Tag Archives: Alex Greenwich

NSW Equality Bill Submission

Posted on by

4 July 2022

Alex Greenwich

Member for Sydney

Via email: sydney@parliament.nsw.gov.au

Dear Mr Greenwich

Submission re Equality Bill Consultation

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this personal submission as part of your consultation process on a proposed Equality Bill.

Thank you also for your leadership on the issue of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) rights in NSW, something which has been neglected by too many for far too long.

As I have written previously, LGBTIQ rights in NSW are now the worst of any state or territory in the country – through decades of inaction on law reform by the NSW Government and Parliament, Sydney has become Australia’s capital of homophobia, biphobia and transphobia.

This includes the worst LGBTIQ anti-discrimination protections, and the equal worst birth certificate laws for trans and gender diverse people. As well as an ongoing failure to prohibit non-consenting surgeries and other medical interventions on children born with variations in sex characteristics (intersex children), and to ban sexual orientation and gender identity conversion practices.

If these issues are not addressed before next February, then Sydney’s hosting of World Pride 2023 will not be a cause for celebration, but instead the focus of global embarrassment about the incredibly poor state of legal rights for the LGBTIQ people who live here.

In this submission I will make recommendations for reform in the above-mentioned four areas, with a particular focus on LGBTI anti-discrimination law reform, as well as in relation to commercial surgery.

LGBTI reforms to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)

The NSW Anti-Discrimination Act was once a leader – including becoming the first anti-discrimination law in Australia to prohibit discrimination on the basis of homosexuality in 1982 (before homosexuality was even decriminalised here, which did not happen until 1984).

However, it now compares incredibly poorly across a wide range of criteria, from protected attributes, special privileges for private schools and special privileges for religious organisations generally (for comparative analysis of how it fares overall, see A Quick Guide to Australian LGBTI Anti-Discrimination Laws).

While the Act itself is now so out-dated that it is impossible for it to become best practice without a comprehensive review followed by complete overhaul, there are some immediate, interim steps which could be taken to ensure LGBTI people are better protected against discrimination on the basis of who they are. This includes:

1. Replace homosexuality with sexual orientation

NSW is the only jurisdiction in Australia which does not prohibit discrimination against bisexual, bi+ and/or pansexual people. That is because the protected attribute in the Anti-Discrimination Act is ‘homosexuality’ rather than sexuality or sexual orientation.

This should be replaced with a protected attribute of ’sexual orientation’, with a definition drawing from s4(1) of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic):

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

2. Replace transgender with gender identity

NSW also offers extremely narrow protection against discrimination for trans and gender diverse people, effectively excluding people with non-binary gender identities completely.

The protection attribute of ‘transgender’ should be replaced with ‘gender identity’, with a definition again drawing from the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic):

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

The definition of ‘recognised transgender person’ in section 4 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) should be removed at the same time.

3. Add a new protected attribute of sex characteristics

Intersex people are also poorly-served by anti-discrimination laws in NSW, with the Act failing to include a stand-alone protected attribute to prohibit discrimination against them.

A new protected attribute of ‘sex characteristics’ should be added, once again drawing from the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic):

‘sex characteristics means a person’s physical features relating to sex, including-

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

(b) the person’s chromosomes, genes, hormones, and secondary physical features that emerge as a result of puberty.’

4. Add new protected attributes of sex work, and genetic characteristics

I support-in-principle the inclusion of protected attributes of sex work, with a definition developed in consultation with sex worker organisations such as Scarlet Alliance, and genetic characteristics, developed in consultation with Intersex Human Rights Australia.

5. Remove special privileges for private educational authorities

The Anti-Discrimination Act is the only such law in the country which provides blanket exceptions to all private schools, colleges and universities, irrespective of whether they are religious or not, allowing them to engage in conduct that would otherwise be prohibited.

This includes special privileges to discriminate on the basis of homosexuality against students (s49ZO) and teachers and other staff (s49ZH), and on the basis of transgender status against students (s38K) and workers (s38C), too.

There can be no possible justification for these special rights to discriminate in 2022 – they must be repealed entirely.

In order to ensure LGBT students, teachers and other staff at religious schools are properly protected against discrimination, it is also necessary to introduce a limitation on the general religious exception in section 56 (discussed further below), so that it does not apply to religious educational institutions.[i]

6. Significantly narrow special privileges for religious organisations

In addition to specific exceptions for private schools, colleges and universities, s56 of the Anti-Discrimination Actprovides incredibly broad exceptions for religious organisations more generally.

While paras (a) and (b) of that provision (which permit discrimination in relation to the appointment, and training, of priests and ministers of religion) may be justifiable on the basis of religious freedom (because of their closeness to religious observance), the same justification does not apply to para (c), which allows discrimination by religious organisations in employment (including in the delivery of publicly-funded health, housing and welfare services) and (d), which effectively grants faith bodies a blank cheque to discriminate in service provision.

Both para s56(c) and 56(d) should be repealed entirely.[ii]

7. Remove special privileges for faith-based adoption services

Under s59A of the Anti-Discrimination Act, adoption agencies operated by religious organisations are permitted to discriminate against rainbow families.

This is frankly outrageous, not only discriminating against prospective parents on the basis of irrelevant factors such as their sexual orientation and/or gender identity, but also not being in the best interests of the child, given the exclusion of loving parents on these grounds.

S59A should be repealed entirely.

8. Remove the specific transgender exception in superannuation

Under s38Q of the Act, superannuation providers are given an exception to discriminate against transgender people, by ‘treat[ing] the transgender person as being of the opposite sex to the sex with which the transgender person identifies.’

This type of provision is not found in the equivalent Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth).

Once again, there can be no possible justification for this special right to discriminate in 2022 – this provision must be repealed entirely.

9. Significantly narrow the specific transgender exception in sport

Under s38P of the Act, it is lawful to discriminate against transgender people in relation to a wide range of sporting activities, from elite level through to community sport.

This exception is much, much broader than equivalent exceptions elsewhere, including s42 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), which includes qualifications that such discrimination is only permitted ‘in any competitive sporting activity in which the strength, stamina or physique of competitors is relevant’, and does not apply to children under 12.

At a minimum, these qualifications should also be introduced in NSW, with consideration of adopting the narrower approach found in s29 in the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas), or the proposed changes in this area in the ACT Government’s recent Exposure Draft Discrimination Amendment Bill 2022.

Any reforms in this area should be made in close consultation with trans and gender diverse people, and organisations representing them, and intersex people and their representative bodies as well (given the impact of sporting exceptions on that community).

10. Prohibit civil vilification on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics

Assuming changes are made to replace the protected attributes of homosexuality with sexual orientation, and transgender with gender identity (1 and 2, above), equivalent changes to civil vilification provisions under the Anti-Discrimination Act should be made at the same time.

I also support introducing civil prohibitions against vilification on the basis of sex characteristics.

11. Ensure consistency between the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 and the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

If the civil vilification provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act are updated to cover sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics, equivalent amendments should be made to s93Z of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW),[iii] which makes it a criminal offence to ‘by a public act, intentionally or reckless threaten or incite violence towards another person or a group of persons’ on the basis of a range of attributes.

Reforms to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 (NSW)

As noted above, NSW also has the equal worst birth certificate laws in the country. It is one of just two jurisdictions, alongside Queensland, which still requires transgender people to have genital surgery in order to access identity documentation reflecting their gender identity. 

This situation is completely unacceptable. Gender identity is exactly that, a fundamental characteristic of personal identity, and exists irrespective of surgery, or other forms of medical or psychological treatment.

In my opinion, trans and gender diverse people should be able to update their identity documentation, including birth certificates, solely on the basis of self-identification.

That means imposing no restrictions based on whether the person has had surgery, whether they have had other forms of physical treatment (including hormones), or whether they have accessed counselling or psychological services. It also means not requiring an application to include supporting statements from medical or psychological ‘gate-keepers’.

There is only one Australian jurisdiction which currently meets this standard, the Tasmanian Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1999, with s28A(2)(b) simply requiring the applicant to make a ‘gender declaration’ in support of their application.

I therefore support-in-principle the introduction of birth certificate reforms in NSW drawing on the existing framework in Tasmania.

One other important element is ensuring children and young people have the right to update their identity documentation, irrespective of whether it makes some adults uncomfortable.

This, at a minimum, would involve allowing young people aged 16 and 17 to make applications for new birth certificates in their own right.

It also means ensuring there is a process to allow children under 16 to update their birth certificates where they have two or more parents or guardians and those parents/guardians disagree among themselves whether to support that application.

Finally, it means introducing a framework to allow children under 16 to apply in the absence of support from a parent or guardian, where a court or tribunal considers it to be in the best interests of the child and also assesses the child to be capable of consenting to the application (such as in s29J of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 (SA)).

However, as a cisgender member of the LGBTIQ community, I defer to the views of trans and gender diverse people, and the organisations representing them, on what the exact details of birth certificate reforms should include.

Ending non-consenting surgeries and other medical interventions on intersex children

The unnecessary, non-consenting and/or deferrable surgeries and other medical interventions which continue to be inflicted on children born with variations of sex characteristics (intersex children) aren’t just some of the biggest human rights abuses against the LGBTIQ community, but against any segment of the Australian community.

In this context, it is extremely frustrating that, approaching nine years from the historic 2013 Senate Inquiry into ‘Involuntary or coerced sterilisation of intersex people in Australia’, no Australian jurisdiction has legally prohibited these practices, including there being no signs of action in this area by the NSW Government.

Fortunately, the ACT Government has committed to ending these practices, and recently released their draft Variation in Sex Characteristics (Restricted Medical Treatment) Bill 2022 for public consultation.

On this issue, and whether the ACT legislation is best practice, I defer to the expertise of Intersex Human Rights Australia (IHRA). I note that in their submission to the current inquiry, they wrote:

‘The ACT government draft bill, published in May 2022, arises out of a commitment made in 2019, and deep engagement with community, clinicians, and human rights, bioethics and legal expertise. We commend this bill as a basis for reform in New South Wales.

‘The ACT government bill implements demands in the Darlington Statement of intersex community organisations and advocates in our region, and the Yogyakarta Principles plus 10… Action on this issue implements recommendations 1, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of the 2021 Australian Human Rights Commission report ‘Ensuring health and bodily integrity: towards a human rights approach for people born with variations in sex characteristics’. It also implements calls for reform by UN Treaty Bodies CEDAW, CRPD, CRC, HRC and CESCR, and addresses calls in 2021 position statements citing IHRA staff by the Australian Medical Association and the Public Health Association of Australia. It is consistent with a 2018 submission to the Australian Human Rights Commission by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists’ [emphasis added].

I therefore endorse IHRA’s view – that the ACT draft legislation be used as a basis for reform in NSW, with any necessary amendments developed in close consultation with IHRA.

Banning sexual orientation and gender identity conversion practices

The fourth major reform which should be included in the NSW Equality Bill is a prohibition on sexual orientation and/or gender identity (SOGI) conversion practices (sometimes referred to as gay/trans conversion therapy, or ex-gay/ex-trans therapy).

These are incredibly harmful practices which cause immense psychological, and sometimes physical, harm on LGBTQ people.

In my view, SOGI conversion practices should be banned, both through civil prohibitions, allowing for a range of legal responses, and criminal offences in serious cases (such as where it causes actual physical or psychological harm, and/or involves minors or other vulnerable persons).

Importantly, these prohibitions must apply across a broad range of circumstances, including religious settings (where much of the reported harm takes place), and not just in health settings (which means the existing Queensland approach to this issue cannot be supported).

My understanding is there are potential strengths to both the Victorian Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Act 2021 and ACT Sexuality and Gender Identity Conversion Practices Act 2020.

However, as with trans and gender diverse birth certificate reform and intersex surgeries, I defer to the views of survivors of sexual orientation and/or gender identity conversion practices, and the organisations representing them, on what the exact details of this legislation should contain.

Legalising commercial surrogacy in NSW

This reform is different from the previous four in that it is not exclusively or even primarily an issue for the LGBTIQ community, given individuals and couples seeking to employ commercial surrogacy services can be cisgender and heterosexual also.

However, rainbow families, and especially male same-gender couples, are disproportionately affected by the current legal approach to surrogacy in NSW, which is not only to prohibit commercial surrogacy domestically (s8 of the Surrogacy Act 2010 (NSW)), but also to capture individuals or couples who engage in commercial surrogacy elsewhere but are ‘ordinarily resident or domiciled in the State’ (s11).

The maximum penalty for this offence is high: up to 1,000 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years, or both, for individuals.

More than a decade after this legislation was introduced, I don’t believe anyone in NSW genuinely believes that individuals and couples, including rainbow families, are not still engaging in commercial surrogacy arrangements in a wide range of international jurisdictions (and perhaps the only thing to even slow this process down has been since-eased pandemic-related travel restrictions, not domestic laws).

In this context, my personal view is that commercial surrogacy should be legalised in NSW.

There are two reasons for this. The first is based on harm reduction. Yes, I acknowledge that commercial surrogacy arrangements include a significant potential for exploitation, especially for women who are vulnerable or financially disadvantaged.

However, given commercial surrogacy is continuing (and will continue into the future, based on the strong desires of some members of the community to have children), the best way to minimise such exploitation is to permit commercial surrogacy within NSW, with careful and close oversight – in contrast to the current situation which sees people engage in surrogacy in jurisdictions potentially with minimal or no oversight, and with a legal incentive to avoid scrutiny of their activities.

The second reason for legalising commercial surrogacy in NSW is based on the best interests of the child. For the child being born into these families, it simply cannot be in their best interests for their parent(s) to be liable to up to 2 years imprisonment for the crime of the manner of their birth.

*****

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this submission. Please do not hesitate to contact me, at the details provided, if you would like further information or to discuss its contents.

Sincerely

Alastair Lawrie

NB This post is written in a personal capacity, and does not reflect the views of employers past or present.

If you have enjoyed reading this article, please consider subscribing to receive future posts, via the right-hand scroll bar on the desktop version of this blog or near the bottom of the page on mobile. You can also follow me on twitter @alawriedejesus

Footnotes:

[i] This approach applies in the absence of prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of religious belief in NSW. If religious belief is added as a stand-alone protected attribute to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) in the future, it may be appropriate to allow discrimination by religious schools on the basis of religious belief only (and not other attributes), but only against students at the point of enrolment, and only against teachers and other staff where it is an inherent requirement of the role.

[ii] As with the previous footnote, this approach applies in the absence of a stand-alone protected attribute of religious belief under the Act. If such an attribute were to be introduced in future, it may be appropriate to permit some discrimination on the basis of religious belief only, in narrowly-restricted circumstances, informed by existing laws in Tasmania, and Victoria.

[iii] This includes potentially updating the existing definitions of sexual orientation and gender identity in s93Z of the Crimes Act, as well as replacing the attribute of intersex status with sex characteristics.

Submission to Alex Greenwich Discussion Paper re Removing Surgical Requirement for Changes to Birth Certificate

Posted on by

Alex Greenwich MP

58 Oxford St

PADDINGTON NSW 2021

sydney@parliament.nsw.gov.au

Friday 21 August 2015

Dear Mr Greenwich

SUBMISSION ON DISCUSSION PAPER RE REMOVING SURGICAL REQUIREMENT FOR CHANGES TO BIRTH CERTIFICATE

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this short submission in response to the above-mentioned Discussion Paper, and for highlighting what is clearly an important issue for transgender people in NSW.

I should begin by noting that I am writing this from the perspective of a cisgender gay man and that, if this submission is contrary to the views expressed by trans* individuals and organisations, then those submissions should obviously be preferred.

Nevertheless, as a long-term advocate and activist within the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) community, I find it hard to disagree with the premise of the Discussion Paper which is that trans* people should not be required to undergo irreversible sex affirmation surgical procedures before being able to apply to amend their birth certificate.

Similarly, I can see no valid reason why the approach which has been adopted by Ireland – and which is described in the Discussion Paper as ‘world’s best practice’ – should not be adopted here.

This approach – allowing transgender individuals to legally change their birth certificate through a statutory declaration process without any need for medical documentation – has a number of significant advantages.

These include:

  • Recognising the diversity of experience within the transgender community
  • Respecting the personal autonomy of people to identify themselves and
  • Removing the unnecessary ‘medicalisation’ of this process.

Above all, adopting the Irish approach would make it easier for trans* people to obtain documentation which reflects their gender identity, which is a positive outcome in and of itself.

I look forward to seeing the Final Report of this consultation later in 2015, and to the ongoing work of yourself and the NSW Cross-Party LGBTI Working Group on a wide range of other, related issues, including (but not limited to):

  • The abolition of incredibly unjust ‘forced trans* divorce’ laws
  • The removal of exceptions to the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 which allow private schools to discriminate against trans* students and teachers[i] and
  • The abolition of the unjustifiably broad exceptions granted to religious organisations in sub-section 56(d)[ii] of the same Act.

Thank you in advance for taking this submission into account. Please contact me at the details provided below if you would like clarification or further information about any aspect of this submission.

Sincerely,

Alastair Lawrie

[i] Section 38K of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, which covers education, provides that “[n]othing in this section applies to or in respect of private educational authorities”.

[ii] “Nothing in this Act affects: … (d) any other act or practice of a body established to propagate religion that conforms to the doctrines of that religion or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of the adherents of that religion.”

State Member for Sydney Alex Greenwich (source NSW Parliament website).

State Member for Sydney Alex Greenwich (source: NSW Parliament website).

Submission on Alex Greenwich’s Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Private Educational Authorities) Bill 2013

Posted on by

The following is my submission, lodged today, in response to a discussion paper and Bill released by the Member for Sydney, Mr Alex Greenwich. The Paper and Bill seek to remove exceptions which allow private educational authorities, including religious schools, the right to discriminate against lesbian, gay and transgender students. Unfortunately, I think that to achieve that goal, more amendments to the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 may need to be made. In any event, I believe that there are a range of other amendments which should also be made at the same time, including the removal of section 56 generally. Anyway, here it is:

Mr Alex Greenwich

Member for Sydney

Sydney@parliament.nsw.gov.au

Monday 30 September 2013

Dear Mr Greenwich

Submission on Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Private Educational Authorities) Bill 2013

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission in response to your discussion paper on anti-discrimination law reform, released in August 2013, and in particular in relation to your Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Private Educational Authorities) Bill 2013 (the Bill), which you introduced into NSW Parliament on 19 September 2013.

First of all, let me say that I welcome your strong commitment to removing the discrimination that can be experienced by lesbian, gay and transgender students in private educational institutions, including private schools. As has been demonstrated by the Writing Themselves In reports, and countless other research projects over the years, schools can be one of the major sources of homophobia and trans-phobia in the lives of young people.

It is vital that any ‘exceptions’ in the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 which may authorise schools to discriminate against lesbian, gay and transgender students are removed, and this must apply to all types of private schools, including religious schools. From what I have read, both in the Discussion Paper and associated media, as well as in your Second Reading Speech, I believe this is what your Bill is attempting to achieve.

However, I do have some concerns about the Anti-Discrimination (Private Educational Authorities) Bill 2013, in particular:

  • It is unclear whether the Bill, as drafted, will accomplish this aim
  • There are a range of other amendments which also need to be made to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1997 and
  • If the Bill is aimed at removing the right to discriminate from religious schools, thereby provoking an expected negative response from religious organisations, then I believe that the right of religious organisations to discriminate more broadly under s56 should be removed at the same time.

Turning first to the question of whether the Bill, if passed, would actually achieve the aim of removing the right to discriminate from all schools, including religious schools, I note that the Bill simply removes those provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1997 which provide a specific right to discriminate (namely, sections 31A(3)(a), 38K(3), 46A(3), 49L(3)(a), 49ZO(3) and 49ZYL(3)(b)).

However, the Bill does not amend or seek to repeal the catch-all section which provides exceptions to religious organisations to discriminate – and that is found in section 56(d) which states: “Nothing in this Act affects: (d) any other act or practice of a body established to propagate religion that conforms to the doctrines of that religion or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of the adherents of that religion.”

I am concerned that, by leaving this section unamended, the effect of your Bill would be to remove the right to discriminate from private educational authorities that are not religious, but that religious schools would retain the right to discriminate against lesbian, gay and transgender students on the basis of their ‘religious principles or beliefs’. The practical effect of the Bill would therefore have a positive outcome for a much, much smaller cohort of students than what is intended.

This reading of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, and in particular s56(d), appears to be supported by the main case in this area in recent years: OW & OV v Members of the Board of the Wesley Mission Council [2010] NSWADT 293. This case involved a service operated by the Wesley Mission, which sought to utilise the ‘protections’ offered in s56(d) to discriminate against gay male foster carers. The Wesley Mission was ultimately successful in its appeal.

While foster care is obviously not exactly the same as providing education in religious schools, I believe that it is potentially analogous in terms of indicating how broad the religious exceptions under s56(d) are in practice, and in particular in suggesting that they would operate to shield religious schools that discriminate against lesbian, gay and transgender students from the scope of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.

This also appears to be the opinion of the current Attorney-General of NSW, the Hon Greg Smith SC MP. In a speech titled Religious Vilification, Anti-Discrimination Law and Religious Freedom, which he gave on 24 August 2011, the Attorney-General discussed the operation of s56:

“116. Section 56 creates a general exemption from the ADA for religious bodies. Religious bodies are not required to comply with the ADA in relation to:

  1. The training, education, ordination or appointment of religious leaders [s56(a)&(b)];
  2. The appointment of any other person [s56(c)];
  3. Any other act or practice that conforms to the doctrines of that religion or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of the adherents of thast religion [s56(d)].

117. Section 56 was included in the ADA when first enacted. While other jurisdictions have adopted a general exception from their anti-discrimination statutes for religious bodies, the exceptions are narrower than that under the ADA in the following ways:

a. While section 56(c) of the ADA exempts the appointment of persons ‘in any capacity’ by a religious body, other jurisdictions exempt only appointment of persons to perform functions related to religious practices;

b. Some other jurisdictions have provisions equivalent to s56(d) of the ADA, but others are narrower. Those that are narrower limit the exemption to acts done as part of a religious practice [NT], or don’t extend the exemption to discrimination in work or education [Qld], or limit the grounds of discrimination that are exempt.” [emphasis added]

The implication from this speech, and in particular from para 117(b) above, is that the Attorney-General believes that the protections offered by s56(d) would be available to a school or educational facility run by a religious organisation. This also appears to be the interpretation of s 56(d) by other organisations and advocacy groups which work in this area, including the Inner-City Legal Centre and Public Interest Advocacy Centre.

If that is the case – that either your Bill does not operate to limit the right of religious schools to discriminate against lesbian, gay and transgender students, or that there may be some ongoing uncertainty in this area – then might I suggest you seek additional legal advice on the scope of s56(d), and whether further amendments to your Bill might be necessary to guarantee the rights of lesbian, gay and transgender students in religious schools not to be discriminated against. Obviously, if the Bill is to be debated and ultimately voted upon in late 2013 or early 2014, it would be useful to have clarity about the exact protections to be offered by the Bill beforehand.

Moving on to my second concern about the Bill, which applies irrespective of whether students at religious schools are covered or not, specifically that there are a range of other serious problems with the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, and it is my belief that these issues should be considered at the same time by the Parliament.

For example, as well as protecting lesbian, gay and transgender students, anti-discrimination protections should also be offered to teachers and other employees at the same schools, irrespective of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

In fact, I believe that religious exceptions should be limited to only cover the appointment of ministers of religion, and the conduct of religious ceremonies. In short, religious organisations should no longer be sanctioned by the State to discriminate in employment and service delivery in places like hospitals or social services – and a reform to the existing law is a perfect opportunity to make such changes.

There are also a range of problems with the current scope of, and definitions included in, the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, including the fact that it protects homosexuals (in s49ZF) rather than people with different sexual orientations (with the effect that, while lesbians and gay men are covered, bisexuals are not).

The NSW Act also includes what I understand to be an out-dated definition of transgender (in s38A), rather than the preferred definition of gender identity as passed in the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013. Indeed, the NSW Act does not even cover intersex status at all, unlike its Commonwealth counterpart. I hope that you, and other MPs involved in this area of public policy, are consulting with groups representing the transgender and intersex communities about whether, and how, to deal with these issues.

There are also other problems with the current Act, including what I find to be an objectionable difference in financial penalties for individual offenders found guilty of vilification; the maximum financial penalty for racial or HIV/AIDS vilification (set at 50 Penalty Units) is five times higher than that for homosexual or transgender vilification (set at 10 Penalty Units). There can be no justification for this discrepancy, which effectively creates a hierarchy of offensiveness, with some types of vilification considered more serious than others.

The above problems with the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 are simply those which I have identified from my own reading and research. I am sure that there are other issues which also need to be addressed. This to me suggests that there is sufficient impetus for a more comprehensive re-write of the Act. While the subject of protecting lesbian, gay and transgender students is an incredibly important one, I believe that the range of problems identified above should all be dealt with at the same time.

Which brings me to my third concern with the draft Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Private Educational Authorities) Bill 2013, and that is a concern around tactics or strategy.

By attempting to limit the right of religious organisations to discriminate against lesbian, gay and transgender students in their schools, you are taking on something which many churches take to be an inalienable ‘right’ – the ability to indoctrinate young people with their religious teachings against homosexuality or transgender identity.

As a result, I would expect a significant backlash from those same religious organisations against your Bill. The size or scale of that backlash might only be slightly less than that which could be expected from an attempt to narrow the broader exceptions contained in section 56 (by limiting its coverage to the appointment of ministers and conduct of religious ceremonies).

In that case, it is my personal view that, as well as removing the specific provisions concerning private educational authorities (as featured in your Bill), any attempt to reform the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 should also contain provisions which significantly reduce the scope of s56. If people such as yourself are going to take on the right of religious organisations to discriminate, then why not do so more comprehensively, rather than in what could be described a piecemeal (or at the very least, narrowly-targeted) fashion?

Which is not to say that moves to protect lesbian, gay and transgender students from discrimination are not welcome – they obviously are. And I also wish to restate my support for the overall intention of the Bill; protecting young people who are lesbian, gay and transgender from homophobia and trans-phobia is an incredibly important objective.

However, any attempt to do so must ensure that the Bill captures all private schools, including religious schools. And, even if that drafting issue is resolved, it remains my personal view that reform to the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 should go much further, and address broader issues including but not limited to restricting the scope of section 56.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Yours sincerely,

Alastair Lawrie

Letter to Premier O’Farrell about renaming Taylor Square

Posted on by

10 days ago, the NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell suggested that Taylor Square could be renamed after former High Court Justice Michael Kirby. While I support recognising his achievements, I think that it would be better to rename the square after both Mr Kirby and current, lesbian High Court Justice Virginia Bell. The outcome would reflect both the gay and lesbian history of this location. Below I have included the text of a letter which I sent to the NSW Premier on this subject this afternoon.

Taylor Square Rainbow Crossing

Dear Premier O’Farrell,

RENAMING TAYLOR SQUARE

I am writing in relation to comments which you made in the Legislative Assembly on Thursday 28 February 2013, in response to a question from the Member for Sydney, Mr Alex Greenwich MP, regarding the Government’s commitment to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (LGBTI) community.

In particular, during your answer you suggested that Taylor Square could be renamed after former High Court Justice Michael Kirby, who, as you said in the Chamber, is “a great individual who epitomises that good community.”

While I agree with the sentiment of your proposal, I note that Mr Kirby is already highly decorated, including having the former National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research (NCHECR) at the University of New South Wales renamed the Kirby Institute for Infection and Immunity in Society in his honour.

Of course, this does not mean the state of New South Wales, and the City of Sydney, should not further celebrate the contributions of such an eminent jurist, and the first openly gay man appointed to the High Court.

However, I would humbly like to suggest that, if you wish to pursue this proposal, you could also consider co-naming the square after the first openly lesbian woman appointed to the High Court, Ms Virginia Bell. The location could then be known as either the Kirby-Bell Square or the Bell-Kirby Square.

I make this suggestion because I think it is important to recognise and celebrate the achievements of both the gay and lesbian communities, who each have a historical connection to Taylor Square.

Ms Bell, who replaced Mr Kirby on the High Court following his retirement, is another distinguished resident of Sydney, and one who began her legal career in the inner-city working at the Redfern Legal Centre.

Ms Bell was also a participant in the very first Sydney Gay Mardi Gras on 24 June 1978, which, fortuitously, assembled at Taylor Square before commencing the march. Renaming Taylor Square in Ms Bell’s honour, alongside Mr Kirby, would therefore acknowledge some of the important LGBTI history of this particular location.

Thank you in advance for considering my suggestion for renaming Taylor Square to be Kirby-Bell or Bell-Kirby Square, which I think would be more inclusive of the lesbian and gay communities of Sydney.

Sincerely

Alastair Lawrie