vi] As an aside, it must surely be difficult to teach students about homophobia and transphobia when the syllabus doesn’t require instruction about the terms lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex in the first place.

[vii] At a minimum the Life Skills content for students with special needs makes teaching about sexually transmissible infections mandatory (on page 119: ‘recognise issues of safety in relation to sexual relationships, including contraception, sexually transmissible infections’).

[viii] In the glossary definition of sexually transmissible infections: ‘Any infection that can be passed from one person to another during sexual activity. Sexually transmissible infections include chlamydia, herpes, gonorrhea, syphilis, genital herpes, scabies, pubic lice, hepatitis and HIV.’

[ix] On page 27 of the 2003 PDHPE 7-10 Syllabus, here.

Advertisements

Protecting LGBT Students and Teachers Against Discrimination

Update 23 February 2019:

 

The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee handed down its report on the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Removing Discrimination Against Students) Bill 2018 on Thursday 14 February 2019.

 

Although it is perhaps more accurate to say it handed down three reports. The majority report, by Government Senators, recommended that the Bill – which, as the name suggests, would protect LGBT students in religious schools against discrimination – not be passed. This is a broken promise, after Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s commitment to protect these students in October last year.

 

Even worse, Coalition members of the Committee recommended that the issue of religious exceptions be referred to the Australian Law Reform Commission for another review. For context, we have already had the Ruddock Religious Freedom Review, a Senate inquiry into the issue of discrimination against LGBT students and teachers last November, and this most recent Senate review.

 

We don’t need another inquiry, review or report. We just need a Government to take action to protect LGBT students and teachers. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

The Labor members of the Committee provided a dissenting report, which (unsurprisingly) called for their Bill to be passed. Importantly, they also rejected all five of the Government’s amendments that would allow discrimination against LGBT students to continue, contrary to the purpose of the legislation (for more, see my original submission to the inquiry below).

 

On the other hand, Labor Senators also rejected the proposed Greens’ amendment that would remove the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 exception allowing religious schools to discriminate against LGBT teachers. They did restate the ALP’s commitment to protect LGBT teachers in the future, although it is unclear what form this would take.

 

We will need to keep pressure on Bill Shorten, and the ALP, to protect LGBT teachers and to ensure these protections are not undermined by provisions allowing religious schools to discriminate on ‘ethos and values’.

 

Finally, the Greens also provided a dissenting report, supporting the ALP Bill, rejecting the Government’s amendments (for the same reasons as Labor) and calling for their own amendment protecting LGBT teachers to be passed.

 

The Greens have also recommended an urgent review of provisions in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) that allow religious schools to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

 

Overall, then, this was a disappointing Committee Report, with the Government’s proposed referral of the issue to the Australian Law Reform Commission nothing more than a delaying tactic.

 

It’s important to remember there was always going to be resistance to this change. There will always be some religious schools that want to discriminate against LGBT students and teachers. And there will always be some politicians who want to let them.

 

It is up to us to continue with this campaign until all schools are safe and nurturing environments for all students, irrespective of their sexual orientation and gender identity. Because our kids are counting on us.

 

Original submission:

 

there's no place for discrimination in the classroom-10

 

Start the new year right, by writing to support the right of LGBT students, teachers and other staff at religious schools to be free from discrimination.

 

The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs is currently holding an inquiry into Labor’s Sex Discrimination Amendment (Removing Discrimination Against Students) Bill 2018, and proposed amendments to it.

 

Full details of this inquiry can be found here.

 

The most important details are that:

 

  • This is our opportunity to call for all schools to be made free from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity
  • Submissions close on Monday 21 January 2019 (ie two weeks away) and
  • Once you’ve written yours, it can be uploaded here or emailed to sen@aph.gov.au

 

**********

 

If you are looking for some ‘inspiration’ about what to write, here are my suggestions:

 

  1. Personal stories

 

If you are, or have been, a student, a family member of a student, or a teacher or other staff member at a religious educational institution (including schools and universities), please share what that experience was like.

 

This is especially important if you are a lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex person, or member of a rainbow family, who has encountered homophobia, biphobia or transphobia at a religious school.

 

Remember, these examples can range from overt or outright discrimination (such as a student being disciplined, or a teacher being fired or not hired, simply for being LGBT) through to more subtle or insidious forms of mistreatment (being made to feel invisible, having LGBTI content excluded from subjects like health and physical education, or feeling unable to disclose your sexual orientation or gender identity, or information about your partner, to others).

 

The more stories that we share, the louder our collective voice for change will be.

 

Importantly, if your submission is deeply personal, you can ask the committee to keep your submission private. From the aph website:

 

If you do not want your name published on the internet, or if you want your submission to be kept confidential, you should:

  • Include the word confidential clearly on the front of your submission and provide a reason for your request.
  • Make sure that your name and contact details are on a separate page and not in the main part of your submission.

Confidential submissions are only read by members of the committee and the secretariat.

Confidential information may be placed in an attachment to the main part of your submission, with a request for the committee to keep the attachment confidential.

The committee will consider your request but you need to know that the committee has the authority to publish any submission.

The committee will contact you if the committee wants to publish something you have asked to be kept confidential.

If you are considering making a confidential submission, you should contact the committee secretariat to discuss this before you send us your submission.

 

  1. Call for LGBT students to be protected against discrimination

 

Whether you have attended or worked at a religious school or not, everyone should call for the ability of religious schools to discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students to be abolished.

 

Labor’s Bill achieves this outcome, because it would remove both of the existing exceptions in the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984 which allow religious schools to do exactly that.[i]

 

In your submission, you should ask for the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Removing Discrimination Against Students) Bill 2018 to be passed urgently, so that all students can learn in a safe and inclusive environment.

 

  1. Call for LGBT teachers to be protected against discrimination

 

One thing Labor’s Bill does not do is remove the exceptions in the Sex Discrimination Act which allow religious schools to discriminate against LGBT teachers and other staff.

 

This discrimination is also wrong. Teachers should be judged according to the ability to do their jobs, not whether they are heterosexual and cisgender. The billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money that is provided to religious schools each year should not be used to reject teachers and other staff simply for being LGBT.

 

Most importantly, in order for the classroom to be a truly safe environment for LGBT children, it must be an inclusive one for LGBT adults too.

 

Employing LGBT teachers means potentially having role models for kids discovering their own sexual orientations or gender identities. On the other hand, if children see teachers being discriminated against just for being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, they will learn the lesson that their school thinks LGBT people are somehow less worthy than other people.

 

In your submission, you should ask for the Greens amendments to the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Removing Discrimination Against Students) Bill 2018 to be supported. These amendments would remove the exceptions in the Sex Discrimination Act that allow religious schools to discriminate against LGBT teachers and other staff.[ii]

 

However, you should call for the Parliament to make similar amendments to the Commonwealth Fair Work Act 2009 as well, because that legislation also allows religious schools to adversely treat,[iii] or unfairly dismiss,[iv] teachers because of their sexual orientation.

 

Finally, you could ask the Parliament to take this opportunity to amend the Fair Work Act to protect transgender and intersex people against adverse treatment and unfair dismissal, because they are currently excluded entirely from these provisions.[v]

 

  1. Call for the Parliament to reject the Government’s proposed amendments

 

The Morrison Liberal-National Government has released its own proposed amendments to the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Removing Discrimination Against Students) Bill 2018.

 

These amendments would allow religious schools to continue to discriminate against LGBT students in three distinct ways.

 

First, the Government’s amendments would reinstate one of the two current exceptions that allow religious schools to expel or otherwise mistreat students because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.[vi]

 

Second, the Government’s amendments would insert an entirely new provision allowing religious schools to discriminate against LGBT students as long as it formed part of ‘teaching activity’ – where teaching activity is incredibly broadly defined as ‘any kind of instruction of a student by a person employed or otherwise engaged by an educational institution.’[vii]

 

Third, the Government’s amendments would change the test for whether indirect discrimination is lawful in three differently-worded alternative ways,[viii] but with all three adding consideration of whether a ‘condition, requirement or practice… imposed, or proposed to be imposed [by a religious school is] in good faith in order to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion or creed.’

 

The Government’s changes are unnecessary, and would introduce unnecessary complexity into the Sex Discrimination Act. None of the four Australian jurisdictions that already protect LGBT students against discrimination (Queensland, Tasmania, the ACT and the Northern Territory)[ix] include similar provisions in their anti-discrimination laws.

 

Most importantly, the Morrison Liberal-National Government’s proposed amendments fundamentally undermine the purpose of the legislation, by allowing religious schools to continue to discriminate against LGBT students just under a different name.

 

You should call for the Parliament to reject all of the Government’s proposed amendments to the Bill.

 

**********

 

Every student should be able to learn in a safe and inclusive environment, free from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

 

Every teacher and staff member should be judged on their ability to perform their role, not according to who they love or how they identify.

 

Parliament has the opportunity to make both a reality in 2019. But, as with so many law reforms before, they won’t act unless we make them.

 

So, it’s time to get writing.

 

there's no place for discrimination in the classroom-9

 

Footnotes:

[i] The Bill repeals subsection 38(3) of the Sex Discrimination Act which specifically allows religious schools to discriminate against LGBT students, as well as limiting the general religious exception in subsection 37(1)(d) by adding a new subsection 37(3):

‘Paragraph (1)(d) does not apply to an act or practice of a body established for religious purposes if:

(a) the act or practice is connected with the provision, by the body, of education; and

(b) the act or practice is not connected with the employment of persons to provide that education.’

[ii] The Greens amendments repeal subsections 38(1) and 38(2) of the Sex Discrimination Act that specifically allow religious schools to discriminate against LGBT teachers and other staff, and contractors, respectively.

It also amends the proposed new subsection 37(3) so that it removes the ability of religious schools to discriminate both in terms of service provision (ie students) and employment.

[iii] Subsection 351(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

[iv] Subsection 772(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

[v] For more on this subject, see Unfairness in the Fair Work Act.

[vi] The Government’s amendments remove proposed new subsection 37(3) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) in Labor’s Sex Discrimination Amendment (Removing Discrimination Against Students) Bill 2018 that limits the operation of the general religious exception in section 37(1)(d) of that Act. Therefore, even if subsection 38(3) is repealed, religious schools would still be able to rely on subsection 37(1)(d) to discriminate against LGBT students.

[vii] The proposed amendment reads as follows:

‘7F Educational institutions established for religious purposes

(1) Nothing in this Act renders it unlawful to engage in teaching activity if that activity:

(a) is in good faith in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed; and

(b) is done by, or with the authority of, an educational institution that is conducted in accordance with those doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings.

(2) In this section:

Teaching activity means any kind of instruction of a student by a person employed or otherwise engaged by an educational institution.’

[viii] See amendments KQ 148, KQ 150 and KQ 151, here.

[ix] For more on this subject, see Back to School, Back to Discrimination for LGBT Students and Teachers.

Submission to NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into Gay and Trans Hate Crimes

Update 4 March 2019:

 

The Committee handed down an interim report on Tuesday 26 February (just before the issuing of the writs for the 2019 State election). That report can be found here.

 

The primary recommendation (Recommendation 1) is:

 

That the NSW Legislative Council re-establish the inquiry into Gay and Transgender hate crimes between 1970 and 2010 in the 57th Parliament and the terms of reference for further inquiry and report be subject to a decision of the House.

 

This is important, both because the work of the inquiry could not possibly have been completed in the short time available, and also to ensure that evidence of anti-LGBT hate crimes from regional, rural and remote NSW is gathered.

 

The other encouraging recommendation (Recommendation 4) is:

 

That, should the inquiry be re-established consistent with Recommendation 1, the committee invite witnesses to address the issue of the appropriate mechanism for independent review of past gay and transgender hate crimes.

 

Therefore, while the Committee has not agreed to support a Royal Commission at this stage (which was the main recommendation in my personal submission, published below), it has left the door open to recommending a Royal Commission or some other form of independent judicial inquiry in the future.

 

Perhaps just as interesting are the recommendations that had been featured in the draft report, but were removed at the behest of Committee members (as detailed in the minutes of the Committee published in an appendix).

 

Thus (Christian fundamentalist) Labor MLC, Greg Donnelly, moved that the following recommendations be axed:

 

That the NSW Police Force, in meeting Recommendation 3, increase the time currently allocated to the training of new policy recruits in modules relating to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) people.

 

That the NSW Police Force implement a program of ongoing education modules relating to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) people for all officers and other employees.

 

That the NSW Police Force increase the number of specialist Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex and Queer (LGBTIQ) Liaison Officers, particularly in rural, regional and others areas that do not currently have access to such officers.

 

That the NSW Police Force implement a new service to enable lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) people to more readily access the services and support of a specialist officer to make it easier to report crimes or seek the assistance of police.

 

Christian Democrat MLC, Fred Nile, also caused the following recommendation to be removed:

 

That the NSW Police Force change the name of the Gay and Lesbian Liaison Officer program to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex and Queer (LGBTIQ) Liaison Officer Program.

 

Meanwhile, National MLC Trevor Khan (who is usually an ally for the LGBTI community) moved that the following recommendations be axed:

 

That the NSW Attorney General issue a reference to the NSW Law Reform Commission to require that it undertake a comprehensive review of the law of homicide and homicide defences in New South Wales to ensure that recent legal reforms have effectively removed any potential for injustice to occur.

 

That the Judicial Commission of New South Wales review the content of jury directions to ensure that they adequately ensure the fair and equal treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) people and acknowledge the historical legacy of the ‘gay panic defence’.

 

Thus, while the interim report itself is not bad – recommending further investigation by the next Parliament, and leaving the door open to a Royal Commission or other independent judicial inquiry – it could, and indeed should, have been a whole lot better.

 

Original submission:

 

NSW Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues

 

Wednesday 7 November 2018

 

To whom it may concern

 

Submission re Inquiry into gay and transgender hate crimes between 1970 and 2010

 

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

 

I do so as a long-term advocate for the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) community, including for the past six years in New South Wales.

 

However, this timeframe means I did not live in NSW during the period 1970 to 2010. I consequently do not have a personal experience of anti-LGBTI hate crimes in this jurisdiction during that period.

 

Nevertheless, I acknowledge and endorse the work of others, both individuals and organisations, who have documented the appallingly high number of gay and trans hate crimes which occurred here over the course of the past four or five decades.

 

This obviously includes the work of ACON, whose excellent ‘In pursuit of truth and justice’ report is cited in the terms of reference to this inquiry, as well as that of journalist Rick Feneley, whose stories over recent years have finally started to give these crimes the attention, and scrutiny, they deserve.

 

And it includes the work of three former NSW Police employees or consultants – Steve Page, Sue Thompson and Duncan McNab – whose work has confirmed the failure by NSW Police to adequately investigate many of these same crimes.

 

This failure can be seen as one reason, perhaps even the primary reason, why, of the 88 homicide cases identified in In pursuit of truth and justice, approximately 30 remain unsolved today.

 

I therefore welcome the initiative of the Legislative Council in establishing this inquiry, to hear from people who have been affected by these hate crimes, either directly or who have valuable information about crimes committed against others.

 

Indeed, this fits with ACON’s recommendation 1.2:

 

ACON recommends the NSW Government, in partnership with community, undertake a process to comprehensively explore, understand and document the extent of historical violence experienced by the LGBTI community.

 

And also with recommendation 4.1:

 

ACON recommends an independent investigation into the actions of the various arms of the criminal justice system to fully understand the impediments to justice during this period in history, their relevance to current practices, and to identify opportunities to finalise unsolved cases.

 

However, I would argue that, while a positive start, a short parliamentary inquiry is unlikely to be sufficient in and of itself to comprehensively address these issues. I form this view on the basis of the following factors:

 

  • The sheer scale, and seriousness, of the subject matter involved, noting that we are discussing at least 88 homicides, with more that may yet be identified through this process,
  • Remembering that figure does not include the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of additional homophobic and transphobic hate crimes that occurred during this period, including serious and violent assaults, many of which have never been properly documented,
  • The role of NSW Police in failing to adequately investigate many of these crimes (both homicides and assaults), and
  • The allegations of complicity and/or even direct participation by NSW Police members in some of these horrific crimes.

 

Given all of the above, I believe that this subject matter should be investigated through a Royal Commission, which would have the appropriate powers, resources and timeframes to fully explore the gay and trans hate crimes which occurred in NSW over the past half-century.

 

Recommendation 1: That the Committee call on the NSW Government to establish a Royal Commission into the issue of gay and trans hate crimes in NSW since 1970.

 

In terms of the ‘gay panic’ or ‘homosexual advance defence’ and the role it ‘played in the culture of LGBTIQ hate crimes between 1970 and 2010’ and how it ‘impacted the delivery of justice and the treatment of gay men during LGBTIQ hate crime investigations and court proceedings’, I believe it did contribute both to helping to incite these crimes, and in undermining their proper investigation.

 

As I wrote to the Legislative Council Provocation Committee in 2012, calling for the abolition of the gay panic defence:

 

In my opinion, there is nothing so different, so special or so extraordinary, in the situation where the non-violent sexual advance is made by a man to another man, as to justify offering the offender in such cases any extra legal protection. In contemporary Australia, a man who receives an unwanted sexual advance should exercise the same level of self-control as we expect of any other person.

 

To have a separate legal standard apply to these cases is homophobic because it implies there is something so abhorrent about a non-violent sexual advance by a man to another man that a violent reaction is almost to be expected, and at least somewhat excused. This does not reflect the reality of contemporary Australia, where, with the exception of marriage, gay men enjoy the same rights as other men, and are accepted as equals by the majority of society.

 

Even if a small minority of people remain firmly intolerant of homosexuality, that does not mean there should be a ‘special’ law to reduce the culpability of such a person where they are confronted by an unwanted homosexual sexual advance. To retain such a provision is unjust and discriminatory, and is a mark against any legal system which aspires to fairness.

 

The above discussion outlines why the homosexual advance defence is wrong in principle. What should not be forgotten is that the homosexual advance defence is also wrong in practice, or in the outcomes which it generates. After all, the defence does not simply exist in the statute books, ignored and unused. Instead, it has been argued in a number of different criminal cases, sometimes successfully.

 

This means there are real offenders who are in prison (or who have already been released), who have had their conviction reduced from murder to manslaughter, and most likely their sentence reduced along with it, simply because they killed in response to a non-violent homosexual advance. The legal system has operated to reduce the liability of these offenders even when broader society does not accept that such a reduction is justified. As a result, these offenders have not been adequately punished, meaning that above all these victims have not received justice.

 

Similarly, the family members and friends of the victims killed in such circumstances have witnessed the trials of these offenders, expecting justice to be served, only to find that the killer is not considered a murderer under the law. Instead, these family members and friends find some level of blame is placed on the actions of the victim, that somehow by engaging in a non-violent sexual advance they have helped to cause and even partly deserved their own death.

 

The painful ‘lessons’ of the gay panic defence, which were learnt over many decades by the LGBTI community, included the following:

 

  • That the life of a gay man was valued at less than that of other victims,
  • That a non-violent sexual advance by a gay man to another man was abhorrent, and that a violent response to such an advance was at least partially justified, and
  • That the law enforcement and justice systems of NSW were not on our side.

 

These same lessons were learnt by the perpetrators of anti-gay and anti-trans hate crimes. They worked out that LGBTI people made for easy targets, both because we were unlikely to report crimes and, even if we did, that NSW Police were unlikely to do anything about it.

 

Based on the behaviour of some NSW Police officers, including reportedly in the 1989 assault of Alan Rosendale, as witnessed by Paul Simes (see Rick Feneley, ‘Erased from the records; Investigation into bashing of gay man by police in Surry Hills in 1989’, Sydney Morning Herald, 19 January 2015), it seems that they too believed the lives of gay men mattered less than others.

 

It is perhaps unsurprising that, when the law – via the homosexual advance defence – said gay men’s lives were less valuable than those of heterosexual people, some members of the law enforcement arm of government acted in the same way.

 

So, while the abolition of the gay panic defence by NSW Parliament in May 2014 was a major step forward for LGBTI rights in this state, we should not underestimate the damage it caused during its (too-many) years of operation.

 

Thank you in advance for taking this submission into consideration as part of this inquiry. If you would like to clarify any of the above, or for additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at the details provided.

 

Sincerely

Alastair Lawrie

 

w1-truthandjustice

ACON’s excellent ‘In pursuit of Truth and Justice’ Report is available here.

Submission to the Australian Law Reform Commission Review of the Family Law System

Australian Law Reform Commission

via familylaw@alrc.gov.au

 

Tuesday 13 November 2018

 

To whom it may concern

 

Submission in response to the Review of the Family Law System Discussion Paper

 

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

 

While there are a number of important issues raised in the Discussion Paper, I will restrict my comments to one issue in particular: the welfare jurisdiction, and specifically its impact on people born with variations in sex characteristics.

 

This issue is discussed in Chapter 9 of the Discussion Paper, and specifically addressed in Question 9-1:

 

In relation to the welfare jurisdiction:

  • Should authorisation by a court, tribunal, or other regulatory body be required for procedures such as sterilisation of children with disability or intersex medical procedures? What body would be most appropriate to undertake this function?
  • In what circumstances should it be possible for this body to authorise sterilisation procedures or intersex medical procedures before a child is legally able to personally make these decisions?
  • What additional legislative, procedural or other safeguards, if any, should be put in place to ensure that the human rights of children are protected in these cases?

 

I will seek to answer these question as both an advocate for the overall lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) community, and specifically as an ally for intersex people, including as a supporter of Intersex Human Rights Australia (IHRA).

 

In this capacity – as an intersex ally – I have affirmed the March 2017 Darlington Statement of intersex advocates and organisations from Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand.

 

That Statement provides a clear set of principles which guide the response to the current Discussion Paper. This includes:

 

Article 5: Our rights to bodily integrity, physical autonomy and self determination.

 

Article 7: We call for the immediate prohibition as a criminal act of deferrable medical interventions, including surgical and hormonal interventions, that alter the sex characteristics of infants and children without personal consent. We call for freely-given and fully informed consent by individuals, with individuals and families having mandatory independent access to funded counselling and peer support.

 

Article 16: Current forms of oversight of medical interventions affecting people born with variations of sex characteristics have proven to be inadequate.

a. We note a lack of transparency about diverse standards of care and practices across Australia and New Zealand for all age groups.

b. We note that the Family Court system in Australia has failed to adequately consider the human rights and autonomy of children born with variations of sex characteristics, and the repercussions of medical interventions on individuals and their families. The role of the Family Court is itself unclear. Distinctions between ‘therapeutic’ and ‘non-therapeutic’ interventions have failed our population.

 

Article 22: We call for the provision of alternative, independent, effective human rights-based oversight mechanism(s) to determine individual cases involving persons born with intersex variations who are unable to consent to treatment, bringing together human rights experts, clinicians and intersex-led community organisations. The pros and cons for and against medical treatment must be properly ventilated and considered, including the lifetime health, legal, ethical, sexual and human rights implications.

 

Article 23: Multi-disciplinary teams must operate in line with transparent, human rights-based standards of care for the treatment of intersex people and bodies. Multi-disciplinary teams in hospitals must include human rights specialists, child advocates, and independent intersex community representatives [emphasis in original].

 

I also endorse the 7 May 2018 submission by Intersex Human Rights Australia to the Review of the Family Law System – Issues Paper.

 

This includes supporting their analysis of the serious problems caused by the jurisprudence of the Family Court to date in this area (on pages 33 to 42), specifically:

 

  • Welfare of a Child A (1993)
  • Re: Carla (Medical procedure) (2016)
  • Re: Lesley (Special Medical Procedure) (2008), and
  • Re: Kaitlin (2017).

 

The horrific circumstances of the Re: Carla case in particular demonstrate the acute failure of the Family Court to adequately protect the human rights of children born with intersex variations. Instead, the Family Court appears more likely to be complicit in, and sign off on, these same human rights violations.

 

It is hard not to agree with IHRA’s conclusion that: ‘this 2016 Family Court of Australia case is deeply disturbing, exemplifying the way that the human rights of intersex children are violated with inadequate evidence for social and cosmetic purposes’ (page 39).

 

I further endorse the summary findings of the IHRA submission (on page 42) including that:

 

  • The Family Court system has not understood the intersex population, nor the nature of procedures in cases that it has been asked to adjudicate. Most cases are not subject to even this limited form of oversight.
  • The Family Court has failed to properly utilise its procedures in order to ensure that the best interests of intersex children have been thoroughly investigated and understood within the medical context, and within the human rights context, and
  • The ‘best interests of the child’ has been interpreted through a narrow lens, manipulated to facilitate experimental treatments that, contrary to Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, conflict with the child’s human dignity and right to physical integrity. This has been facilitated through appeals to gender stereotypes and social norms with insufficient attention to the long-term health and well-being interests of the child.

 

And I support the recommendations made by IHRA on pages 43 and 44, including that:

 

Recommendation 4. Any non-deferrable interventions which alter the sex characteristics of infants and children proposed to be performed before a child is able to consent on their own behalf should be identified as medical treatment outside the scope of parental consent and requiring authorisation of an independent body (hereafter referred to as the ‘decision-making forum’). A decision-making forum must bring together human rights experts, clinicians, and intersex-led community organisations.

 

Recommendation 5. Whether consent is provided by the intersex minor or a decision-making forum, the pros and cons of medical treatment must be properly ventilated and considered, including the lifelong health, legal, ethical, sexual and human rights implications. Consent or authorisation for treatment must be premised on provision of all the available medical evidence on necessity, timing, and evaluation of outcome of medical interventions. Where this is no clinical consensus, this must be disclosed.

 

Recommendation 10. The current threshold criteria to determine whether or not a procedure is within the scope of parental authority is whether it is therapeutic or non-therapeutic. This criterion has failed to distinguish between interventions that are strictly clinically necessary and those that are not; between interventions based on culturally-specific social norms and gender stereotypes and those that are not. This criterion should be abandoned as a threshold test of whether a medical procedure requires oversight or authorisation from a decision-making forum, and

 

Recommendation 11. Children born with variations of sex characteristics must be treated by multi-disciplinary teams. Multi-disciplinary teams must operate in line with transparent, human rights-based standards of care for the treatment of intersex people and bodies. Multi-disciplinary teams in hospitals must include human rights specialists, child advocates, and independent intersex community representatives.

 

Based on all of the above factors, and returning to Question 9-1 in the Discussion Paper, my approach to these issues is therefore:

 

  • All deferrable medical interventions, including surgical and hormonal interventions, that alter the sex characteristics of infants and children with variations in sex characteristics without personal consent should be prohibited as criminal acts.
  • Where medical interventions on infants and children with variations in sex characteristics are considered non-deferrable, this must be subject to genuine independent oversight.
  • Based on the advice of Intersex Human Rights Australia, the experiences of far too many people born with intersex variations, and the jurisprudence cited earlier, adequate oversight is not being provided currently. The Family Court has failed, in its welfare jurisdiction, to protect the welfare of intersex infants and children.
  • Given this, the Family Court should no longer perform this function. Instead, a new independent authority should be created to oversee issues related to non-deferrable medical interventions on infants and children with variations in sex characteristics.
  • This new independent authority should primarily be guided by human rights considerations, including the human rights of the child concerned – rather than the current approach which both prioritises and privileges a medicalised approach to these questions.
  • Consequently, this new independent authority should receive evidence and information from human rights and children’s rights experts, from intersex-led community organisations and peers, alongside clinical and psychosocial experts. Only by hearing from all of these sources can the issues be properly ventilated.
  • This new independent authority should be national, both so that it can help ensure greater consistency, but also to assist with the transparency of and accountability for its decision-making.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this submission to this important inquiry. Please do not hesitate to contact me, at the details provided, should you require additional information.

 

Sincerely,

Alastair Lawrie

1200px-Intersex_flag.svg

Submission re Mandatory BBV Testing Options Paper

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

This is my personal submission: 

 

via mdtsubmissions@justice.nsw.gov.au

 

Wednesday 31 October 2018

 

To whom it may concern,

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Mandatory BBV testing creates significant privacy concerns

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sincerely,

Alastair Lawrie

 

Genderless (Notices of Intended) Marriage

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

**********

Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department

via marriagecelebrantssection@ag.gov.au

 

Sunday 28 October 2018

 

To whom it may concern

 

Notice of Intended Marriage Consultation

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

I can see no such purpose in this instance.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Gender (optional), please specify

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sincerely

Alastair Lawrie

 

images-1

 

Footnotes:

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

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

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

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

Update 5 March 2019:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Recommendation 5

Sex classification be removed from birth certificates

 

Recommendation 6

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

 

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

 

Recommendation 7

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Original submission:

Law Reform Commission of Western Australia

Level 23, David Malcolm Justice Centre

28 Barrack St

Perth WA 6000

lrcwa@justice.wa.gov.au

 

Friday 19 October 2018

 

To whom it may concern

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

No.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Not applicable.

 

Other comments on the proposed model

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Other issues

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sincerely

Alastair Lawrie