Will NSW Reforms Prioritise Racial Vilification at the Expense of LGBTI Vilification?

Posted on October 16, 2015 by Alastair Lawrie

Post Update #3: 12 January 2017

Contrary to the response received from the Department of Justice in November 2015 (included below), and commitments given by Attorney-General Gabrielle Upton in October 2015, the NSW Government did not release an Exposure Draft Bill to reform vilification laws in early 2016.

In fact, as noted by the Sydney Morning Herald in November 2016: “NSW Parliament has risen for the year without any action on reforms promised by the NSW Attorney-General to ethnic communities a year ago to make it easier to prosecute serious racial vilification cases in the state.”

That means there has been an entire year of inaction on much-needed reforms to vilification laws, that would have not only strengthened racial vilification laws, but also harmonised provisions across the different grounds for vilification (including homosexual, transgender and HIV/AIDS vilification).

This inaction is incredibly disappointing given that same 12-month period has seen a wide range of homophobic and transphobic public debate in NSW, and across Australia (see 2016: Annus Homophobicus). Hopefully 2017 will see this situation change – although, based on the past year, I certainly won’t be holding my breath.

Post Update #2: 23 December 2015

I received the following response to my letter (below) on 19 November 2015, not from the Attorney-General Ms Upton, but instead from the Director of the Community Relations Unit in the Department of Justice [and apologies for the delay in posting before now]:

“I refer to your email to the Attorney General, the Hon Gabrielle Upton MP, about your concerns regarding a review of the NSW racial vilification laws. The Attorney General has asked me to reply on her behalf.

NSW is one of the most culturally, linguistically and religiously diverse
communities in the world. To protect the diversity of our community, the
Government has committed to amending the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (the Act), in particular the racial vilification laws.

Currently, the vilification offences make it clear that for vilification to
be an offence it must threaten violence or incite others to threaten
violence.

As you are aware, the New South Wales Legislative Council’s Law and Justice Committee conducted a review of racial vilification laws in New South Wales, in particular section 20D of the Act.

Section 20D of the Act makes it a criminal offence to incite hatred
towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of
persons on the grounds of race by means which include; threatening physical harm towards, or towards any property of, the person or group of persons, or inciting others to threaten physical harm towards, or towards any property of, the person or group of persons.

In its Report, the Committee concluded that improvements were required to the Act. These improvements include allowing the President of the
Anti-Discrimination Board to refer complaints directly to the NSW Police,
extending the time limit for commencing prosecutions from six months to 12 months and clarifying reckless actions are sufficient to establish an
intention to incite under section 20D.

In light of the Committee’s Report, the NSW Government considers the racial vilification offence and other vilification offences relating to
homosexuality, HIV/AIDS status and transgender status in the Act also need revising.

The Government intends to release for public consultation an exposure draft Bill amending the State’s vilification laws, with legislation to be
introduced into Parliament in the first half of 2016. Details regarding the
draft exposure Bill will be released in early 2016.

Thank you for taking the time to write about this issue.

Yours faithfully

Director
Community Relations Unit
NSW Department of Justice”

Post Update #1: 1 November 2015

The NSW Attorney-General, the Hon Gabrielle Upton MP, announced the NSW Government’s position of vilification reforms on Monday 19 October 2015.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald[i]:

“The government will overhaul hate speech laws in NSW following the terror attack at Parramatta police headquarters and calls from the opposition for stronger laws to clamp down on ‘radical preachers’.

Attorney-General Gabrielle Upton said the government will strengthen and streamline racial vilification laws, defying right-wing commentators who have previously said proposed reforms were ‘straight out of the Leninist playbook.’

Ms Upton said recent events had ‘reinforced the necessarily of being vigilant to and guarding against the spread of racial vilification’.”

Importantly, the Guardian[ii] also reported that “LGBTIQ groups have been lobbying for hate speech against members of their communities to be included in any new laws and it is understood the proposed changes would include them” although it did not provide any further information on this issue.

I sought clarification through twitter from the Attorney-General on the inclusion, or exclusion, of LGBTI vilification in the reforms, and received the following reply:

This response obviously gives hope that vilification provisions contained in the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 may finally be amended to be genuinely LGBTI inclusive, although it will be important to closely scrutinise the Government’s exposure draft Bill, which is expected to be released for public consultation in January 2016.

One final cause for optimism – on the day before Attorney-General Upton’s announcement, the Leader of the NSW Opposition, Luke Foley, made a similar commitment on vilification reform. As reported by samesame[iii]:

“The Labor opposition in New South Wales wants to ensure people who promote or advocate violence based on race, gender or sexual orientation are punished under the law.”

All we need to do now is hold both the Liberal-National Government, and Labor Opposition, to their public commitments.

[i] “Hate speech overhaul to try to spread of racial vilification”, Sydney Morning Herald, 19 October 2015: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/hate-speech-overhaul–to-try-to-stop-spread-of-racial-vilification-20151018-gkbukb.html

[ii] “New South Wales hate speech laws to clamp down on ‘violent extremists’”, The Guardian, 19 October 2015: http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/oct/19/new-south-wales-hate-speech-laws-to-clamp-down-on-violent-extremists

[iii] “NSW Opposition: ‘Hate speech should be a crime’”, samesame, 19 October 2015: http://www.samesame.com.au/news/12884/NSW-opposition-Hate-speech-should-be-a-crime

Original Post: 16 October 2015

The Hon Gabrielle Upton MP

Attorney-General

GPO Box 5341

Sydney NSW 2001

office@upton.minister.nsw.gov.au

Friday 16 October 2015

Dear Attorney-General

REFORMS TO NSW ANTI-VILIFICATION LAWS

I am writing to you on the subject of possible changes to anti-vilification laws in the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977(‘the Act’), as flagged by you in two tweets on 18 September 2015[i], and as confirmed in an article which appeared in The Australian on 23 September 2015, in which your spokesperson “said the NSW government was ‘working towards reform’ in the area”.[ii]

Specifically, I am writing to seek your assurance that any reforms to anti-vilification laws will apply equally across all grounds of vilification, including homosexual, transgender and HIV vilification which are also included in the Act, and will not prioritise racial vilification as more important, or worthy of punishment, than vilification on the basis of other attributes.

Instead, I urge you and the Liberal-National Government to ensure that anti-vilification laws apply fairly both to members of NSW’s ethnic communities, and to the state’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) community.

To begin with, I note that currently the provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act only protect lesbian, gay[iii] and transgender[iv] members of the LGBTI community. There is no legal protection for bisexual and intersex people against vilification on the basis of who they are (or against discrimination more broadly, for that matter).

If reforms are to be made to anti-vilification laws in NSW, then the specific inclusion of bisexual and intersex people in the Act must be a priority.

Even more concerningly, I note that there is a discrepancy in the penalties for vilification which are contained in the Act, depending on the attribute which is involved.

For example, while the maximum penalty for homosexual and transgender vilification by an individual is set at “10 penalty units or imprisonment for 6 months, or both”[v], the penalty for racial or HIV vilification by an individual is set at “50 penalty units or imprisonment for 6 months, or both.”[vi]

Given the vast majority of prosecutions for vilification offences in NSW are unlikely to result in imprisonment, the consequence of this discrepancy is to send the message to the community, whether intentionally or otherwise, that racial and HIV vilification is five times more important, or worthy of punishment, than homosexual or transgender vilification.

I find this message to be inherently offensive – that equivalent acts of vilification should attract differing penalties simply because it involved sexual orientation or gender identity rather than race. I sincerely hope that you agree – and that you will therefore commit to harmonising the penalties for vilification contained in the Act.

However, I am concerned that, rather than ameliorating existing problems, the reforms to NSW’s anti-vilification laws which you have indicated you are considering will instead compound the differential treatment of racial vilification compared to homosexual or transgender vilification.

That is because these reforms appear to be based primarily on the recommendations of the 2013 Legislative Council Standing Committee on Law and Justice Inquiry into Racial Vilification Law in New South Wales.[vii]

This Inquiry made a number of recommendations to amend racial vilification laws, including to:

Include “quasi-public places, such as the lobby of a strata or company title apartment block” (Recommendation 1)
Clarify that “recklessness is sufficient to establish intention to incite” (Recommendation 3)
“[R]eview the adequacy of the maximum penalty units in section 20D of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, taking into account the maximum penalty units for comparable offences within the Crimes Act 1900 and other Australian jurisdictions” (Recommendation 6)
“[R]epeal the requirement for the Attorney-General’s consent to prosecutions of serious racial vilification” (Recommendation 7)
Extend the time limits for commencing prosecutions for racial vilification offences to 12 months, or alternatively to extend the timeframe for the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board to refer complaints to the Attorney-General (Recommendations 9, 10)
“[A]llow the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board of NSW to directly refer serious racial vilification complaints to the NSW Police Force” (Recommendation 11) and
Provide training to NSW Police Force members about the offence of serious racial vilification (Recommendation 14).[viii]

It is arguable that the inquiry itself was flawed from the beginning given it focused on only one out of the four existing grounds of vilification in the Act.

However, what is beyond doubt is that, were you to adopt the recommendations of this Inquiry as a whole, but only with respect to racial vilification, you and the Liberal-National Government would in effect be creating a discriminatory ‘hierarchy’ of vilification laws and procedures in NSW law.

The offences of racial and homosexual vilification are drafted in exactly the same way – the only difference being substitution of the word homosexuality for race.[ix]

In which case, there cannot be any justification for the introduction and passage of laws which would mean that only racial vilification applies in quasi-public places, or includes recklessness, or attracts higher penalties, or does not need Attorney-General approval to commence proceedings, or has longer timeframes for prosecution, or can be directly referred to Police, or for which NSW Police Force members are specifically trained.

Therefore, the implementation of these reforms, if applied exclusively to racial vilification, would be both discriminatory and unjustifiable.

However, what would make them repugnant is the fact that the Standing Committee on Law and Justice’s own rationale for at least one of its recommendations – to extend the time limits for commencing prosecution of vilification offences to 12 months – is in fact based on a case of alleged homosexual vilification. As discussed in Chapter 6 of the Committee Report:

“6.20 The Board referred to a recent case involving homosexual vilification, Simon Margan v Director of Public Prosecutions & Anor [2013] NSWSC 44, which illustrated the potential issues surrounding the timeframe for lodging vilification complaints. In that case, Mr Margan lodged a complaint with the Anti-Discrimination Board of NSW within the 12 month timeframe required under s89B of the Anti-Discrimination Act. However the Director of Prosecutions (DPP), and later the Supreme Court, dismissed the offence as statute barred as it was a summary offence and proceedings were required to be commenced within six months.

Committee comment

6.21 The Committee understands that there is a significant discrepancy between the timeframes for lodging complaints under s89B of the Anti-Discrimination Act (12 months of an incident occurring) and s179 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (summary offences must commence within six months of an incident occurring). The case of Simon Margan v Director of Public Prosecutions & Anor highlighted the injurious impact that this discrepancy can have on vilification complaints.

6.22 It appears sensible to align the above timeframes. Therefore the Committee recommends that the NSW Government extend the time limit for prosecutions under section 179 of the Criminal Procedure Act to 12 months to be consistent with the time limit for lodging complaints under section 89B of the Anti-Discrimination Act.”[x]

And yet, despite noting the ‘injurious impact’ of the discrepancies in time limits on Mr Margan, whose complaint was based on homosexual vilification, the Committee’s recommendation was explicitly restricted to racial vilification:

“Recommendation 9

That, for the purposes of racial vilification proceedings only [emphasis added], the NSW Government extend the time limit for commencing prosecutions under section 79 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to 12 months to be consistent with the time limit for lodging complaints under section 89B of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.”[xi]

If you and the Liberal-National Government were to implement Recommendation 9 as it stands then you would only be adding insult to injury.

For all of the reasons outlined above, I urge you to ensure that any reforms which you make to the anti-vilification laws contained in the Anti-Discrimination Act treat vilification equally across all grounds, and do not unjustifiably, and above all unjustly, prioritise racial vilification offences and discriminate against homosexual, transgender and HIV vilification protections.

Finally, if you are serious about modernising the vilification provisions contained in the Act you should also expand the grounds covered to offer vilification protection to bisexual and intersex people for the first time (and indeed to provide them with anti-discrimination coverage too), and to remove the existing discrepancies in penalties between racial and HIV vilification offences on the one hand, and homosexual and transgender vilification offences on the other.

Thank you in advance for taking my correspondence into consideration. Should you require additional information, or wish to clarify any of the above comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at the details provided below.

Sincerely

Alastair Lawrie

NSW Attorney-General the Hon Gabrielle Upton MP

[i] Gabrielle Upton MP (@gabrielleupton), 8:55am – 18 Sep 2015: “.@shumba60 Racial vilification abhorrent. NSW Govt considering proposed changes to streamline/strengthen race hate laws @mikebairdMP #nswpol”

Gabrielle Upton MP (gabrielleupton), 3:39pm – 18 Sep 2015: “.@VicAlhadeff #NSWGovt wants inclusive, diverse comm. Considering changes to streamline/strengthen race hate laws @NSWJBD @ajnnews #nswpol”

[ii] “Taunts to Trigger Race-Hate Law Overhaul”, The Australian, September 23 2015: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/taunts-to-trigger-race-hate-law-overhaul/story-e6frgczx-1227539272920?sv=64dde3a02ebcfb4c634183c907bbeacf

[iii] Sub-section 49ZT(1) Homosexual vilification unlawful “It is unlawful for a person, by a public act, to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of the homosexuality of the person or members of the group.”

[iv] Sub-section 38S(1) Transgender vilification unlawful “It is unlawful for a person, by a public act, to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of: (a) a person on the ground that the person is a transgender person, or (b) a group of persons on the ground that the members of the group are transgender persons.”

[v] S49ZTA(1)(b), s38T(1)(b)

[vi] S20D(1)(b), s49ZXC(1)(b)

[vii] “Racial Vilification Law in New South Wales – Final Report”, 3 December 2013: https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/E08D4387100A3C56CA257C35007FCC4D?open&refnavid=x

[viii] Ibid, pp xii-xiii.

[ix] S20D Offence of serious racial vilification (1) A person shall not, by a public act, incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of the race of the person or members of the group by means which include: (a) threatening physical harm towards, or towards any property of, the person or group of persons, or (b) inciting others to threaten physical harm towards, or towards any property of, the person or group of persons.”

S49ZTA Offence of serious homosexual vilification (1) A person shall not, by a public act, incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of the homosexuality of the person or members of the group by means which include: (a) threatening physical harm towards, or towards any property of, the person or group of persons, or (b) inciting others to threaten physical harm towards, or towards any property of, the person or group of persons.”

[x] “Racial Vilification Law in New South Wales – Final Report”, 3 December 2013, pp84-85.

[xi] Ibid, p85.

Submission on AHRC Proposal to Create a ‘Religious Freedom Roundtable’

Posted on September 25, 2015 by Alastair Lawrie

Mr Tim Wilson

Australian Human Rights Commissioner

C/- rights@humanrights.gov.au

Friday 25 September 2015

Dear Mr Wilson

Submission on Religious Freedom Roundtable Proposal

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on your proposal to establish a ‘Religious Freedom Roundtable’, including on its draft ‘Statement of purposes and Guiding principles.’

From the outset, I would like to express my scepticism of the need for, and purpose of, this Roundtable.

While your call for submissions[i] at least briefly acknowledges the biggest problem in this area (“how to balance religious freedom with other human rights”), the remainder instead appears to focus on the ‘expansion’ of religious freedom, with the explicit goal of developing a body of policy work “that is designed to enlarge respect for religious freedom and proper consideration of its importance in future policy development and law reform.”[ii]

This is despite the fact that no clear need is articulated for such ‘enlargement’.

Indeed, as suggested by the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) in its recent Interim Report as part of its own Freedoms Inquiry:

“[g]enerally speaking, Australians enjoy significant religious freedom, particularly by comparison to other jurisdictions. Australians enjoy the freedom to worship and practise religion, as well as the freedom not to worship or engage in religious practices.”[iii]

The ALRC went on to comment that:

“[t]here are few Commonwealth laws that can be said to interfere with freedom of religion. The Law Council of Australia advised that ‘it has not identified any laws imposing any specific restriction on the freedom of religion’ and ‘that any specific encroachment is likely to arise in balancing religious freedom with other protected freedoms, such as freedom of speech’.”[iv]

Indeed, it is difficult to think of many areas where religious freedoms are genuinely encroached upon, with the exception of the mistreatment of muslim Australians, by both Governments and other Australians, in the 14 years post September 11 (and it is difficult to see how this Roundtable would help address that issue), or the ongoing abuse of refugees fleeing religious persecution who are detained, processed and resettled on Nauru and Manus Island (although sadly there is nothing unique about this mistreatment, with all refugees who arrive by boat abused by Governments, of both persuasions, in this way).

On the other hand, it is easy to identify ways in which ‘religious freedom’ is currently exercised to discriminate against other Australians, and in this way cause significant harm to them and their rights.

The most obvious, and egregious, example of this is the extremely broad exceptions under most Commonwealth, state and territory anti-discrimination laws that permit religious organisations to discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Australians.

In the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984, these exceptions are contained in sections 23(3)(b), 37 and 38, with sub-section 37(1)(d) revealing exactly how broad this special right to discriminate is in practice:

“[n]othing in Division 1 or 2 affects… any other act or practice of a body established for religious purposes, being an act or practice that conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of that religion or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion.”

In practice, this means that the Commonwealth Government tacitly endorses discrimination by religious organisations against gay teachers, lesbian students, bisexual people accessing health of community services and transgender aged care employees, among many others.

There are also a wide variety of more indirect ways in which ‘religious freedom’ has been used, and continues to be used, to oppress lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender and intersex (LGBTI) Australians.

This obviously includes ongoing advocacy by a number of mainstream christian churches, as well as by homophobic groups like the Australian Christian Lobby, to seek continued discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status through the secular Marriage Act 1961.

But it also includes things like campaigning to ensure the National Health & Physical Education Curriculum does not include content that is genuinely-inclusive of LGBTI students (thus denying their right to health information), or calling on Governments to abolish the national Safe Schools Coalition, a program with the explicit goal of reducing homophobic, biphobic, transphobic and intersexphobic bullying.

For all of the above reasons, I call on you to reconsider the need to establish a ‘Religious Freedom Roundtable’ and that, if you do, to amend the scope of such a Roundtable to ensure that its primary focus is on addressing the many ways in which ‘religious freedom’ is currently used as a weapon, by some elements within society, to legitimise homophobic, biphobic, transphobic and intersexphobic discrimination that is, and should be considered, unacceptable.

Before I turn to the ‘Statement of purposes and Guiding principles’ I would like to make two additional points about the information contained in the call for submissions.

First, in relation to the dot point “[p]reserving religious freedom when an organisation receives taxpayer’s money to provide a public service”, I would note that nearly all religious organisations receive taxpayer’s money through the generous exemptions from taxation law which they currently enjoy.

I would also note that this dot point appears to relate to the ‘carve-out’ to existing exceptions contained in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, which has the effect of prohibiting discrimination by religious-operated aged care services against LGBT people accessing their services, where that service receives Commonwealth funding.[v]

In my view, this carve-out is not wide enough – there is no justification for these services to be legally permitted to discriminate against LGBT employees, either.

But, most importantly, from my perspective it is not the involvement of Government funding that means such discrimination should be prohibited – it is the fact that, employment and service provision in the public sphere, which includes the operation of aged care services, should be free from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status. Full stop.

Second, in relation to the dot point “[b]alancing the right to religious freedom and equality before the law – what are the areas of shared agreement?” I note that the right not to be discriminated against (or ‘freedom from discrimination’), is in fact much broader than just ‘equality before the law’, which could be narrowly-construed as meaning equality under legislation and/or before the courts, rather than, say, equal access to employment or service provision.

Specific Comments Regarding the Draft Statement of purpose and Guiding principles[vi]

The ‘Statement of purpose’ describes the Religious Freedom Roundtable as a forum “for representatives of religious and spiritual communities to have ongoing engagement and dialogue about freedom of religion, conscience and belief (‘religious freedom’) and its interaction with public policy in 21^st century Australia.”

Given the discussion above, and the fact that LGBTI Australians are the people most negatively affected by the exercise of ‘religious freedom’ in Australia, it seems odd to establish a roundtable to look at these issues and yet not have LGBTI organisations at the table.

This omission could be seen as indicating that the Religious Freedom Roundtable is in fact concerned with prioritising or ‘privileging’ the rights of religious organisations over and above the rights of other people, including those of LGBTI Australians.

Under the heading ‘Mutual respect’, in the first paragraph, you note that “[religious freedom] interacts with other fundamental freedoms including freedoms of thought, conscience, speech and association, as well as property rights.”

In response, I reiterate the position from my submission to last year’s Rights and Responsibilities Consultation that highlighting these rights, simply because they are ‘traditional’ or even just older, but omitting other rights such as the right to non-discrimination which in practice is just as important, is unjustified.[vii]

In short, “prioritising certain rights above others potentially neglects and devalues the importance of those other rights which are no less essential to ensuring all Australians are able to fully participate in modern society.”[viii]

Finally, I would like to make the following points in relation to specific ‘Guiding principles’:

Principle 1: Religious freedom is fundamental to the Australian way of life, and should be treated equally to all other human rights and freedoms.

and

Principle 2: Religious freedom is a fundamental human right that should be respected and not limited unless it infringes on the rights of others.

I agree with these statements, and particularly the observations that religious freedom should be ‘treated equally to all other human rights and freedoms’ and respected ‘unless it infringes on the rights of others’.

In practice, this should mean that the right to non-discrimination should be ‘treated equally’ to the right to religious freedom.

More importantly, it means that, given exceptions to anti-discrimination law allowing religious organisations to discriminate against LGBT Australians in health, education, community services and aged care are clearly an infringement on the right to non-discrimination in public life, and that they cause significant harm to these people, such exceptions should be abolished.

Principle 3: Religious freedom has an essential and important role in our public life or civic affairs to contribute to the moral and spiritual guidance of our nation; and faith is as legitimate basis for participation in public life and civic affairs as any other.

I disagree with this statement for two reasons. First, as an atheist, and noting that Australia is a secular state, I reject the notion that ‘our nation’ as a whole necessarily requires ‘moral and spiritual guidance’ from organised religion.

Second, while people should not be prohibited from participation in public life on the basis of their religious beliefs, I do not believe it is appropriate for religious individuals and/or organisations to seek to impose ‘religious laws’ on their fellow citizens.

An example of this is the ongoing campaign by christian fundamentalists to impose a narrow religious interpretation of marriage on their fellow citizens through the secular Marriage Act 1961, in this way denying the human rights of those who do not share the same faith – and even of other christians who do not subscribe to their particular homophobic definition of this institution.

Thus, while participation in public life and civic affairs should be open, such participation should not be abused by using religion as a tool to oppress others.

Principle 6: No Australians should be unnecessarily excluded from participation in public life or civic affairs because of their faith, age, disability, gender, race, sexual orientation, or other irrelevant personal attribute.

While I agree with the underlying sentiment of this principle, I find it disappointing that, as both the ‘Freedom Commissioner’ and also the Commissioner with responsibility for LGBTI issues, you have not explicitly mentioned gender identity or intersex status as part of this principle. These two protected attributes from the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 should be included.

Principle 8: When considering issues that affect the rights of others, it is necessary to provide equal opportunities to enlarge and consider their perspectives with the objective of accommodating and enlarging the human rights of all.

This principle appears to contradict the Statement of purpose, described above – specifically, given most contentious issues surrounding religious freedom in fact concern its intersection with the right to non-discrimination of LGBTI Australians, it is objectionable that LGBTI people and organisations are not included in this roundtable from the beginning.

Principle 10: Individuals and communities of faith will continue to constructively work with government and other public agencies to uphold the law and improve Australia’s moral and spiritual guidance.

As with principle 3, above, as an atheist I reject the implication that Australia, as a secular nation, necessarily requires ‘moral and spiritual guidance’ from organised religion.

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments on your proposal to establish a ‘Religious Freedom Roundtable’, including on its draft ‘Statement of purposes and Guiding principles.’

If you would like to clarify any of the above, or require further information, please contact me at the details below.

Sincerely,

Alastair Lawrie

[i] https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/rights-and-freedoms/projects/religious-freedom-roundtable-call-submissions

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] ALRC, “Freedoms Inquiry Interim Report”, August 2015, para 4.1, page 97. See http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/alrc127

[iv] Ibid, para 4.39, page 104.

[v] Sub-section 37(2): 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 Commonwealth-funded aged care; and (b) the act or practice is not connected with the employment of persons to provide that aged care.

[vi] https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/DRAFT_ReligiousFreedomRoundtable_2015_AHRC_1.pdf

[vii] See my full submission here: https://alastairlawrie.net/2014/10/27/submission-to-rights-responsibilities-2014-consultation/

[viii] Ibid.

Submission re Australian Law Reform Commission Freedoms Inquiry Interim Report

Posted on September 21, 2015 by Alastair Lawrie

Australian Law Reform Commission

GPO Box 3708

SYDNEY NSW 2000

freedoms@alrc.gov.au

Monday 21 September 2015

To whom it may concern

SUBMISSION RE ALRC FREEDOMS INQUIRY INTERIM REPORT

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission in response to the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) Freedoms Inquiry Interim Report.

This submission builds on my submission in response to the Issues Paper released in December 2014[i].

As with my earlier submission, my primary focus is on the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) Australians, including:

The failure by the Commonwealth Government to protect LGBTI people from vilification and
The Commonwealth Government’s tacit endorsement of discrimination, by religious organisations, against LGBT people.

However, before I turn to these issues in detail – and specifically how they relate to Chapters 3, 4 and 5 of the Interim Report – I reiterate my concern about the Terms of Reference for this Inquiry.

From my earlier submission:

“The way in which the Terms of Reference have been formulated, and consequently the manner in which the Issues Paper has been drafted, appears to prioritise some rights above others, merely because they are older, or are found in common law, rather than being more modern rights or founded through legislation or international human rights documents.

This is an unjustified distinction, and makes it appear, at the very least, that property rights or ‘the common law protection of personal reputation’ (aka protection against defamation) are more important than other rights, such as freedom from vilification or discrimination.

My criticism of this inquiry is therefore similar to that of the Rights & Responsibilities 2014 Discussion Paper released by the Human Rights Commissioner Mr Tim Wilson. From my submission to that inquiry[ii]:

“Specifically, I would argue that the prioritising of certain rights above others potentially neglects and devalues the importance of those other rights which are no less essential to ensuring that all Australians are able to fully participate in modern society.

From my point of view, chief among these rights is the right to non-discrimination, or to put it another way (which may be more favourably received), to be free from discrimination, including unfair or adverse treatment on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status.

The right to non-discrimination is fundamental in international human rights law adopted immediately post-World War II. Article 2(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides that:

“Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognised in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, property, birth or other status.”

Similarly, article 21 of the ICCPR establishes that:

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

The United Nations Human Rights Committee has, in cases which both involved complaints by Australian citizens against actions by the Tasmanian and Commonwealth Government respectively, found that the wording of these articles includes the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.[iii]

The Commonwealth Parliament has also recognised that the right to non-discrimination for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) Australians is worthy of protection, with the passage of the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013.

This historic legislation, providing similar rights to non-discrimination to those already enjoyed on the basis of race, sex, disability and age, was a significant, albeit long overdue, step forward for the LGBTI community. For this reason, I would not wish to see the right to be free from discrimination on these attributes to be diminished in comparison to other, more ‘traditional’ rights.

Unfortunately, that is the almost inevitable conclusion of a consultation process which aims to consider “how effectively we protect people’s human rights and freedoms in Australia”… but which then only focuses on a small number of freedoms, including the right to property, but which neglects others.”

[End extract]

Unfortunately, while the ALRC Freedoms Inquiry Issues Paper acknowledged that “[f]reedom from discrimination is also a fundamental human right”, in my opinion the Interim Report does not reflect this view and in fact further privileges some rights over the right to non-discrimination simply because they are ‘older’ in legal origin.

Nevertheless, in the remainder of this submission I will continue to focus on the important right to non-discrimination, including associated protections against vilification, as it relates to the freedoms of speech, religion and association that are discussed in Chapters 3, 4 and 5 respectively.

Chapter 3: Freedom of Speech

My first comment relates to terminology, namely the protected attributes referred to in paragraph 3.103 on page 80.

It is disappointing that the discussion of protections against breaches of human rights and discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (and the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986) would refer to the out-dated term ‘sexual preference’, rather than the more inclusive and better practice term ‘sexual orientation’.

It is also disappointing that the two other grounds added by the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013 – ‘gender identity’, and ‘intersex status’ – are not included in this paragraph.

Turning now to the more substantive issue of anti-vilification laws generally, and the issue of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 specifically (as discussed on pages 80 to 84).

Despite public controversy in recent years (at least in the eyes of some conservative commentators), I do not believe that there has been any real evidence that the racial vilification protections of the RDA have, in practice, operated inappropriately, or that they require significant amendment.

Moreover, rather than repeal Commonwealth racial vilification protections, I continue to believe there is a strong case for the introduction of similar laws against vilification on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status.

As I wrote in my earlier submission [edited]:

“My primary question is why laws should be established to prohibit ‘advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred’ but not to prohibit advocacy of hatred on other grounds, including sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

The impact of vilification on these grounds, and the negative influence of public homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and intersexphobia more generally, is just as harmful as racial or religious vilification, and therefore I can see no good reason why there should not also exist equivalent anti-vilification protections covering LGBTI Australians at Commonwealth level.

In short, if there should be a law to protect against the incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence on the basis of race, then there should also be a law to protect people on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status.

The fact that there is no such Commonwealth law means that the Government is currently failing in its duty to protect LGBTI Australians from vilification.”

[End extract]

Therefore, my response to the ‘[c]onclusions’ in paragraph 3.191 is to reject the suggestion that “[a]nti-discrimination law may also benefit from more thorough review in relation to implications for freedom of speech” but to instead submit that the Commonwealth Government should amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 to include vilification protections on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status, as a matter of priority.

Chapter 4: Freedom of Religion

It is difficult to disagree with the opening paragraph of Chapter 4, where it asserts: “[g]enerally speaking, Australians enjoy significant religious freedom, particularly by comparison to other jurisdictions. Australians enjoy the freedom to worship and practise religion, as well as the freedom not to worship or engage in religious practices,” or this description in paragraph 4.39 on page 104:

“There are few Commonwealth laws that can be said to interfere with freedom of religion. The Law Council of Australia advised that “it has not identified any laws imposing any specific restriction on the freedom of religion” and “that any specific encroachment is likely to arise in balancing religious freedom with other protected freedoms, such as freedom of speech.””

In fact, I would go further to suggest that religious freedom is unnecessarily and unjustifiably prioritised, and provided with ‘special treatment’, within Australia.

This is because legal protections surrounding freedom of religion extend far beyond the right to worship freely (or not) to incorporate other ‘rights’, including the ‘right to discriminate’ against people on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

This so-called ‘right to discriminate’ applies outside places and celebrations of worship, to allow education, health and community services that are operated by religious organisations to discriminate against LGBT Australians both in employment, and in service delivery.

This is reflected in the variety of extremely broad exceptions and exemptions under Commonwealth, state and territory anti-discrimination law, which provide that the requirement not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity does not apply to these organisations.

In the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, these exceptions are contained in sections 23(3)(b), 37 and 38, with sub-section 37(1)(d) revealing exactly how broad this freedom to discriminate is in practice:

It should be noted that there is nothing inherent in the freedom of religion that automatically requires religious organisations to be provided with what is essentially a ‘blank cheque’ to discriminate against LGBT employees and LGBT people accessing services in a wide variety of circumstances.

There are two reasons for this:

First, these services, whether they are in the fields of education, health or community services, are located squarely in the public sphere, and their primary nature is related to the delivery of education, health or community services, not to the ‘celebration’ of religion.

This means that, while discrimination against ministers of religion or worshippers within a church, mosque or synagogue on these grounds might conceptually fall within freedom of religion, it is much more difficult to argue that discrimination within a school, hospital or aged care facility is as essential to enjoyment of the same freedom.

Second, we accept that there are limits to religious freedom where it threatens public order, or causes significant harm to other people. It is clear that allowing religious organisations to discriminate freely in these settings causes considerable harm to LGBT Australians, including by:

a) Denying employment to people who are eminently qualified to perform a role, with this discrimination based solely on their sexual orientation or gender identity, attributes which are irrelevant to the job at hand, and

b) Discriminating against people who wish to access services on the same basis, the most egregious example of which is mistreatment of young lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students whose parents have chosen to send to schools operated by religious organisations (and where they are often unaware that their child is LGBT).

For both of these reasons, I reiterate the view from my earlier submission that the exceptions offered to religious organisations under Commonwealth, state and territory anti-discrimination law should be significantly curtailed.

As I wrote previously:

“Religious exceptions and exemptions under Commonwealth, state and territory anti-discrimination laws allow serious harm to be caused to LGBT Australians, on a day-to-day basis and across multiple spheres of public life, and, I submit, should be significantly curbed.

To this end, I believe the religious exemptions which are included in sub-sections 37(1)(a),(b) and (c) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984[iv], if supplemented by exemptions covering how religious ceremonies are conducted, are both more justifiable in being better targeted to protecting freedom of religious worship itself, and less likely to result in harm to LGBT people through the breach of their right to non-discrimination across broad areas of public life. These are the only religious exemptions that, I believe, should be retained.

This, much narrower, form of religious exemptions would, in my view, also be a more appropriate outcome of a system of human rights that seeks to both protect fundamental rights, and promote the responsibility not to infringe upon the fundamental rights of others.”

[End extract]

Perhaps the most concerning part of the Interim Report is the stakeholder feedback from some religious organisations, lobbyists and lobby groups that, contrary to the above view, their rights to discriminate are currently too narrowly defined and they in fact demand a far greater ability to impose discrimination against LGBT Australians.

This includes submissions from the Australian Christian Lobby, Mr Patrick Parkinson, Freedom for Faith, Family Voice, the Wilberforce Foundation, Christian Schools Australia and the Presbyterian Church of Victoria. Their suggestions include replacing the existing, already overly generous exceptions to anti-discrimination law, with a positively-framed ‘right to discriminate’.

These groups are essentially arguing that religious freedom, no matter how broadly defined or how indirectly related to the actual celebration of religion, must always take precedence over the rights of others not to be discriminated against, even where such discrimination obviously causes significant harm.

I urge the ALRC to reject the views of these religious fundamentalists, and their attempts to impose the ‘supremacy’[v] of religious freedom over any or all other rights in Australian society, including through Commonwealth law.

Finally, while on Chapter 4, I note the discussion regarding solemnising marriage ceremonies on pages 111 to 113 of the Interim Report.

While I do not propose to comment on the content which is included in this section, I would note that one issue which is not canvassed is the proposal by some that, when marriage equality is finally introduced in Australian law, it should be accompanied by the establishment of a new right for civil celebrants to refuse to solemnise wedding ceremonies of LGBTI Australians.

Such provisions have been included in the Freedom to Marry Bill 2014, introduced by Liberal Democratic Senator David Leyonhjelm, and similar rights to ‘conscientiously object’ have also been advocated for by the Australian Human Rights Commissioner, Mr Tim Wilson.

For reasons that I have outlined elsewhere[vi], such provisions should be rejected by the Commonwealth Parliament on the basis that this would set a concerning precedent whereby individuals would be able to discriminate in service delivery on the basis of their personal religious beliefs, and because a social reform which is based on love would be fundamentally undermined by provisions which legitimise hate.

Chapter 5: Freedom of Association

The issues which arise in this Chapter are similar to those raised in Chapter 4: Freedom of Religion. In particular, people like Mr Patrick Parkinson and Family Voice submit that freedom of association should allow religious organisations to discriminate against people who do not “fit with the mission and values of the organisation.”

To a certain extent I agree – churches, mosques and synagogues, indeed all formally and explicitly religious organisations, should be free to include or exclude whoever they want, on whatever basis they want, as ministers of religion and as worshippers or members of their respective congregations.

The ‘whoever they want, on whatever basis they want’ formulation is important – if the people making the case for freedom of religion, and freedom of association, to justify exempting religious organisations from anti-discrimination laws are philosophically consistent, they should be pushing for exceptions to be introduced into the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and other anti-discrimination schemes as much as they argue for the existing exceptions in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984.

If they do not, then it reveals that they are not genuinely motivated by the pursuit of these freedoms, but are in fact engaged in an exercise in prejudice specifically directed against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

In a similar way to Chapter 4, I also disagree that the freedom of association should extend to allow education, health and community services operated by religious organisations to be able to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Any argument that might be raised that these schools, hospitals or aged care facility should have the freedom to include or exclude ‘whoever they want, on whatever basis they want’ is outweighed by the public interest in having education, health and community services provided on a non-discriminatory basis, and specifically by the harm caused to LGBT people by allowing such discrimination to occur.

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide a submission in response to the Interim Report. Please do not hesitate to contact me, at the details below, should you wish to clarify any of the above or to seek additional information.

Sincerely

Alastair Lawrie

[i] https://alastairlawrie.net/2015/02/15/submission-to-australian-law-reform-commission-traditional-rights-and-freedoms-inquiry/

[ii] Full submission at: https://alastairlawrie.net/2014/10/27/submission-to-rights-responsibilities-2014-consultation/

[iii] Human Rights Committee, Toonen v Australia, Communication No. 488/1992, UN Doc CCPR/C/50/D/488/92 and Human Rights Committee, Young v Australia, Communication No. 941/2000, UN Doc CCPR/C/78/D/941/2000.

[iv] “Nothing in Division 1 or 2 affects:

the ordination or appointment of priests, ministers of religion or members of any religious order;
the training or education of persons seeking ordination or appointment as priests, ministers of religion or members of a religious order;
the selection or appointment of persons to perform duties or functions for the purposes of or in connection with, or otherwise to participate in, any religious observance or practice…”

[v] Indeed, it is especially concerning that the Australian Christian Lobby uses the language of ‘supremacy’ in its own submission: “Courts and legislatures need to acknowledge the supremacy of the fundamental rights of freedom of religion, conscience, speech and association… [it is] a freedom which must be placed among the top levels of human rights hierarchy” as quoted at paragraph 4.96 on page 116.

[vi] See: https://alastairlawrie.net/2014/12/21/senator-leyonhjelms-marriage-equality-bill-undermines-the-principle-of-lgbti-anti-discrimination-should-we-still-support-it/

No Referendum. No Plebiscite. Just Pass the Bill.

Posted on August 29, 2015 by Alastair Lawrie

The following is my submission to the current Senate Inquiry into whether there should be a referendum or plebiscite into marriage equality. As you can tell from the title of this post, I am strongly against both.

For more information, or to make your own submission, go here: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/Marriage_Plebiscite

Committee Secretary

Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee

PO Box 6100

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

legcon.sen@aph.gov.au

Saturday 29 August 2015

Dear Committee Members

SUBMISSION TO INQUIRY INTO “THE MATTER OF A POPULAR VOTE, IN THE FORM OF A PLEBISCITE OR REFERENDUM, ON THE MATTER OF MARRIAGE IN AUSTRALIA”

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this submission on the question of whether Australia should hold a ‘public vote’ on the issue of marriage equality, and if so what form and timing such a vote should take.

My overall response to this question is that a marriage equality plebiscite or referendum would be unnecessary, inappropriate, wasteful and divisive, and therefore should not be held.

My detailed responses to the terms of reference to the inquiry are set out below.

a. An assessment of the content and implications of a question to be put to electors

I believe that a plebiscite or referendum on marriage equality would be unnecessary, inappropriate, wasteful and divisive, and therefore will not address this term of reference.

b. An examination of the resources required to enact such an activity, including the question of the contribution of Commonwealth funding to the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ campaigns

I believe that a plebiscite or referendum on marriage equality would be unnecessary, inappropriate, wasteful and divisive, and therefore will not address this term of reference.

c. An assessment of the impact of the timing of such an activity, including the opportunity for it to coincide with a general election

I believe that a plebiscite or referendum on marriage equality would be unnecessary, inappropriate, wasteful and divisive, and therefore will not address this term of reference.

d. Whether such an activity is an appropriate method to address matters of equality and human rights

It is absolutely inappropriate to use a ‘public vote’ to determine whether all people should be treated equally under the law, irrespective of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

The recognition of the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) Australians should not be subject to a popularity contest, and only granted if enough people express the view, through such a vote, that we are ‘worthy’.

In circumstances where it is not already formally recognised, the right for all couples to be married under secular law should be recognised in the usual place and in the usual way – in our nation’s parliament.

Turning specifically to the question of a referendum, the High Court has already found that the Commonwealth Parliament has the constitutional power to introduce marriage equality.

In the 2013 case overturning the Australian Capital Territory’s same-sex marriage laws, the High Court stated, unequivocally, that: “[w]hen used in s51(xxi), “marriage” is a term which includes a marriage between persons of the same sex.”[i]

This makes those who argue for a ‘constitutional referendum’ on this subject, or who even suggest that one could be held, seem to be one of two things, either:

Completely lacking in understanding of the Constitution, and the Australian system of government generally (and arguably dangerously ill-informed where such people are current parliamentarians)

Motivated by a desire to block the equality of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex Australians by whatever means necessary, even by holding an unnecessary referendum, solely because it imposes a higher threshold for success (the requirement to be passed by both a majority of voters, and a majority of voters in a majority of states).

While there are fewer legal arguments against holding a plebiscite on marriage equality, there remain strong reasons why it would be inappropriate.

First, as described above, whether human rights are recognised or not should not be determined through a popularity contest.

Second, the result of any such plebiscite would not be binding on the Parliament, and there would obviously be no requirement for a successful result to be recognised immediately (as demonstrated by the 1977 plebiscite on the national anthem, which was not legislated until 1984).

Third, and related to the above, the suggestion to hold a plebiscite on marriage equality appears to be nothing more than a delaying tactic, designed to hold off the prospect of full equality for LGBTI Australians for at least another term, or more (especially given Prime Minister Abbott has expressed his desire for it to be held after the next federal election, and even then after the referendum on constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians).

Fourth, and finally, it should be noted that the same people who are arguing for a plebiscite now (including Prime Minister Tony Abbott, Deputy Liberal Leader and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and Treasurer Joe Hockey) voted against marriage equality in the Parliament in August 2004 and, joined by Social Services Minister Scott Morrison, did so again in September 2012.

At no point did they express the view that parliamentarians voting on marriage equality was somehow inappropriate – at least while the Parliament was voting ‘No’.

Indeed, in May, responding to the Irish marriage equality referendum and rejecting a similar proposal here, Prime Minister Abbott said that: “questions of marriage are the preserve of the Commonwealth Parliament”.[ii]

The only thing that appears to have changed is that, unlike 2004 and 2012, and were a Liberal Party conscience vote to be granted, marriage equality legislation would have a reasonable chance of success in 2015.

Which only makes the decision to reject the concept of a parliamentary vote, in favour of a plebiscite, appear even worse.

It is not just moving the goalposts, it is changing the fundamental rules of the game, to thwart opponents who simply want the right to be treated equally under the law.

It is beyond unreasonable, it is hypocritical and grossly unfair, and should be rejected.

A referendum or plebiscite on marriage equality would also be extraordinarily wasteful.

Public estimates of the cost of holding such a vote (particularly when it is a standalone ballot, which is the preference of Prime Minister Abbott) have put the figure at in excess of $100 million.[iii]

This is extraordinarily expensive, particularly given introducing marriage equality is something that could be done by our nation’s Parliament in the ordinary course of events, at no additional cost to the taxpayer.

Of course, if the Abbott Liberal-National Government genuinely wants to spend $100-150 million on issues of concern to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians, then might I suggest the following:

Implementing the reforms recommended by the 2013 Senate Inquiry into the Involuntary or Coerced Sterilisation of Intersex People in Australia, to end this gross violation of human rights
Removing out-of-pocket medical expenses for transgender Australians
Increasing funding for the Safe Schools Coalition to ensure it reaches students in every school across the country and
Funding housing services for LGBTI young people, who are disproportionately affected by homelessness.

All of these suggestions, and indeed a great many others, would be better uses of public monies than throwing millions of dollars away on an unnecessary, inappropriate and wasteful plebiscite or referendum.

In addition to the above reasons, it should also be acknowledged that a public vote on marriage equality has the potential to be incredibly divisive, and therefore dangerous.

This is because any referendum or plebiscite would necessarily stir up homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and intersexphobia in the community, and especially in the media.

We experienced a small taste of what such a debate would look like this week when the Daily Telegraph newspaper devoted its front page, and several pages thereafter, to attacking the idea that students should be exposed to the reality that rainbow families exist, and are normal (with one columnist even ‘bravely’ telling a 12 year old girl that her family was not normal).

The only positive aspect of this outrageous and horrific ‘beat-up’ is that it has gradually receded in prominence, replaced by other stories as part of the regular news cycle.

Unfortunately, the holding of a plebiscite or referendum on marriage equality would all but ensure that such stories were featured prominently for days, weeks or even months on end.

We should not underestimate the damage that such a vote would cause.

Research consistently finds that young lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are disproportionately affected by mental health issues, and have substantially higher rates of suicide than their cisgender heterosexual counterparts, with one of the main causes being the discrimination and prejudice to which they are exposed every day.

A bitter and protracted public debate, about whether who they are should be treated equally under the law or not, would inevitably have a significant, negative impact on their mental health.

But they would not be the only ones adversely affected. A nasty campaign against the equality of LGBTI families, which would be an inevitable part of any public vote, would also negatively impact on the wellbeing of the children of these families.

Indeed, nearly all LGBTI Australians would probably be affected in some way by the holding of a public vote to determine whether we should continue to be treated as second class citizens by our own country or not. Such a vote should not be held.

A plebiscite or referendum on marriage equality would be unnecessary, inappropriate, wasteful and divisive. It should be comprehensively rejected by this Inquiry, and by the Commonwealth Parliament.

e. The terms of the Marriage Equality Plebiscite Bill 2015 currently before the Senate

I believe that a plebiscite or referendum on marriage equality would be unnecessary, inappropriate, wasteful and divisive.

I therefore call on all Senators to reject the Marriage Equality Plebiscite Bill 2015 currently before the Senate, and to resist any and all attempts to hold a plebiscite or referendum on this subject in the future.

f. Any other related matters

There is absolutely no justification whatsoever to hold a referendum on something which the High Court has already found is within the power of the Commonwealth Parliament.

Nor is there any justification to hold a plebiscite on marriage equality. I am 37 years old, and there has not been a federal plebiscite in my lifetime.

It is bizarre, and offensive, that the first plebiscite since 1977 should be held to determine whether my relationship should be treated equally under the law.

My fiancé Steven and I recently celebrated our 7^th anniversary. We have been engaged for more than five and a half years. We, like thousands of other LGBTI couples in Australia, are done waiting.

We have gone to protests, we have written submissions, we have commented in the media, we have patiently (and sometimes less than patiently) campaigned for change.

Finally, when the numbers for reform appear to exist within the Parliament, if not this year then certainly after the 2016 election (irrespective of who wins), Prime Minister Abbott and the Liberal-National Government he leads seek to change the rules.

Despite voting against my equality for more than a decade, without reservation, he and his colleagues now believe that this is not something which can be determined by the Commonwealth Parliament.

Plainly, they are wrong. Marriage equality can and should be passed, in the House of Representatives and the Senate, the same places where it was banned in August 2004.

And, if our current House of Representatives MPs and Senators will not do their job, if they refuse to legislate for the equal right to marry for all Australians irrespective of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status, then the Australian people must do their job next year and vote them out. Because LGBTI Australians have waited long enough.

Thank you for taking this submission into consideration.

Sincerely

Alastair Lawrie

If Prime Minister Tony Abbott, and the Government he leads, will not change the law, then the Australian people must change the Government.

[i] The Commonwealth v Australian Capital Territory [2013] HCA 55, para 38.

[ii] “Gay Marriage Referendum in Australia Dismissed by Tony Abbott”, ABC News Online, 25 May 2015: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-24/leaders-dismiss-same-sex-marriage-referendum-in-australia/6493180

[iii] “Williams said the average cost of a referendum was between $100m and $150m outside an election and half that if it was held in conjunction with an election”: “Tony Abbott says no to referendum on same-sex marriage, despite Irish vote”, Guardian Australia, 24 May 2015: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/24/tony-abbott-says-no-to-referendum-on-same-sex-marriage-despite-irish-vote

What ALP National Conference Delegates Should Hear About Marriage Equality

Posted on July 19, 2015 by Alastair Lawrie

While I am a member of the Labor Party (and have been for more than 13 years), I have not been elected as a delegate to this year’s ALP National Conference, which will be held in Melbourne next weekend (Friday 24 to Sunday 26 July).

If I had been, and if I had the privilege of speaking during the Rules debate scheduled for Sunday afternoon, this is the speech I would like to give:

*************************************

It’s time for the Australian Labor Party to fully support the equal rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians.

It’s time to say – without equivocation or qualification – that the relationships of LGBTI people must be treated in exactly the same way under secular law as their cisgender heterosexual counterparts.

It’s time to take the Platform position, which already supports marriage equality in principle, and make it binding on the members of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party.

The Labor Party can bind on marriage equality.

In fact, for more than two thirds of the time marriage equality has been debated in our Parliament, the ALP has bound its MPs and Senators on this issue – from Howard’s homophobic ban in August 2004, which we shamefully supported, until the last National Conference in December 2011, Labor MPs and Senators were bound to vote against it.

With a large majority of Party members, of Labor MPs and Senators – and, above all, of the Australian community – supporting amendments to the Marriage Act to ensure it does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status, there is absolutely no reason why we should not bind in support in 2015.

There is nothing so unusual or exceptional about marriage equality that dictates that normal Party processes, based on the principles of solidarity and collective action, and which ordinarily demand a bound vote, should not apply to this issue.

Despite what some delegates might try to argue, religious freedom is not a legitimate argument to reject a binding vote.

The introduction of marriage equality will not have an adverse impact on religious freedom. Under every Bill proposed to date, ministers of religion will be free to decline to officiate LGBTI weddings.

In fact, the introduction of marriage equality will enhance religious freedom because it will allow those organisations and faiths that want to marry LGBTI couples to do so.

As Tony Burke notes: “Those who want to marry will be able to do so. Those who do not want the change will be unaffected by it.”

That includes individual parliamentarians who want to oppose marriage equality simply because it does not accord with their personal faith.

If legislation sought to impose marriage equality within religion, to change the official teachings of their faith, they might have an argument.

But it does not. Again, as Tony Burke observes: “The various religious faiths will continue to have their own views and rules around marriage. The law of Australia needs to respect the freedom of people to practice their faith and it will.”

Viewed in this way, it is clear that MPs and Senators demanding a conscience vote in order to oppose equality in secular law are not seeking to exercise their ‘religious freedom’ – they are seeking to impose their personal religious views onto others.

And, as a secular political party, we should vigorously resist their attempts.

The Labor Party should bind on marriage equality.

It should bind because introducing this reform would address one of the major outstanding forms of discrimination against LGBTI Australians – and the ALP should always stand united in addressing discrimination against the marginalised.

In the words of Deputy Leader Tanya Plibersek, the question is simple: “Do we support legal discrimination against one group in this country? Or do we not?”

It should bind because the ability to found a family, and to have one’s relationships recognised under secular law, is more than just a natural desire, it is a fundamental human right.

Human rights should not be ‘optional’, and their recognition should not be left up to the whim of individual Labor Party MPs and Senators, as it is under a conscience vote.

As my old boss, Senator John Faulkner, told the 2011 National Conference when this same question was being debated: “A conscience vote on human rights is unconscionable.”

It should bind because the current Party Rule – which says “Conference resolves that the matter of same-sex marriage can be freely debated at any state or federal forum of the Australian Labor Party, but any decision reached is not binding on any member of the Party” – is not only wrong, it is offensive.

Commitments to achieve human rights should not come with an asterisk.

‘Terms and conditions’ should not apply when what is at stake is the equality of people on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status.

It is offensive that special Party Rules continue to allow individual Labor MPs and Senators to vote against those rights, that equality. These provisions should be permanently removed from our governing document.

It should bind because it is unjust to impose solidarity on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex members of the Party, and to not offer it in return.

It is unjust to demand loyalty, to make Senator Penny Wong vote against her own community’s rights for seven and a half years, and Senator Louise Pratt for three and a half – and then deny that same loyalty when the Platform position changes to one of support for equality.

Solidarity, and loyalty, cannot be continually demanded of us but not reciprocated.

Finally, it should bind because lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Labor members are sick and tired of having our rights being sacrificed as the price of ‘Party unity’.

Granting a conscience vote on marriage equality should not be a ransom that is paid to parliamentarians who threaten to quit the Party rather than be compelled to vote to recognise the love of LGBTI couples.

If denying the legal equality of others is more important to them than adhering to Party solidarity – something they expect of others, but are unwilling to offer themselves – then they should leave. The rest of us should no longer give in to their blackmail.

The Labor Party must bind on marriage equality.

It must bind to finish the job that was left half-done by our predecessors in 2011, who voted to change the Platform, but narrowly failed to make that position binding.

That failure has had real adverse consequences – a bound vote in September 2012 could have seen marriage equality passed last term, putting an end to the painfully long wait of LGBTI couples simply to enjoy the same legal rights that are taken for granted by others.

Had the last National Conference decidedly differently, some Australians need not have died waiting for their relationships to be recognised by their own country – as some inevitably, and tragically, have done.

Adopting a binding vote now would demonstrate that we acknowledge we got it wrong in December 2011, and, in doing so, we apologise.

But this is about more than making up for past mistakes – it is about the present, too.

We must bind to ensure the Australian Labor Party does everything within its own power to support marriage equality in 2015.

We cannot control what Tony Abbott, and Warren Truss, and their respective Parties do on this issue – if we could, they would have adopted a conscience vote during the three and a half years in which we have already had one.

What we can control is our own Party and its Rules. What we can control, by adopting a binding vote, is ensuring as many ALP MPs and Senators as possible vote in favour of marriage equality the next time it comes before the Parliament.

That is what we are accountable for, and should be judged on accordingly.

And we must bind for the future. If marriage equality is rejected this term – and that remains a genuine possibility – the Australian Labor Party must be able to go to the next election telling the people that, if elected, it will pass marriage equality as quickly as possible.

The only way that it will be able to make that commitment is by adopting a binding vote at this Conference.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians have waited long enough already – too long, actually – and, if legislation is unsuccessful this year, and we win in 2016, they will be looking to us to finally pass this reform.

If, as a newly-elected Government, we are unable to do so because too many Labor MPs and Senators exercise a conscience vote against the rights of their fellow citizens, we will left looking completely ineffectual – and, much more significantly, LGBTI Australians will be let down yet again.

Labor must be able to promise to introduce marriage equality next term – and, just as importantly, it must be able to deliver it.

Because only in that way can the Labor Party truly claim that it will represent, and govern for, all Australians.

Only by adopting a binding vote can we say that the famous ‘Light on the Hill’ shines for everyone – and that we will use its light to overcome the darkness that is homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and intersexphobia, both in the law and in society.

Only by adopting a binding vote can the Australian Labor Party say that it is whole-heartedly committed to creating a country that is free from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status.

It’s time to make that commitment, here at this Conference, and then again later this year on the floor of Parliament.

Delegates, it’s time to bind in support of marriage equality.

Senator Penny Wong at the 2011 ALP National Conference in Sydney

Why we need a full-time LGBTI Commissioner at the Australian Human Rights Commission

Posted on July 12, 2015 by Alastair Lawrie

As I have written previously, the passage of the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013 was a major achievement for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) rights in Australia[1].

It provided anti-discrimination protections for LGBTI people under Commonwealth law for the first time – including historic world-first specific protections for people with intersex variations.

However, one thing this legislation did not do was establish a statutory position for a Commissioner for Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex (SOGII) Issues within the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) – unlike existing positions for race and sex (indeed, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner is created in section 96 of the same act in which LGBTI anti-discrimination protections now live[2]).

This means there is no guaranteed advocate for LGBTI equality within the AHRC. The current President of the AHRC, Gillian Triggs, has sought to overcome this serious shortcoming by asking the Human Rights Commissioner, Tim Wilson, to also accept responsibility for SOGII issues, in addition to his existing priorities.

Nevertheless, this essentially stop-gap measure does not reconcile the challenges presented when his ‘part-time’ role – his responsibilities for LGBTI matters – conflicts with his full-time role – he was appointed by the Commonwealth Attorney-General, Senator George Brandis, with the explicit mandate to advocate for ‘freedoms’, by which he meant traditional civil liberties as opposed to more contemporary rights like freedom from discrimination.

Over the past 18 months, this tension has played out in a variety of ways, including through the failure of the otherwise worthy Resilient Individuals: Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity & Intersex Rights 2015 Report[3] to adequately address the issue of state-sanctioned discrimination by religious organisations against people simply for being LGBT.

However, this conflict has come to a head in a column which Mr Wilson wrote for The Australian last week on the topic “Religious freedom and same-sex marriage need not be incompatible”[4], in which he argued that, should marriage equality legislation be passed in Australia, new rights should be created to allow not just ministers of religion, but also businesses involved in providing wedding-related services (and yes, that includes businesses selling wedding cakes), to discriminate against customers.

Through this column, Mr Wilson has indicated that his first priority is protecting the freedom to discriminate, and that the right of LGBTI Australians not to be discriminated against comes second (and even then arguably by some distance). He has therefore demonstrated that his roles as Human Rights Commissioner, and ‘part-time’ responsibility for SOGII issues, are incompatible.

In the short-term, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians deserve a Commissioner within the AHRC whose existing responsibilities do not cause them to advocate against their interests. In the medium-term, we need a stand-alone full-time Commissioner for SOGII issues within the Commission, to avoid these problems arising in the future.

I have written below two letters, one to the President of the AHRC, Gillian Triggs, calling for Mr Wilson’s responsibilities for LGBTI matters to be reallocated within the Australian Human Rights Commission.

And I have written a second letter to the Shadow Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, asking him to support a resolution at the upcoming ALP National Conference to amend the Labor Party Platform to include a commitment to create a new Commissioner for Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Issues within the AHRC.

I have chosen not to write or send a third letter, to the current Attorney-General, George Brandis, given he likely agrees with the actions of Mr Wilson, and it is extremely unlikely that someone who axed funding for the position of Disability Commissioner (and therefore ended the role of the highly-respected disability rights advocate Graeme Innes) last year, would somehow find funding for the creation of a SOGII Commissioner today.

As always, I will publish any responses I receive from Ms Triggs and Mr Dreyfus.

Professor Gillian Triggs

President

Australian Human Rights Commission

GPO Box 5218

SYDNEY NSW 2001

Sunday 12 July 2015

Dear Professor Triggs

PLEASE REALLOCATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY AND INTERSEX ISSUES WITHIN THE AHRC

I am writing to you about the allocation of responsibility for sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex issues within the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC).

Specifically, I call on you to reallocate these responsibilities, which currently lie (informally at least) with the Human Rights Commissioner, Mr Tim Wilson, to another of the Commissioners within the AHRC.

I do so because I believe that the stance which Mr Wilson has adopted, in advocating for traditional freedoms like freedom of religion, has taken precedence over and is increasingly incompatible with the responsibility to advocate for the equal rights, and freedom from discrimination, of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians.

I cite as evidence the column which Mr Wilson wrote for The Australian newspaper, published on Monday 6 July 2015, titled “Religious freedom and same-sex marriage need not be incompatible.”

In this piece, Mr Wilson does the following four things:

First, he argues that the legislation which finally introduces marriage equality in Australia should include new provisions which provide a substantive right to discriminate against couples, not just for ministers of religion (which are already proposed), but also for businesses that provide wedding-related services.

Second, the argument for this appears to be primarily to allow businesses the ability to discriminate against LGBTI couples (so that the individuals who operate these businesses are not “forced to act against their conscience”).

Not only is Mr Wilson raising this issue now as part of the broader discussion around making marriage non-discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status – but, just as importantly, there does not appear to be any other public calls for a greater right to discriminate for wedding service providers outside of the marriage equality debate.

Third, the ‘solution’ which he offers, which would allow discrimination by wedding service providers on the basis of the religious (or not) nature of the wedding involved, would allow increased discrimination against a wide range of couples – in practice, this would inevitably include a detrimental impact on some LGBTI couples (although of course they would not be the only ones affected).

Fourth, at a time when one of the last major legal sources of discrimination against LGBTI Australians are the wide-ranging exceptions to anti-discrimination laws which are offered to religious organisations, instead of advocating for the curtailment of these exceptions, Mr Wilson is arguing for establish new rights to discriminate in a key area of public life.

Mr Wilson may well respond to the above description of his column by indicating he is performing his primary role, which is to advocate for traditional rights and freedoms, including the freedom of religion. I am not disputing that view.

However, I submit that, in doing so, he is not fulfilling his ‘part-time’ responsibilities, which include advocating for the removal of discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people.

LGBTI Australians deserve better than to have a ‘part-time’ Commissioner for whom, when potential conflict arises between freedom of religion and their freedom from discrimination, as it does in this situation, the former takes precedence.

I urge you to reallocate the responsibility for sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex issues within the Australian Human Rights Commission from Mr Wilson to another Commissioner, hopefully to one where there is less apparent conflict between their primary role and these additional functions.

The only way in which such a conflict can be resolved on a permanent basis would be for the amendment of the Sex Discrimination Act to create, and for Government to appoint, a full-time Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Issues Commissioner within the AHRC. I therefore also urge you to advocate for the creation of such a position by the Government.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this correspondence.

Sincerely

Alastair Lawrie

President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Professor Gillian Triggs, should reallocate responsibility for LGBTI issues within the Commission.

Hon Mark Dreyfus QC, MP

Shadow Attorney-General

PO Box 6022

House of Representatives

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Sunday 12 July 2015

Dear Mr Dreyfus

PLEASE SUPPORT THE CREATION OF A COMMISSIONER FOR SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY AND INTERSEX ISSUES WITHIN THE AHRC

I am writing to you about the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013.

Specifically, I call on you to help address one of the outstanding issues of this historic legislation – namely, the failure to create a new statutory position of Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex (SOGII) Issues Commissioner within the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC).

Without such a position, the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) Australians are not being as effectively promoted as they could be, and certainly not as effectively as the rights promoted by the statutory Race and Sex Discrimination Commissioners, also within the AHRC.

For example, currently, and in the absence of a statutory position, responsibility for SOGII issues has been allocated, on a ‘part-time’ basis, to the Human Rights Commissioner, Mr Tim Wilson, whose primary role is to advocate for ‘freedoms’, meaning traditional civil liberties as opposed to more contemporary rights like freedom from discrimination.

This means that, not only do issues of discrimination that confront LGBTI Australians not receive sufficient time and resources, but they are also secondary to, and sometimes incompatible with, the promotion of other rights like the freedom of religion.

One example of this incompatibility comes from the column which Mr Wilson wrote for The Australian newspaper, published on Monday 6 July 2015, titled “Religious freedom and same-sex marriage need not be incompatible.”

In this piece, Mr Wilson does the following four things:

In my opinion as an LGBTI advocate, it is simply not good enough that, when there is a conflict between the freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination, the person with responsibility for SOGII issues within the AHRC promotes the former at the expense of the latter.

The issues of homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and intersexphobia which confront LGBTI Australians, every day, are both real and serious. We deserve a full-time Commissioner within the AHRC to help address these problems – and certainly not a ‘part-time’, informal appointee, whose primary responsibilities can conflict with, and in some instances override, LGBTI rights.

I understand that, at the upcoming ALP National Conference in Melbourne, on July 24-26 2015, there will likely be a resolution to amend the Labor Party Platform to include a commitment to create a new Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Issues Commissioner within the Australian Human Rights Commission.

This resolution is based on recent developments in Victoria, where the new Labor Government has committed to appointing Australia’s first Gender and Sexuality Commissioner within the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (VEOHRC)[5].

I call on you, as Shadow Attorney-General, to support moves to amend the Platform in this way, so that the Federal Labor Party can establish the first stand-alone SOGII Commissioner at Commonwealth level when it returns to Government.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this correspondence.

Sincerely,

Alastair Lawrie

[1] Highs & Lows of 2013, No 2: Australia finally adopts federal anti-discrimination protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people: https://alastairlawrie.net/2013/12/26/no-2-australia-finally-adopts-federal-anti-discrimination-protections-for-lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-and-intersex-people/

[2] “Section 96. Sex Discrimination Commissioner. (1) There shall be a Sex Discrimination Commissioner, who shall be appointed by the Governor-General.”

[3] The Resilient Individuals Report is available here: https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/sexual-orientation-sex-gender-identity/publications/resilient-individuals-sexual

[4] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/religious-freedom-and-same-sex-marriage-need-not-be-incompatible/story-e6frg6zo-1227429558684

[5] VEOHRC Media Release welcoming Budget funding for this appointment: http://www.humanrightscommission.vic.gov.au/index.php/news-and-events/media-releases/item/1225-commission-welcomes-funding-for-lgbti-community-in-state-budget

Submission to South Australian Law Reform Institute Consultation on Removing LGBTIQ Discrimination

Posted on July 6, 2015 by Alastair Lawrie

South Australian Law Reform Institute

c/- salri@adelaide.edu.au

Monday 6 July 2015

To whom it may concern,

Submission to South Australian Law Reform Institute Consultation on Removing LGBTIQ Discrimination from South Australian Laws

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this submission to the South Australian Law Reform Institute (SALRI) public consultation on removing discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer people from South Australian laws.

While I am not a resident of South Australia, I am a passionate advocate for LGBTI rights, and I provide the following comments on possible ways to improve the legal situation of LGBTI people in South Australia, especially in terms of their protections under anti-discrimination law.

Specifically, I would like to suggest three major reforms to the South Australian Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (the ‘Act’), namely:

Amend protected attributes to:
1. Modernise wording around gender identity, and
2. Genuinely include intersex status.

The Equal Opportunity Act 1984 currently provides protection to lesbian, gay and bisexual people through section 29 (and subsequent provisions of the Act), because of the definition of ‘sexuality’ in section 5: “sexuality means heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality.”

While the SALRI may wish to consider whether to recommend amendments to the wording of these attributes (potentially to ‘sexual orientation’, to ensure consistency with the provisions of the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013), the primary concerns around protected attributes, and how they are drafted, are in respect of transgender and intersex individuals.

For example, protections for transgender people are based on the term ‘chosen gender’, which is defined under sub-section 5(5) of the Act as: “a person is a person of a chosen gender if –

the person identifies on a genuine basis as a member of the opposite sex by assuming characteristics of the opposite sex (whether by means of medical intervention, style of dressing or otherwise) or by living, or seeking to live, as a member of the opposite sex…”

Based on my understanding of transgender activism, and through recent developments of anti-discrimination law within Australia, it is highly likely that using the term ‘chosen gender’, and then defining it in this way, is not best practice.

For example, the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984 protections are instead based on ‘gender identity’, which is defined in section 4 of that Act as: “gender identity means the gender-related identity, appearance or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of a person (whether by way of medical intervention or not), with or without regard to the person’s designated sex at birth.”

The Commonwealth definition appears to be significantly more inclusive, especially because it does not use descriptors such as ‘opposite sex’ and therefore avoids strict gender binaries, allowing people who do not identify as either male or female to also be protected.

I suggest the SALRI consider recommending the South Australian Equal Opportunity Act 1984 be amended to incorporate the term, and definition of, ‘gender identity’ from the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984.

In a similar way, it is possible that the drafters of subsection 5(5) of the South Australian Equal Opportunity Act 1984 believed that they were including people with intersex variations, when they wrote: “a person is a person of a chosen gender if – …

the person, being of indeterminate sex, identifies on a genuine basis as a member of a particular sex by assuming characteristics of the particular sex (whether by means of medical intervention, style of dressing or otherwise) or by living, or seeking to live, as a member of the particular sex.”

However, once again based on my understanding of intersex activism, and on recent developments in anti-discrimination law (particularly at the Commonwealth level, and more recently in Tasmania), it is clear that this definition is not best practice – and is, in fact, inadequate to ensure protection for people on the basis of intersex status.

For this reason, the SALRI should consider recommending that South Australia adopt the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013, which was the first anti-discrimination legislation in the world to include ‘intersex status’ as a stand-alone protected attribute.

As a result of those reforms, ‘intersex status’ is now defined in section 4 of the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984 as: “intersex status means the status of having physical, hormonal or genetic features that are:

neither wholly female nor wholly male; or
a combination of female and male; or
neither female nor male.”

Adopting this definition would ensure a far larger proportion of people with intersex variations would have protection under South Australia’s anti-discrimination laws.

Obviously, as a cisgender gay man, I am not an expert on either of the grounds of gender identity or intersex status. That is why these issues have been framed as suggestions – and if this is something that the SALRI wishes to take up in more detail, it should do so in close collaboration with South Australian and/or national transgender and intersex advocacy organisations to ensure that whatever language is ultimately adopted is the best, and most inclusive, possible.

Remove broad exceptions granted to religious organisations

The current exceptions which are offered to religious organisations in the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 are overly generous, and their scope should be significantly narrowed.

Section 50 of the Act provides:

“Religious bodies

1. This Part does not render unlawful discrimination in relation to –

a. the ordination or appointment of priests, ministers of religion or members of a religious order; or

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

ba. the administration of a body established for religious purposes in accordance with the precepts of that religion; or

c. any other practice of a body established for religious purposes that conforms with the precepts of that religion or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of the adherents of that religion.”

While both subsections 50(1)(a) and (b) appear to be necessary to protect the genuine exercise of freedom of religion, subsection 50(1)(ba) would only be justified on this basis if it was limited to the operation of explicitly or overtly religious bodies (like churches) and should not apply to other institutions which may be operated by religions but which have a different primary purpose (for example, schools, hospitals, aged care services or other community services).

Subsection 50(1)(c) is also completely unjustifiable given it provides what amounts to essentially a ‘blank cheque’ to organisations that are operated by religious groups to discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) South Australians, both in employment and in service delivery.

There should not be a general right to discriminate against LGBT people, across multiple areas of public life like education, health, aged care or community services, simply because of the religious beliefs of certain individuals or organisations. LGBT South Australians deserve the right to access services, and to apply for or undertake employment, in the public sphere without the threat of being discriminated against solely on the basis of who they are.

The Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013, which specifically excluded religious exceptions from applying to LGBT people accessing aged care services operated by religious organisations, has successfully demonstrated that:

It is possible to restrict these religious exceptions in law, and
After two years of operation, there have been no practical problems in the application of such provisions.

Even more relevantly, the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 has not granted explicit exceptions to protections on sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status to religious organisations – and this approach has also worked well over the past decade.

For example, under the Tasmanian legislation, religious organisations have traditionally only been allowed to discriminate in terms of:

Employment based on religion (section 51)[1] or
Participation in religious observance (section 52)[2].

I suggest that the SALRI consider the long-standing Tasmanian exceptions, which do not allow for general discrimination against LGBTI people on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status, but only on the grounds of religious belief or activity, as a ‘best practice’ guide to help reform the South Australian Equal Opportunity Act 1984 and therefore improve the anti-discrimination protections which are offered to LGBTI South Australians.[3]

Introduce anti-vilification protections for LGBTI South Australians

The final suggestion relates to the issue of anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex vilification.

Specifically, it is to recommend the creation of anti-vilification laws, on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status, which are equivalent to the race-based anti-vilification provisions of the South Australian Racial Vilification Act 1996[4].

To put it bluntly, there is no justification whatsoever to have anti-vilification laws which protect people from racist vilification, but to simultaneously not have anti-vilification laws which apply to homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and intersexphobia.

Homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and intersexphobia are just as unacceptable, and, most importantly, just as harmful, as racism – with significant impacts on the mental health of young LGBTI people in particular. If, as a community, we have (or in this case, South Australia, has) resolved to outlaw racist vilification, then similar laws should also be used to outlaw homophobic, biphobic, transphobic and intersexphobic vilification.

Currently, four Australian jurisdictions (NSW, Queensland, the ACT and Tasmania) have anti-vilification laws which cover (at least some of) the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex communities.

However, given neither the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984, nor South Australian law, have any vilification protections on these grounds, none of the LGBTI communities in South Australia have any legal protection from similar conduct.

This situation should change – and I suggest the SALRI recommend the creation of new anti-vilification laws which prohibit vilification on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status.

The past 18 months have seen an extensive community conversation about race-based vilification laws at the Commonwealth level, and specifically whether section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 should be repealed, amended or retained.

The outcome of this debate appears to be relatively strong community support for the retention of section 18C. As such, I believe the SALRI should take advantage of this moment to recommend that another marginalised group within Australian society should be offered the same shield against conduct which is similarly destructive.

Thank you again for the opportunity to make a submission to the South Australian Law Reform Institute (SALRI) public consultation on removing discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer people from South Australian laws.

I look forward to the outcome of this consultation, and to the consequent improvements to South Australia’s laws – hopefully including the reforms to the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 recommended in this submission.

Sincerely,

Alastair Lawrie

[1] “Section 51: Employment based on religion.

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

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

[2] “Section 52: Participation in religious observance.

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

the ordination or appointment of a priest; or
the training and education of any person seeking ordination or appointment as a priest; or
the selection or appointment of a person to participate in any religious observance or practice; or
any other act that –
- is carried out in accordance with the doctrine of a particular religion; and
- is necessary to avoid offending the religious sensitivities of any person of that religion.”

[3] However, I do not believe there is any reason to include the recently added, unnecessary – and unnecessarily discriminatory – provisions included in section 51A of the Tasmanian Act which state: “Section 51A. Admission of person as student based on religion.

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

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

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

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

[4] Section 4 of the SA Racial Vilification Act provides: “Racial vilification. A person must not, by a public act, incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of their race by –

threatening physical harm to the person, or members of the group, or to property of the person or members of the group; or
inciting others to threaten physical harm to the person, or members of the group, or to property of the person or members of the group.

Maximum penalty:

If the offender is a body corporate – $25 000.

If the offender is a natural person – $5 000, or imprisonment for 3 years, or both.”

Bill Shorten’s Marriage Equality Bill Second Reading Speech – The Annotated Version

Posted on June 14, 2015 by Alastair Lawrie

When the Opposition Leader, the Hon Bill Shorten MP, gave the second reading speech on his marriage equality legislation on Monday 1 June, 2015, he omitted to mention a few key points, especially in relation to his ongoing opposition to a binding vote within the Australian Labor Party. Here is my annotated version of his speech, with some suggested additions:

“I move that the bill be read a second time.

The laws of our nation should give us hope. Our laws should tell our children what we believe. Our laws should tell strangers who Australians are. [And the issue of marriage equality tells strangers that the Australian Labor Party is, currently, unwilling to fully support the equal rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) Australians.]

Our laws should be a mirror…reflecting our great and generous country and our free, inclusive society. [But please don’t hold that mirror up to the pockets of the Party I lead that are not ‘great and generous’, but are instead mean-spirited and support the exclusion of people from an institution of love on the basis of who they are.]

And our Parliament should be a place where we make things happen rather than sit back and let them happen. On marriage equality, for too long we in this Parliament have been following, not leading. It is within our power to change this. [Despite my speech today, I have no intention of using my influence, and the power of my office as Party Leader, to pursue a binding vote in favour of marriage equality at the upcoming ALP National Conference, because that would be dangerously close to leading, not following.]

This Parliament can change a law that no longer describes modern Australia… and pass a law of which we can all be proud. [Well, most of us anyway – without a binding vote, there will be members of my Party who vote against this issue of fundamental equality, and who, by implication, should be ashamed of their actions.]

Let us delay no more. Let us embrace a definition of marriage that respects, values and includes every Australian. Let us declare, in the house of the Australian people – it is time. The right time to make marriage equality, a reality.

This is a moment bigger than politics. This moment does not distract the nation – it complements our hopes for the future. [And I will not be distracted by frankly ridiculous notions that the Australian Labor Party, should, in the future, treat this issue like nearly every other matter of public policy by having a binding position on it.]

I know all members of Parliament will engage in a respectful and considered debate, and I hope will be able to exercise a free vote. [I sincerely hope that the MPs and Senators within my own Party who oppose the human rights of their fellow citizens simply on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status will be able to continue to do so.]

I pay tribute to the Member for Sydney, for offering her place on this bill to a member of the Government. Tanya, thank you. [Although my thanks do not extend to you for standing up for the principle of LGBTI equality, and for explaining, persuasively and with conviction, why it demands a binding vote, because it has shown up my own lack of leadership on the subject.]

Your actions, the advocacy of Senator Penny Wong and the goodwill of many across the Parliament, prove that bipartisanship is not the problem here. What matters is the outcome, not who owns it. [I will ensure Labor cannot ‘own it’ because its parliamentarians will remain free to vote against it.]

Madam Speaker, for decades, the march to equality has been led by remarkable Australians from every part of our country and all walks of life.

Governments from both sides of politics have delivered real progress too. The Fraser Government passed Whitlam law, decriminalising homosexuality in Commonwealth territories, following Don Dunstan’s lead in South Australia.

Paul Keating lifted the ban on Australians who identified as gay serving in our military. The Rudd and Gillard governments removed discrimination against same-sex couples from more than 80 laws.

In Victoria, the Napthine Government expunged the records of people who were charged under long-repealed homosexuality offences. Changing the Marriage Act is the next, overdue step in the path to true equality. [You didn’t really expect me to mention in this speech the ALP’s role in voting for the Howard Government’s homophobic ban on marriage equality in 2004, or the fact that its MPs and Senators were collectively bound to oppose it for the following seven and a half years, did you?]

Madam Speaker, I’m a twin – it’s a special thing, growing up, an inseparable bond. But for other twins where one twin is gay and the other is not, the Marriage Act is the only Australian law that separates siblings.

It’s a double standard which divides families, and our country. It’s not fair and it’s not who we are. And it should change. [Although what I don’t propose to change are the rules of my Party which allow Senator J Collins to vote against it, while MP J Collins votes in favour, which mean Senator S Conroy can vote in the opposite direction to MP P Conroy, which result in Senator D O’Neill rejecting LGBTI equality even while MP C O’Neill advocates for it, and which allow Senators K Gallagher and A Gallacher’s votes to cancel each other out. That double standard will remain long after July’s ALP National Conference if I have my way.]

Currently, marriage is defined as: ‘the union of a man and a woman.” Those eight words maintain a fiction that any other relationship is somehow inferior. [A fiction which some Labor parliamentarians will be free to continue, not just to believe, but to actively try to impose on their fellow citizens.]

Our legislation proposes a new definition: ‘the union of two people.’ And it allows celebrants the choice of referring to ‘partners’, as well as husband and wife.

To some, this may seem a small gesture. In truth, this means so much, to so many. To all lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians, we offer change that says: your relationship is equal under the law. [Please note, however, that conditions DO apply: you can only redeem this offer in the electorate offices of about four fifths of ALP MPs and Senators around the country.]

To the parents, children, friends and families of same-sex partners, just as the people you love are equal and valuable in your eyes, their relationship should be equal and valuable in the eyes of our law. To same-sex couples, we offer the right to celebrate your love with the public measure of devotion: marriage.

When someone has found not just another person they can live with, but a person they can’t live without, then they should have the same right to the true qualities of a bond that runs deeper than any law. [Unlike the bonds of a political party, with a long history of solidarity and collective action, which I am prepared to ignore in order to allow some parliamentarians to cast their votes against your right to marriage.]

The same joy and sacrifice. The same care and compassion. The same rights and responsibilities. And we say to all young gay people. We are proud of you, for who you are. You belong. [Although some of us are less proud of you than others, and some of us don’t think you belong in a wedding ceremony at all.]

We say to you, you have a right to the same hopes, dreams and opportunities as every other Australian including the right to marry the person you love. [But individual ALP parliamentarians also have the right to crush those hopes and dreams, and limit those opportunities, solely because of who you are.]

In removing discrimination from our country’s laws, we strive to eliminate prejudice from our people’s lives. [Just not entirely eliminating it from our caucus room.]

Let’s be honest. Casual, unthinking discrimination and deliberate, malicious homophobia alike, are still far too common in our conversations. In our schoolyards, our workplaces and our sporting clubs…and even, occasionally, our Parliament too.

This affects community, neighbourliness, harmony and mental health in our cities and especially our regions and the bush where physical remoteness can aggravate a sense of isolation.

We know two out of five young Australians who are gay have thought about self-harm or suicide. Two out of every five. [We also know that about one out of every five ALP parliamentarians will likely be voting against the equal rights of LGBTI people, and sending the message that who you are is less than, worse than, cisgender heterosexual people.]

We know a young Australian who identifies as gay is six times more likely to consider taking their own life, compared to their sibling, classmate, colleague or teammate. Six times.

When I was finishing school in the 1980s, youth suicide was still a taboo topic. I can remember hearing of the passing of young men, and no-one spoke of how they died. I can close my eyes and see their faces, forever young.

And I wonder now, if for some, the stigma and the struggle of imagining a future, lonely, isolated, treated differently was too much to bear. Marriage equality says to young people who identify as gay, you are never alone. You belong. [I am sincere in this belief, and about the need to address youth LGBTI-related mental health issues, and the tragedy of suicide. I just can’t sincerely say I am doing everything in my power to support marriage equality.]

This is an act of fairness for all ages. On the weekend, I spoke with Sandra Yates, from Devonport in Tassie. Like hundreds of other Australian couples, she and her partner Lee Bransden have been forced to travel to New Zealand to marry.

Sandra and Lee had hoped to marry at home surrounded by friends and family but Lee is terminally ill, and has been told she only has weeks to live. Their community raised money to fund their trip and fulfill their dream.

They are thrilled to be married…and sad it couldn’t happen here, in the country they love. [And I am genuinely sad about this situation, too – just not enough to try to override the right of Chris (Hayes) & Joe (Bullock) to vote against Sandra & Lee.]

Lee’s voice should be heard in this place: “Please, help switch on the light for same-sex couples and take us out of the darkness.” [But don’t make the light too bright, lest it expose the darkness in the hearts and minds of some of our MPs and Senators.]

Lee, Sandra, you, your friends and families should not have to wait one day longer for recognition. And this legislation will ensure that same-sex marriages, recognised in another country, are recognised here.

A law that forces our citizens to travel overseas, or to the grounds of another nation’s embassy, to have their relationships recognised is a law not worth keeping. [Unless enough individual parliamentarians think it is worth keeping, in which case, well, I guess that’s fine by me.]

I have not made a habit of speaking publicly about my faith, and I do not seek to preach to others today. I do believe in God and I do believe in marriage equality. For me, there is nothing contradictory about extending love, compassion, charity and respect beyond heterosexual Australia.

I understand, that for many people of different faiths, this is a complex question, I respect this. It is why I support a free vote. [Let’s be honest again, while exactly zero of the many Bills proposing marriage equality to date impose any obligation on religions, or religious organisations, to recognise marriage equality, I am willing to allow individual MPs and Senators within the Labor Party to attempt to impose their own religious definition of marriage onto 23 million other Australians. Their personal opinions are clearly more important than the freedom of religion, and from religion, of everyone else.]

And why this legislation makes it clear that no minister of religion can be compelled, or is obliged, to conduct a particular marriage…including one where two people are of the same sex. All ask in return that this respect be mutual.

Just as churches, mosques, temples and synagogues of all faiths and traditions will be free to choose if they consecrate same sex marriages. Let the same respect allow Australians to freely choose who they marry, without vilification or judgment. [Unfortunately, I know that this respect will not be mutual within my own Party. There will be some ALP parliamentarians who will continue to judge, and in some cases vilify, LGBTI-relationships as second class – and, no, I am not prepared to directly challenge them, and their outdated beliefs, by seeking to bind them to vote in favour.]

So often in our history, Australia has led the world in social and economic progress. The right to vote, pensions, the eight-hour day. Our healthcare and superannuation systems are among the best in the world. But on marriage equality, we have fallen behind. [And my own Party has played its part in this state of affairs, both in the good, and also in the bad.]

Like so many Australians, two Sunday mornings ago, when I first heard the result of the Irish referendum I thought: if the Irish can do it, why can’t we? How can Ireland, New Zealand, 37 US States, England, Scotland, South Africa and Canada and Brazil, Iceland and Uruguay be ahead of us? [Of course this is a rhetorical question only – please don’t point out that, if the ALP had adopted a binding vote in 2011, marriage equality would have passed three years ago, and this entire debate now would, thankfully, seem faintly ridiculous.]

Twenty countries have already recognised the merit of marriage equality. I am confident Australia will. [But without a binding vote, I cannot confidently say that a newly-elected Labor Government under me would definitely be able to pass it.]

I don’t want us to wait, any longer. We cannot assume this change is inevitable. We cannot imagine it will just happen. We, the 44^th Parliament, we have to step up, to rise to the moment. [Unless that involves stepping up by voting for equality, 100%, in which case I say, ‘yeah, nah’.]

Today, is neither the beginning, nor the end, of the journey to marriage equality. [The next logical step on my side of the political aisle would be the adoption of a binding vote at the ALP National Conference in July, although I have already made it clear I do not want that to happen.]

But I hope…with goodwill on all sides, with co-operation, with respect for one another this can be a historic step forward. Given a free vote, I believe this Parliament is ready for a definition of marriage which reflects the modern, inclusive and egalitarian Australia we love. [It would of course be even more ‘ready’ with an extra half-dozen or more votes in favour of change in both chambers – and, if it falls short by that margin or less later in the year, then I will have to accept at least some of the responsibility for that.]

We are ready to be as generous and kind-hearted as the Australians who trust us. Millions of Australians have waited long enough for this act of justice and inclusion. [And I am proud to say a large majority of the Party I lead will vote to deliver it – expect of course for those who don’t. They’ll be free to continue to support injustice and exclusion, on the basis of their personal opinion.]

The opportunity of a generation is before us now. The moment is here. Let this law reflect the nation we want to see in the mirror: generous, smart, modern, diverse, honest and, above all, equal. Let’s switch on the light. [The light has a dimmer switch installed, however, and its brightness is reduced by the proportion of ALP MPs and Senators who vote no. Until we have a binding vote on LGBTI human rights, our Party’s famous ‘light on the hill’ will shine less brightly for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians.]

Let’s make 2015, the year when Australia embraces marriage equality. Let’s make it happen, together. It’s time. [Please, Tony, please, help pass marriage equality this year, because if it doesn’t succeed then people might question why I didn’t do everything I could to support it. If I did I would be writing a very different kind of speech, to deliver at the ALP National Conference in 6 weeks’ time, one that ended with a much stronger invocation of Gough’s message of hope: It’s Time. It’s Time to Bind.]”

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten, who personally supports marriage equality, but opposes making that position binding on his Labor Party colleagues, unlike nearly every other public policy issue on which the ALP does adopt a binding vote.

An LGBTI Agenda – Submission on Draft ALP National Platform 2015

Posted on May 29, 2015 by Alastair Lawrie

The following is my personal submission in response to the National Platform – Consultation Draft of the Australian Labor Party, released ahead of the 2015 National Conference in Melbourne in July.

While, as an individual, I am obviously concerned about a wide range of issues, including health, education, workers’ rights and climate change, this submission focuses on issues relating to the equality and human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) Australians.

In this respect, despite the inclusion of the following statement in Chapter 1: Labor’s Enduring Values: “[w]e believe in equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians, in their daily lives and under the law” (on page 9), and a number of welcome commitments throughout the document (including the strong statement relating to international LGBTI rights, in Chapter 11: Australia’s place in a changing world, at paragraph 31 on page 206), there remain several areas where the National Platform could better deliver on the Party’s promise of LGBTI equality.

In this submission I will make a range of recommendations to improve the Platform with respect to LGBTI issues, and, where relevant, include an explanation of why each change is required. This includes recommendations with respect to intersex issues (based on the recommendations made by OII Australia) and concerning refugee issues (based on the recommendations made by Labor for Refugees, with two additional proposals).

I will also make two recommendations with respect to the Party’s Rules, which will also be debated at the National Conference, and which directly relate to LGBTI equality.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission, and for considering its contents.

Alastair Lawrie

Remove religious exceptions to anti-discrimination laws

Recommendation 1: In Chapter 9: A fair go for all, under the heading “Removing discrimination”, on page 167 after paragraph 186, add the following:

“Labor will support the right of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people not to be discriminated against by strengthening the protections currently contained in the Sex Discrimination Act.

Labor will remove the extremely broad exceptions which are granted to religious organisations in sub-section 37(1)(d) of the Act, and to religious schools in section 38, because LGBT people deserve the right not to be discriminated against in the public sphere, which includes health, education, aged care and other community services.”

Explanation

I have included this recommendation first both because I believe it will likely be the last major LGBTI law reform to be achieved in Australia, and because there are multiple references to the right to non-discrimination, including in the workplace, which are scattered throughout the National Platform – Consultation Draft (for example, in Chapter 5: Decent jobs with fair pay and conditions, at paragraph 21 on page 80: “Labor believes in protecting people from discrimination in obtaining and keeping employment” and in Chapter 10: Strong democracy and effective government, at paragraph 58 on page 194: “[s]trengthen laws and expand programs against discrimination and harassment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.”)

If these references are to mean anything – if Labor is genuine about tackling the discrimination which is all-too-frequently experienced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people – then the Sex Discrimination Act must be amended to ensure LGBT people cannot be discriminated against either as employees, or as people accessing services, across a wide range of the public sphere (health, education, community services, and aged care – as employees only, see below).

The exceptions which would remain in sub-section 37(1) of the Sex Discrimination Act would guarantee that employment within religious bodies like churches, but not in schools, hospitals or other community services, would remain exempt from the requirement not to discriminate, as would the conduct of religious ceremonies, thereby retaining the fundamental freedom of religion.

[Note: The recommendation relates only to LGBT and not LGBTI discrimination because the religious exceptions contained in the Sex Discrimination Act do not operate with respect to intersex status. Nevertheless, it should be highlighted that all state and territory anti-discrimination laws, outside Tasmania, also need to be amended to include intersex status as a protected attribute in the same way as the historic Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013.]

Further improve LGBTI equality in aged care services

Recommendation 2: Retain the commitment to LGBTI inclusion in aged care services, as set out in Chapter 6: New opportunities for an ageing Australia, at paragraph 35 on page 95, but add an additional point:

“To help promote a genuinely inclusive aged care environment, Labor will remove exceptions from anti-discrimination law which currently allow religious-operated aged care facilities to discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees.”

Explanation

The previous Federal Labor Government had a strong record in LGBTI aged care, in delivering the historic first-ever National LGBTI Ageing and Aged Care Strategy, and in ensuring that, under the historic Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013 LGBTI people accessing aged care services would have protection from discrimination.

However, in order to create a genuinely inclusive environment in aged care facilities, and to respect the rights of LGBT employees in the aged care sector, these protections should be expanded to also cover employees (noting that intersex employees should already be covered by the existing law).

Support programs to prevent bullying and harassment of LGBTI students

Recommendation 3: In Chapter 7: A world-class education for all Australians, amend paragraph 10 on page 99 to read:

“The right to education includes an environment free from bullying and harassment, including racist, sexist, homophobic, biphobic, transphobic or intersexphobic bullying and harassment”, and insert a new paragraph in the same Chapter:

“Labor will continue to support and fund national programs to address homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and intersexphobia in schools.”

Explanation

The language change to paragraph 10 is important because, while homophobia is sometimes used as a catch-all for all forms of discrimination against LGBTI people, it is best practice, more accurate and more inclusive to also include references to biphobia, transphobia and intersexphobia.

The previous Federal Labor Government provided initial funding to the National Safe Schools Program in 2013, which is a valuable initiative in addressing LGBTI harassment and bullying, and improving LGBTI inclusion. Given the ongoing challenges in this area, a new Labor Government should commit to continue to support programs like Safe Schools.

Ensure LGBTI content is included in the National Health & Physical Education Curriculum

Recommendation 4: In Chapter 7, after paragraph 37 on page 103, insert a new paragraph:

“Labor acknowledges that the curriculum development process has produced a National Health & Physical Education (HPE) Curriculum that excludes content that is vital to meet the needs of LGBTI students and young people. Labor commits to reviewing the HPE curriculum and producing a new HPE curriculum, that genuinely includes LGBTI students and content, as well as enhanced and inclusive sexual health education.”

Explanation

Chapter 7: A world-class education for all Australians notes, at paragraph 6 on page 98, that “[e]very student in every school should have access to a quality education that meets their individual needs.”

Unfortunately, the National HPE Curriculum that has been developed under successive Governments fails to meet the needs of LGBTI students. It does not even use the words lesbian, gay or bisexual (and does not use the words transgender or intersex in the year level descriptions which set out what is to be taught), and, despite an ‘aspirational statement’ about student diversity, does not guarantee that content relevant to their needs will be taught in classrooms around the country.

The HPE curriculum also fails to ensure that all students, including LGBTI students, will receive comprehensive and inclusive sexual health education. Providing comprehensive sexual health education is also necessary to take action on the statement in Chapter 8: A health system for all, at paragraph 103 on page 132, that “[l]abor recognises the importance of renewing efforts to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS, sexually-transmitted infections, and blood borne viruses, in partnership with the non-government organisation sector and driven by expert evidence.”

Labor should commit to rectifying these glaring omissions (relating to LGBTI students and content, and sexual health education) in the HPE curriculum.

Abolish the National School Chaplaincy Programme

Recommendation 5: In Chapter 7, after paragraph 44 on page 103, insert a new paragraph:

“Labor will abolish the National School Chaplaincy Programme and redirect moneys saved to support government schooling.”

Explanation

In Chapter 7, paragraph 44 on page 44 starts: “[e]very Australian in every community should have access to high-quality free, secular government schooling.”

The National School Chaplaincy Programme (NSCP), which involves employing people in government (and non-government) schools based on religious affiliation, is in direct contravention of this principle and is a serious misallocation of public resources.

Abolishing the NSCP will:

Recommit the Labor Party to supporting genuinely ‘free & secular’ education,
Provide an additional $250 million, over four years, to support government schooling, and
Remove the risk which some parts of the National School Chaplaincy Programme present to LGBTI students and young people.

Remove out-of-pocket medical expenses for transgender Australians

Recommendation 6: In Chapter 8: A health system for all, insert a new paragraph:

“Labor acknowledges the right of all Australians, including transgender and gender diverse people, to live their gender identity. For many, this includes accessing specialist health services and for some people can involve gender affirmation surgery. Cost should not be a barrier to accessing these services and/or surgery, and Labor commits to removing, wherever possible, out-of-pocket health expenses for transgender people incurred in relation to their gender identity.”

Explanation

In Chapter 8, at paragraph 9 on page 113, it says “[a] fairer and more equitable society is one in which all Australians are able to access high-quality and affordable health care, including any necessary medicines, on the basis of health care need, not their capacity to pay.” It is difficult to see a better application of this principle than in removing out-of-pocket expenses for transgender Australians in accessing health services and/or gender affirmation surgery, incurred in relation to their gender identity.

This goes beyond the commitment at paragraph 78 on page 127 (“[c]ontinue to ensure that Medicare and the PBS supports anti-discriminatory policies for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians and that same sex couples and their families are not discriminated against in their access to Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme”), because this commitment is about more than simply ‘non-discrimination’, it is about removing price barriers to essential services.

Improve mental health support for LGBTI people, including LGBTI young people

Recommendation 7: In Chapter 8, at paragraph 74 on page 126, amend the last dot point to read:

“Act to reduce the rate of youth suicide in rural communities, especially among young men, young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and young lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people” and

amend the third dot point at paragraph 78 on page 127 to read:

“Continue to support programs aimed at prevention of suicide, and for improved mental health, for high risk groups, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians.”

Explanation

The first amendment is to ensure that any specific regional, rural and remote health policies which are aimed to reducing youth suicide should explicitly include LGBTI young people in these regions as a high-risk group.

The second amendment is recognition that mental health issues for LGBTI people are bigger than ‘just’ suicide prevention, and must include programs for improved mental health more generally.

Support programs to address LGBT homelessness

Recommendation 8: In Chapter 9: A fair go for all, under heading “Homelessness” on page 156, add the following:

“Labor acknowledges the young lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are at significantly higher risk of homelessness, and commits to support dedicated services aimed at addressing this issue.”

Explanation

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth experience much greater rates of homelessness than their cisgender heterosexual counterparts. This is in part caused by familial rejection, through challenges posed by school-based, or societal, homophobia, biphobia and transphobia, as well as other factors.

Given the specific causes of LGBT youth homelessness, and the need for cultural sensitivity in responding to the needs of homeless lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender young people, Labor should support specific programs to deal with this issue.

[Note: I am unaware of research on intersex youth homelessness. Obviously, if such research exists, intersex young people should be added to this recommendation.]

Improve recognition of LGBTI parents in domestic law

Recommendation 9: In Chapter 9: A fair go for all, after paragraph 172 on page 165, add the following:

“Labor will seek national agreement on the recognition of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex parents, based on the principle that LGBTI-inclusive couples should be able to access assisted reproductive technology, to adopt, and to enter into domestic surrogacy arrangements, on an equal basis to cisgender heterosexual couples in every Australian State and Territory.”

Explanation

LGBTI-inclusive families continue to confront a patch-work of different laws around the country, with their ability to lawfully found a family dependent upon where they live.

A newly-elected Labor Government should seek to end this unacceptable situation, and pursue national agreement on consistent recognition of parenting laws, which do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

Ensure LGBTI parents have equality in inter-country adoption

Recommendation 10: In Chapter 9, after paragraph 172 on page 165, also add the following:

“Where adoption arrangements already exist between Australia and other countries, Labor will seek to ensure these arrangements are expanded to allow for inter-country adoption by LGBTI parents on an equal basis to cisgender heterosexual people.

Where Australia seeks to enter into new inter-country adoption arrangements, Labor will only sign such arrangements if they treat LGBTI parents equally.”

Explanation

The inter-country adoption arrangement between Australia and South Africa, negotiated in 2014, is the first Australian agreement which allows for LGBTI couples to adopt on an equal basis to non-LGBTI couples.

There is no reason why existing inter-country adoption arrangements should not be renegotiated by a newly-elected Labor Government to treat Australian couples equally irrespective of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status, or why the Australian Government should enter into any new agreements unless they are non-discriminatory on the basis of these attributes.

[Note: This is neither an endorsement nor repudiation of the practice of inter-country adoption, merely a resolution which seeks to ensure that, where it exists, it must treat lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians fairly.]

Improve LGBTI Inclusion in Sport

Recommendation 11: In Chapter 9: A Fair go for all, under the heading “Sport”, on page 178, after paragraph 265, insert the following paragraphs:

“Labor acknowledges the impact of homophobia and biphobia in sport, both on and off the field, and is committed to improving the inclusion of lesbian, gay and bisexual athletes and spectators.
Labor acknowledges the serious discrimination experienced by transgender participants in sport, as well as by transgender people off the field, and will work with the Australian Human Rights Commission on measures to address this discrimination.
Labor also acknowledges the serious discrimination experienced by intersex athletes, and especially women athletes with intersex variations, as well as intersex people off the field, and will also work with the Australian Human Rights Commission on measures to address this discrimination.”

Explanation

Recent work, by the Australian Human Rights Commission, Out on the Fields and other organisations, has demonstrated the significant issues surrounding homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and intersexphobia in sport. There has already been some work to address homophobia and biphobia, on and off the field, and this work should continue (and be supported).

However, the issues which confront transgender and intersex athletes are greater and, to a large extent, remain unaddressed. These specific challenges should be prioritised by the AHRC and others in coming years, to achieve acceptance for all people in sport, irrespective of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

Appoint a Spokesperson for LGBTI Equality

Recommendation 12: In Chapter 10: Strong democracy and effective government, on page 194 under the heading “LGBTI place in a stronger democracy”, add the following:

“Labor will appoint a spokesperson for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex equality and, in Government, will establish an office for LGBTI equality within the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.”

Explanation

Federal Labor should follow the lead of the recently elected Victorian Labor Government, which has appointed both the first ever Australian Minister for Equality, the Hon Martin Foley MP, and established an Office for Equality within the Victorian Department of Premier and Cabinet.

These moves help to ensure that LGBTI issues have a central point of coordination within Government, and are necessary to prevent LGBTI issues from being left off the political agenda – something which still happens far too often.

Establish an LGBTI Ministerial Advisory Committee

Recommendation 13: In Chapter 10, on page 194, amend the last dot point of paragraph 58 to read:

“Support and engage with communities and stakeholders to provide input into government decision-making, and establish a lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex ministerial advisory committee.”

Explanation

There is no need for the equivocation which is currently contained in the National Platform – Consultation Draft on this issue (which reads “including consideration of a … ministerial advisory committee”). This should simply be done, and, together with the appointment of a Spokesperson for LGBTI Equality and Office for LGBTI Equality (recommended above) would provide the overall framework for effective, ongoing engagement between a Labor Government and the LGBTI community.

Appoint a Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status Commissioner within the Australian Human Rights Commission

Recommendation 14: In Chapter 10, on page 194 under heading “LGBTI place in a stronger democracy”, add the following:

“Labor will amend the Sex Discrimination Act to establish a stand-alone Commissioner for Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status issues, with equivalent powers, responsibilities and funding to the Sex Discrimination Commissioner.”

Explanation

There is currently no statutory figure within the Australian Human Rights Commission with responsibility for LGBTI issues – instead, these functions are performed on a part-time basis by the Human Rights Commissioner (aka the ‘Freedoms Commissioner’) Tim Wilson.

LGBTI issues, and homophobic, biphobic, transphobic and intersexphobic discrimination, are sufficiently serious to warrant the establishment of a stand-alone Commissioner, with similar powers, responsibilities and funding to the existing Sex Discrimination Commissioner (and this would again match the policies of the recently-elected Victorian Labor Government).

Introduce LGBTI Anti-Vilification Protections

Recommendation 15: In Chapter 10: Strong democracy and effective government, at paragraph 96 on page 199, amend the paragraph to read:

“Labor also recognises that homophobic, biphobic, transphobic and intersexphobic harassment by the written or spoken word causes actual harm, not mere offence, to people with a history of suffering discrimination and prejudice, and particular harm to young same-sex attracted, gender-questioning and intersex people, and considers such harmful harassment is an unacceptable abuse of the responsibilities that come with freedom of speech and must be subject to effective sanctions. As such, Labor will introduce anti-vilification protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians, which are based on and equivalent to existing racial vilification protections in the Racial Discrimination Act.”

Explanation

The discussion at paragraphs 95 and 96 is already strong, noting that “Labor stood with the community to successfully oppose the Government’s attack on the Racial Discrimination Act” as well as acknowledging the harms of homophobic harassment, particularly on vulnerable young people.

However, the commitment could be made stronger, both to be more inclusive (by genuinely include bisexual, transgender and intersex people), and to contain a clear and specific commitment to introduce anti-vilification laws. After all, homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and intersexphobia are just as offensive, and harmful, as racism –which means LGBTI Australians also deserve the same protections under the law.

Include LGBTI people in foreign aid

Recommendation 16: In Chapter 11: Australia’s place in a changing world, at paragraph 62 on page 210, amend the paragraph to read:

“Labor’s overseas aid efforts will focus on advancing human rights while addressing important development challenges, including ensuring people have the opportunity to lead healthy and prosperous lives regardless of gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, ethnicity, religion or cultural beliefs and with access to shelter, education food and clean water, health and sanitation, and emergency services support.”

Explanation

This paragraph on foreign aid should be amended to include LGBTI people to match the strong statement on support for international LGBTI human rights, which is included at paragraph 31 on page 206 of the same Chapter.

Intersex Recommendations

I support the recommendations made by OII Australia (Organisation Intersex International Australia) in response to the National Platform – Consultation Draft, namely (renumbered here):

Recommendation 17: Inclusion of “intersex status” Change each instance of “sexual orientation and gender identity” to “sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status” throughout the document.

Recommendation 18: Add specific content about intersex health and human rights Add content on intersex health to the section on “Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex health”, including the following objectives:

The deferral of non-necessary medical intervention on infants and children with intersex variations until such times as the person concerned can give informed consent.
The prohibition of modifications to sex characteristics undertaken for social rationales, without informed consent.
Ensuring that intersex persons’ right not to undergo sex assignment treatment is respected.

Recommendation 19: Create a specific institutional framework In “LGBTI place in a stronger democracy”, remove references to intersex people in discussion about a National Gender Centre. In place of this, add to the section on “Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex health” the following:

Fund national intersex-led organisations to provide support to intersex persons and their families, and advocate on intersex issues.

Recommendation 20: End PBS and Medicare discrimination In paragraph 78, recognise that current access to PBS and Medicare remains discriminatory in some contexts. Examples include access to testosterone by women with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, and other people with gender markers other than male.

Recommendation 21: End discrimination against intersex women athletes Paragraph 62 should include a commitment to end discrimination against women athletes with intersex variations.

Recommendation 22: Ensure consent and proportionality in improvements to sex or gender markers on identification documents In paragraph 62:

Ensure proportionality in the use of sex and gender markers on official documents so that any presence of such markers fulfils a genuine and proportionate need.
Ensure that all people with intersex variations are able to exercise autonomy regarding sex/gender markers, and obtain identification options that match their sex characteristics and/or gender identities, as preferred.

As indicated above, I support all of these recommendations (and have incorporated the sport recommendation in my own recommendations, earlier). However, I would like to particularly emphasise OII recommendation 2 (renumbered as recommendation 18 here), which seeks to end the gross violations of human rights which were highlighted by the Senate Community Affairs Committee’s report on “Involuntary or coerced sterilization of intersex people in Australia” in October 2013, and also to note that the failure of Governments to act on these recommendations, almost two years later, should be a national scandal.

Refugee Recommendations

I support all of the recommendations made by Labor for Refugees.

Recommendation 23: In particular, I support their recommendation to amend Chapter 9: A fair go for all, paragraph 225 at page 173, by deleting “To support Australia’s strong border security regime, Labor will maintain:

An architecture of excised offshore places; and
The non statutory processing on Christmas Island of persons who arrive unauthorised at an excised place, except where other arrangements are entered into under bilateral and regional arrangements”

and replacing it with the following:

“Labor will dismantle the architecture of excision and end the associated non-statutory processing or applications for protections visas.
Labor will close the detention centres in Nauru and Manus Island.”

Explanation I am opposed to the offshore detention, processing and resettlement of refugees, and believe that the system of offshore detention centres, in Nauru and Manus Island, and the policy of resettlement in Nauru and Papua New Guinea, is cruel and inhumane, and a gross violation of the human rights of people who are simply seeking Australia’s protection.

I am also opposed to these policies as an LGBTI advocate and activist, and note that male homosexuality is currently criminalised by both the Nauru and Papua New Guinea Governments. This makes these environments unsafe for any refugee who is lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex.

As such, if the above Labor for Refugees recommendation with respect to paragraph 225 is not agreed, I would propose the following recommendation:

Recommendation 24: “To add to Chapter 9: A fair go for all: Labor will not detain, process or resettle lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex refugees in countries which have criminal laws against any of these communities as it makes these places unsafe environments for all of them.”

Irrespective of whether the original or alternative recommendations (or neither) are adopted, I would also make the following additional recommendation:

Recommendation 25: “To add to Chapter 9: A fair go for all: Labor will not return lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender of intersex refugees to countries which have criminal laws against any of these communities as it makes these places unsafe environments for all of them.”

Changes to the Party Rules

1. Pre-selection of LGBTI candidates

Rule Change 1: The Australian Labor Party Rules should be amended to include the following:

“Labor aims to improve the representation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people in the nation’s parliaments. As such, Labor aims to pre-select a minimum of 2% of candidates who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex for the next Federal Election, scheduled for 2016.

This equates to a minimum of 3 candidates for the House of Representatives (out of 150), and 1 candidate for the Senate (out of a maximum of 40). If there is a double dissolution election, this would increase to a minimum of 2 candidates for the Senate.

Of the pre-selected candidates, at least half should be in ‘winnable’ seats and/or positions – equating to at least 2 candidates in total at a normal election, and at least 3 candidates in total at a double dissolution election.

If Labor does not meet these targets at the Federal Election scheduled for 2016, the Party President and National Policy Forum are instructed to jointly prepare more substantive Rules changes, to be brought to the next National Conference, establishing a system of affirmative action rules for LGBTI candidates in Federal, State and Territory Elections.

If the Party President and National Policy Forum are unable to reach agreement on proposed Rules, they are required to each bring forward proposed Rules changes on this subject for the consideration of National Conference.”

Explanation

There has never been an openly lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex Member of the House of Representatives. From any political Party. And there has never been an identified transgender or intersex member of either chamber.

The Labor Party has also only ever had two out LGBTI Senators. There is currently only one identified LGBTI member of a Federal ALP caucus of 80. This stands in marked contrast to comparable Parliaments in Western democracies – with at least 32 lesbian, gay and bisexual MPs elected in the recent UK election.

The Opposition Leader, the Hon Bill Shorten MP, was correct to identify the historic under-representation of LGBTI people in Parliament as an issue when he ran for Party Leader in September and October 2013, and he was right to suggest that targets and/or quotas should be considered as a possible solution to the marginalisation of LGBTI people from elected politics in Australia.

This proposal is an interim step, announcing clear goals for the 2016 Federal Election, targets which, at 2%, could be described as incredibly modest. However, if the ALP is unable to meet even these modest targets then the Party President and National Policy Forum should be required to prepare further Rules changes, including affirmative action rules for LGBTI candidates, to be presented to the next ALP National Conference, and, if they are unable to agree, to bring forward two sets of proposals.

[Note: This is not to preclude other proposals for increased representation of different under-represented groups in Parliament, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, especially given the Australian Labor Party has still only ever had one indigenous member of Federal Parliament.]

2. Introduce a binding vote for Marriage Equality

Rule Change 2: Abolish the following paragraph at page 262 of the current ALP Platform and Rules:

“Same sex marriage Conference resolves that the matter of same sex marriage can be freely debated at any state or federal forum of the Australian Labor Party, but any decision reached is not binding on any member of the Party.”

Explanation

The existing Platform’s policy commitment to marriage equality, and the proposed policy commitment in the National Platform – Consultation Draft (in Chapter 9: A fair go for all, at paragraph 190 on page 167: “Labor will amend the Marriage Act to ensure equal access to marriage under statute for all adult couples irrespective of sex who have a mutual commitment to a shared life”) is, of course, welcome.

However, this commitment is undermined by Rules which effectively make an issue of fundamental equality and human rights ‘optional’ for Labor MPs and Senators. This is wrong in principle, it is wrong for a Party based on solidarity and collective action, and it is a position which has actively wronged Australia’s LGBTI community, by further delaying a reform which, had the 2011 National Conference made the right decision, should have been passed in 2012.

It’s time the ALP acknowledged these wrongs, by removing the conscience vote on this issue from the Party’s Rules and adopting a binding vote in favour of marriage equality. #ItsTimeToBind

ALP Party President, and new Senator for NSW, Jenny McAllister, who is co-ordinating the review of the ALP Platform.

Letter to ALP Caucus re Senator Leyonhjelm’s Freedom to Marry Bill 2014

Posted on March 23, 2015 by Alastair Lawrie

The Hon Bill Shorten MP

Leader of the Opposition

c/- PO Box 6022

House of Representatives

Parliament House

Canberra ACT 2600

Monday 23 March 2015

Dear Mr Shorten

Please Amend Senator Leyonhjelm’s Freedom to Marry Bill 2014

I am writing to you regarding Senator Leyonhjelm’s Freedom to Marry Bill 2014, about which debate is scheduled to begin on Thursday 26 March 2015.

Specifically, I call on you, and all federal parliamentary members of the Australian Labor Party, to seek to amend this legislation during debate to remove provisions that would allow civil celebrants to refuse to provide services to LGBTI-inclusive couples, based on nothing more than the celebrant’s personal prejudice.

These provisions are wrong in principle, undermining legislation that is purported to promote the equal right to marriage by also expressly providing a ‘right’ to discriminate on the basis of homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and intersexphobia.

There is no justification to allow people providing secular services in a secular area of public life (ie non-religious wedding ceremonies) to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

If passed, these provisions would also set a worrying precedent for other legislation. It is no coincidence that this legislation is being moved by an extremist who does not believe in the right not to be discriminated against in public life – indeed, Senator Leyonhjelm has previously stated that “[i]ndividuals should be able to discriminate but governments should not.”

In this way, the civil celebrant provisions of the Freedom to Marry Bill 2014 should be seen for what they are – the first steps in a campaign, supported by religious and libertarian extremists alike, to undermine Australia’s framework of anti-discrimination protections.

It took 38 years, from the passage of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, for Australia’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) community to finally achieve protection against discrimination under Commonwealth law – the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013 was an important achievement of, and is an essential legacy of, the previous Labor Government.

It would be devastating if the very next piece of LGBTI-related legislation to be considered by the Commonwealth Parliament were to directly undermine the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status, by instead granting civil celebrants the ‘right to be bigots’.

I sincerely hope that, given the Australian Labor Party has spent the past 12 months campaigning against Senator Brandis’ proposal that Australians should have the right to be bigots vis-à-vis racism, that you will also seek to amend these provisions that would enable bigotry of a different kind.

I also sincerely hope that enough of your parliamentary colleagues, including from the Greens and from the cross-bench, agree and that therefore these provisions are removed, meaning the Parliament can consider a Freedom to Marry Bill that is not also a ‘freedom to discriminate’ bill.

However, the question remains what the position of the Australian Labor Party should be if these amendments are unsuccessful, or if the House of Representatives insists on the Freedom to Marry Bill 2014 including the freedom to discriminate.

I acknowledge that this is an incredibly difficult decision to make – to reject the ability of LGBTI-inclusive couples to be married or to promote intolerance against those same people – indeed I have written previously of this exact dilemma: https://alastairlawrie.net/2014/12/21/senator-leyonhjelms-marriage-equality-bill-undermines-the-principle-of-lgbti-anti-discrimination-should-we-still-support-it/.

In the absence of LGBTI community consensus on this issue – and there can be no consensus because, as far as I can tell, there has been no genuine community debate or consultation – I am forced to fall back on my basic principles. And they are as follows:

I want marriage. I want the right to be married to my partner of almost seven years, my fiancé of more than five, in exactly the same way that my sister and my brother have been able to marry their respective spouses. There is absolutely no reason why I should have lesser rights than them simply because of who I love.

But, I want equality more. The principle of LGBTI equality is fundamental to any just society, and militates against the creation of ‘special rights’ or ‘special privileges’ to treat us as lesser citizens in any way.

To me, the struggle for LGBTI equality is broader than simply the battle for marriage: it includes improving the protections offered by anti-discrimination legislation (both state and federal), among many other things. This overall struggle is more important than any one Bill, and should not be undermined by the passage of flawed legislation such as this.

I will concede that there are those who wish to pursue the Freedom to Marry Bill 2014 in its current state, ‘warts and all’, as an incremental reform – a stepping stone – and to seek the removal of the civil celebrants provisions at a later date.

Not only do I believe that this could be labelled disingenuous – especially if concerns about these provisions are not placed on the public record ahead of the upcoming parliamentary debate – but it also under-estimates the difficulty of removing such legislative ‘blemishes’ after the central reform has passed.

For example, 33 years after the introduction of ‘homosexual’ anti-discrimination protections in NSW, the worst excesses of that particular compromise (such as the right of private schools to expel gay and lesbian students) remain seemingly intractable. It also took almost two decades to equalise the age of consent in NSW post-decriminalisation – and in Queensland their unequal age of consent is now 25 years old and counting.

Which means that it is no exaggeration to suggest that, if the Freedom to Marry Bill 2014 is passed in its present form, the so-called ‘right’ of civil celebrants to reject LGBTI-inclusive couples will likely still be around in 2025, 2030 or even beyond. And that is an unacceptable situation.

So, with a heavy heart, I urge you, and all federal parliamentary members of the Australian Labor Party to reject the Freedom to Marry Bill 2014 if you are unable to remove provisions which allow civil celebrants to discriminate on the basis of their personal prejudice.

Instead, I urge you to concentrate on passing other legislation, including the Marriage Equality Bill developed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Hon Tanya Plibersek MP, that does not promote homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and intersexphobia.

Marriage equality will be won, must be won, and it must be won soon. But it must also include both parts – marriage and equality. Senator Leyonhjelm’s Freedom to Marry Bill 2014 only offers the first half of that equation.

Please amend his flawed Bill and, if you are unsuccessful in doing so, please vote against it and instead support genuine marriage equality legislation in the (hopefully) not-too-distant future.

Thank you for taking this correspondence into consideration.

Sincerely

Alastair Lawrie

Cc The Hon Tanya Plibersek MP

Deputy Leader of the Opposition

PO Box 6022

House of Representatives

Parliament House

Canberra ACT 2600

Senator the Hon Penny Wong

Leader of the Opposition in the Senate

PO Box 6100

Senate

Parliament House

Canberra ACT 2600

The Hon Mark Dreyfus QC MP

Shadow Attorney-General

PO Box 6022

House of Representatives

Parliament House

Canberra ACT 2600

alastairlawrie

lgbti advocate & activist, writing about anti-discrimination and vilification law reform, equality and human rights

Tag Archives: homophobia

Will NSW Reforms Prioritise Racial Vilification at the Expense of LGBTI Vilification?

Submission on AHRC Proposal to Create a ‘Religious Freedom Roundtable’

Submission re Australian Law Reform Commission Freedoms Inquiry Interim Report

No Referendum. No Plebiscite. Just Pass the Bill.

What ALP National Conference Delegates Should Hear About Marriage Equality

Why we need a full-time LGBTI Commissioner at the Australian Human Rights Commission

Submission to South Australian Law Reform Institute Consultation on Removing LGBTIQ Discrimination

Bill Shorten’s Marriage Equality Bill Second Reading Speech – The Annotated Version

An LGBTI Agenda – Submission on Draft ALP National Platform 2015

Letter to ALP Caucus re Senator Leyonhjelm’s Freedom to Marry Bill 2014