Submission to Royal Commission into Aged Care

Royal Commission into Aged Care

GPO Box 1151

Adelaide SA 5001

ACRCenquiries@royalcommission.gov.au

 

Monday 25 February 2019

 

Dear Commissioner

 

Submission to Aged Care Royal Commission

 

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

 

In this submission I will focus on one policy issue – the ability of religious aged care services to discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) employees – and its impact on people accessing those services, including LGBT individuals and couples.

 

As you are likely aware, the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013 introduced anti-discrimination protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) Australians under Commonwealth law for the first time.

 

This Act, like the majority of pre-existing state and territory laws, provided general exceptions to religious organisations allowing them to discriminate both in service delivery, and employment, including against LGBT people.

 

However, in an important step forward for equality, the new section 37(2)(a)[i] of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 ‘carved out’ Commonwealth-funded aged care services so that religious organisations that receive public money cannot discriminate against LGBT people accessing those services.

 

This was a welcome recognition both of the importance of aged care services, and of the potential vulnerability of people who require these services, especially older LGBT people many of whom have been subject to a lifetime of homophobic, biphobic and transphobic discrimination.

 

Unfortunately, the same protection was not extended to LGBT employees and other staff in these services (see section 37(2)(b)[ii]).

 

This is wrong in principle for two main reasons.

 

First, whether a person is able to perform their duties as an aged care worker is unrelated to, and independent of, their sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

 

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

 

Second, it is completely unacceptable that taxpayers’ money should be spent subsidising such discrimination. The purpose of public funding of aged care services is to ensure older Australians have access to quality services which are able to meet their needs – it is not supposed to pay for religious organisations to impose their anti-LGBT views on the aged care workforce.

 

For both of these reasons, I believe the ‘carve-out’ in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 which protects LGBT people accessing aged care services should be extended to cover LGBT employees too.

 

The special privilege allowing religious aged care services to discriminate in employment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is wrong in practice as well, and it is here that this discrimination most clearly relates to the Royal Commission’s Terms of Reference.

 

This includes:

 

(a) the quality of aged care services provided to Australians, the extent to which those services meet the needs of the people accessing them, the extent of substandard care being provided, including mistreatment and all forms of abuse, the causes of any systemic failures, and any actions that should be taken in response;

(c) the future challenges and opportunities for delivering accessible, affordable and high quality aged care services in Australia, including:

i. in the context of changing demographics and preferences, in particular people’s desire to remain living at home as they age; and

ii. in remote, rural and regional Australia;

 (d) what the Australian Government, aged care industry, Australian families and the wider community can do to strengthen the system of aged care services to ensure that the services provided are of high quality and safe;

 

The first and most obvious way in which the ability of religious organisations to discriminate against LGBT employees impacts on the quality of aged care services is the reduction of potential talent in their aged care workforce.

 

This is an entirely logical, and foreseeable, outcome; by excluding some highly-qualified applicants,[iii] for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with their ability to perform the relevant role(s), the number of qualified applicants from which to choose is inevitably diminished.

 

This impact may be exacerbated in remote, rural and regional Australia, where the number of applicants for a position may be much smaller to begin with – any loss of highly-qualified applicants, simply because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, could have a severe impact on service standards.

 

And this impact will likely exist for as long as the general exception[iv] in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 allows religious aged care services to discriminate in this way.

 

Because, even if a particular aged care facility doesn’t discriminate at a particular point in time, highly-qualified LGBT employees may nevertheless be discouraged from applying because of the possibility of being legally discriminated against in the future. In remote, rural and regional Australia, where there may be limited employment options, this could even result in qualified employees being lost to the aged care services industry entirely.

 

There is also a compelling argument that the stress of LGBT employees working in religious aged care services that may lawfully discriminate against them, where they may need to be constantly vigilant in self-censoring their words and actions lest they be ‘found out’, undermines the quality of service provided because it serves as a potential distraction from their day-to-day responsibilities.

 

People accessing aged care services have the right to expect the highest possible standard of care. That is not provided when an aged care service refuses to employ highly-qualified people simply because they are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.

 

The second practical reason why allowing religious aged care services to discriminate against LGBT employees impacts on the quality of aged care services is that it can contribute to an organisational culture of homophobia, biphobia and transphobia.

 

Once an organisation acts in a manner that suggests discriminating against employees on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity is acceptable, it is hard not to see this abuse spilling over into the treatment of LGBT people accessing these services.

 

LGBT individuals and couples in aged care facilities may directly witness the homophobic, biphobic and transphobic mistreatment of staff, and feel less safe in their surroundings as a result. Or they could be subject to direct or indirect anti-LGBT discrimination themselves.

 

There is already a significant power imbalance between people accessing these services and the service-providers themselves. As a result, even if the LGBT person accessing the service technically has a right not to be discriminated against under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, they may feel uncomfortable in making a formal complaint because of a legitimate fear that the organisation will not be responsive to it.

 

LGBT people accessing these services are also denied natural allies because any LGBT employees at the facility may feel unable to advocate on their behalf because they are also afraid of retribution from the organisation itself (in this case, entirely legal).

 

Homophobic, biphobic and transphobic discrimination against LGBT employees inevitably has a detrimental impact on LGBT individuals and couples accessing aged care services.

 

The third and final practical reason why allowing religious aged care services to discriminate against LGBT employees impacts on the quality of aged care services, especially for LGBT people, is that it denies them an opportunity for human connection.

 

Residential aged care facilities, in particular, are the ‘homes’ of the people living in them, usually for the final years or decades of their lives. The provision of services is about much more than simply providing shelter, food and health care.

 

For LGBT individuals and couples, having one or more LGBT employees offers the opportunity to bond with them over potential interests, and to share stories with each other (including, I might add, the ability for younger LGBT employees to learn from the older LGBT residents).

 

However, this opportunity is lost if an LGBT employee is unable to discuss this aspect of their lives, for fear of being discriminated against. For the resident, the possibility of conversation is replaced by silence.

 

Discrimination against LGBT employees in aged care services can exacerbate the social isolation experienced by LGBT individuals and couples accessing those services.

 

In conclusion, there are principled reasons why religious aged care services should not be able to discriminate against LGBT employees. These employees should be judged on their ability to perform the role, not on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. And taxpayers’ money should not be used to subsidise anti-LGBT discrimination.

 

There are also practical reasons why such discrimination should be prohibited, including that it impacts on the quality of aged care services provided, contributes to a culture of homophobia, biphobia and transphobia, and denies LGBT residents an opportunity for human connection.

 

Therefore, to improve the quality of aged care services, including although not only for LGBT residents, the special privilege allowing such discrimination should be repealed.

 

Recommendation: The Royal Commission into Aged Care should call for amendment to section 37(2) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) to remove the ability of religious aged care services to discriminate against employees on the basis of their sexual orientation and gender identity.

 

Thank you in advance for taking this submission into consideration as part of the Royal Commission. If you would like further information, please do not hesitate to contact me at the details provided below.

 

Sincerely

Alastair Lawrie

 

download

Commonwealth Minister for Aged Care Ken Wyatt.

 

References:

[i] 37(2) provides that “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 care.”

[ii] See footnote (i), above.

[iii] I am not suggesting that all LGBT applicants are highly-qualified, some will obviously not be (in the same way some cisgender heterosexual applicants will not), but excluding highly-qualified applicants of any background reduces both the number and the depth of qualified applicants to choose from.

[iv] Section 37(1)(d) provides that “Nothing 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.”

Saving Safe Schools

This post is part of a series looking at the unfinished business of LGBTI equality in Australia. You can see the rest of the posts here

 

Safe Schools is, simultaneously, one of the simplest policy issues in Australia, and one of the most complex.

 

Simple, because it is an effective, evidence-based program aimed at reducing bullying of one of the most vulnerable groups in our society: young lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people. Surely, supporting this group, and lowering the disproportionate rates of social exclusion, and mental health issues, that they experience, should be straightforward?

 

Complex, because – well, have you listened to (most) Liberal and National politicians over the past few years? Did you read The Australian newspaper in 2016? [*Neither is recommended of course, but if you did you would have heard and seen a barrage of criticism of this initiative addressing anti-LGBTI bullying]

 

This little program became the focal point of one of the biggest culture wars in our recent history, such that among right-wing circles even the name Safe Schools has itself become toxic, synonymous with all manner of imagined problems.

 

It is hard to remember that, at the federal level, Safe Schools was initially the epitome of bipartisanship – announced and funded by the then Rudd Labor Government before the 2013 election, before being launched under the Abbott Coalition Government in mid-2014.

 

How did we get from there, to wherever the hell it is we are now? I’m not proposing to rehash that depressing history – instead, I would strongly suggest you read the excellent Quarterly Essay ‘Moral Panic 101: Equality, acceptance and the Safe Schools scandal’ by Benjamin Law.

 

However, I am interested in the why – why did a simple and straight-forward program aimed at reducing homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and intersexphobia in schools provoke such an angry response from so-called conservatives around the country?

 

Part of the explanation can be found in the response of one of the program’s greatest advocates, Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews, to the decision by the then Turnbull Liberal National Government to ‘review’ the program in early 2016. From his Facebook post:

 

“Schools have to be a safe place for every kid – no exceptions.

Teachers have to be given the tools to deal with every situation – no excuses.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with this effective little program, which achieves the above two aims and nothing more.

But let’s be honest here: I don’t think these extreme Liberals are actually offended by the structure of the program, or the teachers who lead it.

I just think they’re offended by the kids who need it.

They don’t like the fact that some young people might be different.

And I’m sick of it.

I’m sick of Liberal politicians telling our kids that there’s something wrong with them – when there isn’t.

I’m sick of Liberal politicians trying to push us all back, whenever we all take a few steps forward.

Cory Bernadi [sic] says teenagers are too young to know about love and care and acceptance.

Well, I can assure you, Senator: they know a whole lot more than you.”

 

This offence – at the fact LGBTI kids exist – was so great that, even though the independent review found the program to be effective, age-appropriate and consistent with the curriculum, they axed it anyway. The NSW Liberal National Government, and other conservative administrations around the country, quickly followed suit.

 

But while the offence of Liberal politicians that LGBTI kids have the temerity to exist might be part of the explanation for Safes Schools’ axing, it is by no means a complete explanation.

 

One perhaps even more important contributing factor is discussed in Benjamin Law’s Quarterly Essay, in response to the changes by then Education Minister Simon Birmingham that “schools must now obtain the approval of parent bodies to train teachers [in Safe Schools], and before any lessons are taught.”

 

As Paul Thoemke is quoted on page 57/58 in relation to trans children: “This may be the most politically unsavvy thing I can say. But I sometimes think the greatest risk for these kids is their families… Family life can be awful for a homosexual child, too. Youth who come out meet with parental grief, confusion, denial, or rage so hot that, for everyone involved, the prospect of the child eating from dumpsters or sleeping under bridges may be preferable to coexisting with them under the same roof.”

 

This really is the crux of the debate. Some parents are so homophobic, biphobic, transphobic or intersexphobic (often all four) that they would prefer LGBTI children to be in a wooden box rather than sitting at a wooden desk in a safe and supportive classroom. And not ‘just’ their own children, but all LGBTI kids.

 

Of course, the majority of parents do not see this issue in this warped way. They, like the LGBTI community itself, want to see all children have the ability to live their best lives.

 

Indeed, one of the features of this debate is that it is the LGBTI community and its allies who are arguing for the best interests of kids, while our opponents, who have long (falsely) railed against us with the ‘Won’t somebody please think of the children?’ mantra in the name of ‘traditional family values’, that are acting in the interests of intolerant adults.

 

Unfortunately, in 2016 the Turnbull Liberal-National Government listened to the hateful minority, followed by a number of states and territories.

 

As a result, in early 2019, the Safe Schools program is only functional in Victoria, the ACT (called the Safe and Inclusive Schools Initiative), Western Australia (called the Inclusive Education Program) and the Northern Territory.

 

It has been replaced by general, and generic, ‘anti-bullying programs’ in NSW, Tasmania and South Australia (disappointingly the Queensland Labor Government has never fully supported Safe Schools), in part based on the argument that LGBTI kids don’t deserve a special program to specifically promote acceptance of their difference.

 

Law takes apart this view in his Quarterly Essay on page 64, responding to an example about Hindu students from Elisabeth Taylor of the Australian Christian Lobby:

 

“When Taylor tells me this, I’m initially taken by her argument. Why should minorities of any kind have special treatment? Why should queer kids get the attention when others [sic] kids are being bullied too? It takes a while before the obvious presents itself: first, that general anti-bullying measures have existed for decades and haven’t helped queers at school. Second, that Safe Schools doesn’t exists solely for LGBTIQ youth, but also for the countless other Australian kids who are agents – as well as victims – of schoolyard homophobia. Third: Hindu children are born into Hindu families and communities, who affirm their religion, culture and worldview. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex young people do not have that luxury. Gays are mostly raised in heterosexual families. And if our families and communities don’t accept us, there are consequences. One 2010 national study found that “rates of self harm are higher in [queer] young people who are not supported when they disclose to mother, dad, brother or sister.” If these kids aren’t safe at home or school, where else do they have?”

 

In 2019, we still have Governments at Commonwealth level, and in half the states and territories, that really don’t seem to care about the answer to that question.

 

Who don’t support the right of LGBTI kids simply to be – but instead listen to a vocal minority of bigots who would prefer LGBTI kids not to be. Themselves. Supported. Or Accepted.

 

The question is what we do about it. I would argue the onus is on us, the LGBTI community, our allies, and indeed every Australian who supports diversity, of sexual orientations, gender identities and sex characteristics, to vote against those Governments.

 

Because our kids are counting on us.

 

Unknown-8

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews has shown the leadership too many of his Commonwealth, state and territory counterparts refuse to.

 

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

Invisibility in the Curriculum

This post is part of a series looking at the unfinished business of LGBTI equality in Australia. You can see the rest of the posts here.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

‘sexual health

-acknowledging and understanding sexual feelings

-expectations of males and females

-rights and responsibilities in sexual relationships

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

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

 

**********

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

55d947e87811a0c2c684e8ea8a5b3a90fa7ed982

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

 

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

 

Footnotes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, We Don’t Have Marriage Equality Yet

This post is part of a series looking at the unfinished business of LGBTI equality in Australia. You can see the rest of the posts here.

 

12 months ago today, the House of Representatives passed Liberal Senator Dean Smith’s Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017.

 

It was the culmination of more than 13 years of campaigning by Australia’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) communities.

 

When that law took effect, two days later, Australia finally permitted same-sex couples to wed and recognised the marriages of most[i] LGBTI couples.

 

But we did not achieve genuine marriage equality – nor do we enjoy it exactly one year later.

 

This is because the terms and conditions which apply to the marriages of LGBTI couples after 9 December 2017 are different to those which applied to cisgender heterosexual couples before that date.

 

First, and most importantly, at the time of writing, forced trans divorce – where a transgender person who is already married cannot gain access to accurate identity documentation unless they first divorce their partner – still exists in Western Australia and Tasmania[ii] (while legislation to abolish forced trans divorce has only passed in the Northern Territory in the past fortnight).

 

One of the positive aspects of last year’s marriage Bill is that it included a 12-month phase out of exceptions to the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984 which allowed states and territories to enforce these discriminatory laws.

 

Which means that, from this Sunday, trans people who are already married in WA and Tasmania will be able to lodge a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) about their mistreatment under the Gender Reassignment Act 2000 (WA) and the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1999 (Tas).

 

Presumably, they will also be able to seek a new birth certificate through this process (although whether the respective state Governments provide one remains to be seen).

 

Nevertheless, for as long as forced trans divorce sits on the statute books in any Australian jurisdiction, and we compel some trans people who are already married to take action with the AHRC – or even have to go to Federal Court – just to gain access to accurate identity documentation, it is inaccurate to say we have genuine marriage equality in Australia.

 

[Update May 2019: Western Australia abolished its forced trans divorce laws in February 2019, while Tasmania removed its own forced trans divorce provisions in April 2019, taking effect earlier this month. This means that – finally – forced trans divorce is history.]

 

Second, the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017 didn’t just allow LGBTI couples to wed – it also inserted new ‘religious exceptions’ into the Marriage Act 1961 itself. For example, it gave existing civil celebrants the ability to nominate themselves as ‘religious marriage celebrants’ and thereby refuse to perform the ceremonies of same-sex couples.

 

Importantly, this didn’t just apply to civil celebrants who were ‘ministers of religion’ of unrecognised religions (sub-section 39DD(1), which is at least arguably consistent with freedom of religion).

 

It also allowed existing civil celebrants to gain access to these special privileges based on nothing more than their personal beliefs. As is now set out in sub-section 39DD(2) of the Marriage Act 1961:

 

Marriage celebrants who wish to be religious marriage celebrants on the basis of their religious beliefs

(2) The Registrar of Marriage Celebrants must identify a person as a religious marriage celebrant on the register of marriage celebrants if:

(a) the person was registered as a marriage celebrant under Subdivision C of this Division immediately before Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017 commenced; and

(b) the person gives the Registrar notice that the person wishes to be identified as a religious marriage celebrant on the register:

(i) in writing; and

(ii) in a form approved by the Registrar; and

(iii) within 90 days after Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017 commences; and

(c) the choice is based on the person’s religious beliefs [emphasis added].

 

In effect, a civil celebrant who was registered before 9 December 2017 could simply sign-up to be able to say ‘no gays allowed’ (or no lesbians, bisexuals or transgender people allowed either).[iii]

 

[Update 13 December 2018: In fact, as revealed by the Ruddock Religious Freedom Review Report, 406 existing civil celebrants registered to take advantage of these new special privileges to discriminate against LGBTI couples. Which, to be honest, is even more people choosing prejudice over equal love than I had anticipated.]

 

Remember that these celebrants are not ministers of religion, and the ceremonies they officiate need not be religious. There is also no test of their beliefs – it is based solely on self-declaration.

 

In practice, this provision has very little to do with actual religious freedom, but instead provides new legal protections to homophobia, biphobia and transphobia as long as it is dressed up as ‘religious’.

 

That much is made abundantly clear by the fact similar provisions had never been introduced to ‘protect’ civil celebrants who wanted to refuse to (re-)marry people who had previously been divorced, or to reject ceremonies for couples of different faiths – both of which arouse strong religious beliefs for many people.

 

These provisions were introduced only when LGBTI couples were finally allowed to marry, demonstrating that they are not aimed at protecting genuine religious freedom at all – their real target is undermining LGBTI equality.

 

This is obviously a terrible provision in and of itself. It also sets a negative precedent for other laws.

 

After all, if civil celebrants – who are in reality a small business, offering commercial services to the public at large – are allowed to discriminate against their customers on the basis of the customer’s sexual orientation or gender identity, then why shouldn’t other businesses be allowed to do the same (a point that religious fundamentalists made frequently during the Ruddock Religious Freedom Review).

 

Indeed, that brings me to the third reason why we still don’t have genuine marriage equality in Australia.

 

Amidst all of the celebrations of the passage of same-sex marriage (and yes, as someone engaged to be married, I still think some celebration was justified), I wonder how many people understand that the following is now written into the Marriage Act:

 

47B Bodies established for religious purposes may refuse to make facilities available or provide goods or services

(1) A body established for religious purposes may refuse to make a facility available, or to provide goods or services, for the purposes of the solemnisation of a marriage, or for purposes reasonably incidental to the solemnisation of a marriage, if the refusal:

(a) conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of the religion of the body; or

(b) is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion.

(2) Subsection (1) applies to facilities made available, and goods or services provided, whether for payment or not.

(3) This section does not limit the grounds on which a body established for religious purposes may refuse to make a facility available, or to provide goods or services, for the purposes of the solemnisation of a marriage, or for purposes reasonably incidental to the solemnisation of a marriage.

(4) To avoid doubt, a reference to a body established for religious purposes has the same meaning in this section as it has in section 37 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (1), a purpose is reasonably incidental to the solemnisation of marriage if it is intrinsic to, or directly associated with, the solemnisation of the marriage [emphasis in original].

 

This is an incredibly broad exception, applying to anything provided by a religious organisation that has anything to do with a LGBTI wedding – even where it is provided by a service that advertises to the public at large and is run for profit.

 

The most generous interpretation of the inclusion of this amendment is that it merely replicates, and reinforces, the existing religious exceptions found in section 37(1)(d) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (provisions which have come under scrutiny this week because they also allow discrimination by religious schools against LGBT students and teachers).

 

But, if that is the case, their inclusion in the Marriage Act is entirely unnecessary. And for a reform that has powerful symbolic value, what does it say about the passage of same-sex marriage that it was accompanied by these equally symbolic, but discriminatory, amendments.

 

On the other hand, it is arguable that the addition of section 47B has actually increased the range of circumstances in which religious organisations can discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

 

This is particularly the case in relation to Tasmania, where the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 remains the best practice LGBTI discrimination law in Australia.

 

This is because the religious exceptions in section 47B of the Marriage Act 1961 are framed in a positive way (‘a body established for religious purposes may refuse…’), whereas the existing Sex Discrimination Act 1984 exceptions are phrased in a negative way (‘Nothing in Division 1 or 2 affects…’).

 

This is an important distinction because it is more likely that a positively-framed religious exception will override the anti-discrimination laws of jurisdictions which are inconsistent. In practice, the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017 has likely allowed new forms of discrimination in our most Southern state.

 

Even if that interpretation is incorrect, it should again be highlighted that this type of exclusionary provision was never needed to allow religious organisations to refuse to serve couples where one or both had previously been divorced, or where the couple had different religious backgrounds.

 

Section 47B was only introduced when LGBTI couples were allowed to walk down the aisle. It’s true purpose is to allow religious bodies – even where they are advertise to the public at large and are run for a profit – to tell same-sex couples to go somewhere else.[iv]

 

Perhaps the most disappointing part about the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017 is that, despite being one of the worst marriage amendment Bills ever introduced into Commonwealth Parliament,[v] it was signed-off on by Australian Marriage Equality (AME), and the Equality Campaign, supposedly on behalf of the LGBTI community.

 

In the days after the announcement of the postal survey results, they presented Senator Dean Smith’s Bill as a fait accompli, arguing for its passage without calling for the removal of its unnecessary provisions regarding existing civil celebrants or wedding-related services, effectively making them accomplices to this new discrimination.

 

In my opinion, AME/The Equality Campaign were wrong to do so.

 

They were wrong on principle. As an organisation purporting to advocate for marriage equality, they should have been calling for genuine equality, not defending the inclusion of provisions that were never needed for anyone else, but were only introduced to target LGBTI Australians. Their acquiescence makes it harder to push for the removal of these provisions in the future.

 

They were wrong on strategy. The religious fundamentalists inside the Coalition Government were the ones who had pushed for the unnecessary, wasteful, harmful and divisive postal survey – and they lost, with the majority of Australians showing they supported the equal treatment of all couples, irrespective of sexual orientation, gender identity or sex characteristics.

 

That is what the LGBTI community should have been demanding: full equality and nothing less. If the Coalition Government refused to pass it because it did not include new rights to discriminate against LGBTI couples, even after imposing an unprecedented $80.5 million three-month national opinion poll, then they would have experienced the biggest of backlashes. It was not up to the LGBTI community to save the Government from itself.

 

And they were wrong on process, because they never secured the informed consent of the LGBTI community to these changes. They never explained, in detail, what had been given up and why, and they never asked lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people whether it was a price they were prepared to pay.

 

Indeed, when other organisations like just.equal and PFLAG Australia did ask the community what they thought, the response was generally unequivocal – there must be no new discrimination.[vi] In the absence of other evidence, that is the position I think AME/The Equality Campaign should have adopted.[vii]

 

It is likely I will be criticised, possibly quite strongly, for writing this (and especially those last few paras). Many will argue that what’s done is done, and should therefore be left alone.

 

Maybe.

 

Except I would argue that what was done last year – the inclusion of new discriminatory provisions in the Marriage Act itself – needs to be undone.

 

In order to do so, we need to know what exactly is in the Act, and how and why it was included. And then we need to work out a strategy for ensuring sections 39DD(2) and 47B are removed from the statute books so that the stain of discrimination is washed clean, permanently.

 

Because for as long as any LGBTI couple is turned away by a homophobic or transphobic civil celebrant (calling themselves a ‘religious marriage celebrant’), and for as long as religious organisations enjoy special privileges to discriminate in the provision of wedding-related goods, services or facilities, then we don’t enjoy genuine marriage equality in Australia.

 

House of Reps Vote

The moment Commonwealth Parliament passed the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017. It introduced same-sex marriage. But it isn’t marriage equality.

 

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

 

Footnotes:

[i] See the discussion of forced trans divorce below.

[ii] Legislation to abolish forced trans divorce – as well as making the inclusion of gender on birth certificates optional – has passed Tasmania’s Legislative Assembly, but it is unclear if or when it will pass the Legislative Council.

Legislation to abolish forced trans divorce passed Western Australia’s lower house in late 2018. It was finally passed by the Legislative Council on 12 February 2019, leaving Tasmania as the last state yet to abolish Forced Trans Divorce.

[iii] Authorised under section 47A:

Religious marriage celebrants may refuse to solemnise marriages

(1) A religious marriage celebrant may refuse to solemnise a marriage despite anything in this Part, if the celebrant’s religious beliefs do not allow the celebrant to solemnise the marriage

Grounds for refusal not limited by this section

(2) This section does not limit the grounds on which a religious marriage celebrant may refuse to solemnise a marriage.

[iv] There is a fourth problem with the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017 and that is it reinforces the ability of defence force chaplains to discriminate in terms of which marriage ceremonies they will officiate. As outlined in section 81 of the Marriage Act 1961:

(2) A chaplain may refuse to solemnise a marriage despite anything in this Part, if any of the following applies:

(a) the refusal conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of the religion of the chaplain’s religious body of religious organisation;

(b) the refusal is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion;

(c) the chaplain’s religious beliefs do not allow the chaplain to solemnise the marriage.

Grounds for refusal not limited by this section

(3) This section does not limit the grounds on which an authorised celebrant (including a chaplain) may refuse to solemnise a marriage.

This provision is offensive because military chaplains are public servants, paid for by the taxpayer (including of course LGBTI taxpayers), and obligated to serve all of the people supposedly under their pastoral care. They should be required to provide these services to all ADF personnel, irrespective of their sexual orientation or gender identity – and if they cannot, they should find another job.

On the other hand, it should be acknowledged that defence force chaplains already had the ability to determine who they performed marriages for (although the revised section 81 made this power even clearer) meaning it is somewhat distinct from the existing civil celebrant, and wedding-related services, religious exceptions, both of which are genuinely new ‘rights’ to discriminate.

[v] Perhaps equal worst with Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm’s Freedom to Marry Bill 2014, which allowed all civil celebrants to turn away LGBTI couples, but which did not insert new general religious exceptions in the Marriage Act itself.

Liberal Senator James Paterson’s Marriage Amendment (Definition and Protection of Freedoms) Bill 2017 – written in conjunction with the Australian Christian Lobby – was obviously far worse than both, but it was never formally introduced.

[vi] See the results of their November 2017 community survey here.

In particular:

  • 63.1% of respondents opposed the Smith Bill’s civil celebrant provisions
  • 86.9% opposed the wedding-related services exceptions, and
  • 77.4% opposed provisions allowing military chaplains to refuse to officiate the ceremonies of LGBTI ADF personnel.

Importantly, 53.7% of respondents indicated they were willing to wait until marriage equality could be achieved without such provisions (while only 27.9% were not willing to wait and 18.4% were neutral on this issue).

[vii] For more on these issues, see Rodney Croome’s excellent recent article in New Matilda, ‘Yes Yes No: Why the History of Marriage Equality Must be Told Accurately’.

Genderless (Notices of Intended) Marriage

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

**********

Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department

via marriagecelebrantssection@ag.gov.au

 

Sunday 28 October 2018

 

To whom it may concern

 

Notice of Intended Marriage Consultation

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

I can see no such purpose in this instance.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Gender (optional), please specify

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sincerely

Alastair Lawrie

 

images-1

 

Footnotes:

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

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

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

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

Update 5 March 2019:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Recommendation 5

Sex classification be removed from birth certificates

 

Recommendation 6

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

 

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

 

Recommendation 7

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Original submission:

Law Reform Commission of Western Australia

Level 23, David Malcolm Justice Centre

28 Barrack St

Perth WA 6000

lrcwa@justice.wa.gov.au

 

Friday 19 October 2018

 

To whom it may concern

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

No.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Not applicable.

 

Other comments on the proposed model

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Other issues

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sincerely

Alastair Lawrie

 

The robo-debt letter that should be sent

This time last year, there was an emerging scandal for the Turnbull Government – the automated letters being sent to hundreds of thousands of people who had received social security seeking repayment of supposed debts worth tens of thousands of dollars.

 

Based on incomplete and often inconsistent information, a significant proportion of these notices were inaccurate, with many recipients owing nothing at all.

 

The ‘robo-debt’ letter program was nothing short of an omnishambles. Unfortunately, despite scathing assessments by both the Commonwealth Ombudsman and a Senate Inquiry, this scheme continues to this day.

 

Instead of targeting many of the most vulnerable members of the community, for debts they either don’t owe or can’t pay, there is one robo-debt letter that I think should be sent.

 

To a group of people that have cost Australian taxpayers a large amount of money, by failing to perform their most basic duties, and who definitely have the capacity to pay.

 

**********

 

Dear Liberal and National Senators and Members of Parliament,

 

We are writing to seek repayment of a significant sum you owe to the people of Australia. This debt has been incurred due to your failure to fulfil the minimum responsibilities of your employment.

 

In August 2017, instead of voting on legislation in Parliament – which is, after all, what you are elected to do – you decided to outsource your obligations to the general public, by holding a postal survey about same-sex marriage.

 

Your postal survey was unnecessary. Unlike Ireland, there was absolutely no requirement for this process, which could at best be described as a voluntary, non-binding, national opinion poll.

 

Your postal survey was harmful. Exactly as the LGBTI community had told you it would be: “experiences of verbal and physical assaults more than doubled in the three months following the announcement of the postal survey compared with the prior six months”, while “more than 90% reported the postal vote had a negative impact on them to some degree.”

 

Your postal survey was unprecedented. Never before has an optional survey, run by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, been used to cast judgement on the fundamental human rights of a minority group. It must never be used again.

 

Your postal survey was wasteful. Originally budgeted at $122 million, it apparently came in under budget – at just $80.5 million*. This is money that could have been spent on health. Or education. Or any number of government programs that actually benefit the Australian community.

 

The historic events of the past fortnight have merely confirmed this monumental waste. LGBTI marriage has finally been passed in both houses of Parliament – the places where this important change should have been made all along.

 

Indeed, Commonwealth Parliament is the only place where it could ever have been achieved.

 

You are one of 105 Coalition Members of Parliament elected at the 2016 federal election. Your personal share of responsibility for this debt, of $100 million, has been allocated equally.

 

Your estimated debt is $766,666.67. We seek your repayment within 30 days of receipt of this letter.

 

Responsibility for seats currently unoccupied due to dual citizenship-related ineligibility – Liberal Senator Stephen Parry, Nationals Senator Fiona Nash and Liberal MP John Alexander – will fall on their respective political parties.

 

We understand a small number of you have consistently opposed your Government’s proposals to hold a plebiscite and then, when that legislation was rejected by the Senate, to conduct a postal survey instead. We thank you for your principled position.

 

If you fall into this category, please supply evidence of your denunciation of these policies, following its announcement by Prime Minister Tony Abbott in August 2015, and during the plebiscite debate in the second half of 2016 and the postal survey debate in August 2017, both under Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

 

Once this evidence is received, you share of responsibility will also be allocated to your party’s head office.

 

Grievance procedures

 

It is possible some of you will feel aggrieved to receive this letter. If that is the case, please feel free to lodge a formal letter of complaint.

 

However, you should be aware we will give it the same level of consideration that you gave to the legitimate concerns expressed by the LGBTI community ahead of your decision to hold the postal ballot.

 

You should also consider yourselves lucky.

 

Lucky you are not having your wages deducted for all the years in parliament during which you failed to pass this most straight-forward of reforms (for some of you, stretching all the way back to the Howard Government’s original ban on marriage equality in 2004).

 

Lucky you are not being charged for all the time and expense wasted by LGBTI Australians, and our families, friends and allies, in having to fight for equal rights during your unjust, and unjustifiable, postal survey.

 

Lucky you will not have to pay damages for the emotional, mental and social harms you have caused by shirking your essential responsibilities and undertaking a bitter and divisive ‘vote’.

 

The LGBTI community was not so lucky. We were forced to wait more than 13 years for the equal recognition of our relationships. And then jump through hoops no-one else has ever been expected to negotiate.

 

We paid the price for your lack of leadership. Now it’s time for you to pay up.

 

Sincerely,

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians, our families, friends and allies

 

Parliament House

*NB An earlier version of this article used the figure $100 million as the estimate announced by the ABS on the day the postal survey results were announced. On 8 December, Finance Minister Senator Mathias Cormann revealed the final cost to the Government was $80.5 million.