Tag Archives: LGBTI

Submission to Involuntary and Coerced Sterilisation Senate Inquiry

Posted on by

Last week, in amongst the craziness of the Sex Discrimination Amendment Bill, and the US Supreme Court marriage equality decisions, the Organisation Intersex International (OII) Australia put out the call for people to make submissions to the Senate Community Affairs Committee Inquiry into the Involuntary and Coerced Sterilisation of People with Disabilities in Australia.

So, on Saturday afternoon I put together the below submission. Given the rush it is admittedly not my best work, but I am glad to have put something in with respect to this important inquiry, and today OII Australia tweeted that they appreciated my effort, so that’s good enough for me. The submission was published on the Senate’s website this morning, so here it is:

I would like to make a brief submission in relation to this important inquiry.

Specifically, in my submission I will address the second term of reference for the inquiry, namely:

2. Current practices and policies relating to the involuntary or coerced sterilisation of intersex people, including

a) sexual health and reproductive issues; and

b) the impacts on intersex people.

In doing so, I will be drawing heavily on the submission provided by the Organisation Intersex International Australia.

I am writing this submission as a gay man, and someone who does not have any personal experience of what it is like to be an intersex individual. However, that does not mean I cannot recognise the fundamental human rights of others, or support broad principles according to which each and every person should be able to live their life.

These principles include the right to personal autonomy – to have physical control over one’s body – including the right to determine whether to consent, or not to consent, to medical procedures (wherever possible). This is especially important for procedures which can have long-term, and often permanent or irreversible, impact on core matters such as sex and reproduction. These principles also include the right for individuals to be different, including differences of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status, and for these differences to be respected by the medical profession, the Government and society at large.

Sadly, it seems that for far too many intersex Australians they have been unable to live their lives with the benefit of these principles or rights.

It is disturbing to read the following quote from pages 3 and 4 of the OII submission dated 15 February 2013:

“Every individual member of OII Australia has experienced some form of non-consensual medical intervention, including the following:

  • Pressure to conform to gender norms and to be a “real man” or “real woman”.
  • Involuntary gonadectomy (sterilisation) and clitorectomy (clitoris removal or reduction) as an infant, child or adolescent.
  • Medical and familial pressure to take hormone treatment.
  • Medical and familial pressure to undertake genital “normalisation” surgery.
  • Surgical intervention that went outside the terms of consent, including surgery that was normalising without consent.
  • Disclosure of non-relevant medical data to third parties without consent.”

For any individual to experience any of these interventions is disturbing. That every member of OII Australia has experience of at least one (and possibly more than one) is genuinely shocking.

That is why I have no compunction in backing the recommendations made by OII in their submission. In particular, I support their Medical protocol recommendations on pages 20 and 21, namely:

“1. Medical intervention should not assume crisis in our difference, nor normalisation as a goal.

2. Medical, and in particular surgical, interventions must have a clear ethical basis, supported by evidence of long term benefit.

3. Data must be recorded on intersex births, assignments of sex of rearing, and of surgical interventions.

4. Medical interventions should not be based on psychosocial adjustment or genital appearance.

5. Medical intervention should be deferred wherever possible until the patient is able to freely give full and informed consent; this is known as the “Gillick competence.”

6. Necessary medical intervention on minors should preserve the potential for different life paths and identities until the patient is old enough to consent.

7. The framework for medical intervention should not infantilise intersex, failing to recognise that we become adults, or that we have health needs as adults.

8. The framework for medical intervention must not pathologies intersex through the use of stigmatising language.

9. Medical protocols must mandate continual dialogue with intersex organisations.”

I also endorse their call for a review of terminations on the basis of intersex differences – as intersex status should not be used as the basis for an otherwise undesired termination (in the same way that, if pre-natal tests were to become available at a later date to determine homosexuality, bisexuality or transgender status, I would ethically object to these tests being used as the basis for terminations).

Similarly, I support OII Australia’s call for a review of the use of off-label use of dexamethasone (and note with concern the possibility that this steroid could be used to prevent physical masculanisation and to “prevent homosexuality” – as highlighted on page 11 of the OII Australia submission).

I also have no qualms in supporting their Legal recommendations on page 21:

“We wish to live in a society where we are not obliged to conform to binary sex and gender expectations, where our biological distinctiveness is not treated as it it’s an errant behaviour, where we are protected despite our innate differences, and where intersex people are also not singled out or “othered” as a class. We wish to live in a society where our sex assignments are mutable, and not problematized, and where we (and others) can choose to remain silent on the matter of our sex, through an “unspecified” sex classification.

We seek recognition that our treatment by the medical profession and by the state is a human rights issue. We seek explicit inclusion in human rights and anti-discrimination legislation on the basis of our biological distinctiveness, without our having to submit either to medical intervention, nor a requirement that we “genuinely” identify as one gender or another.”

Of course, it is pleasing to observe that at least some of these recommendations have been achieved since that submission was written, with the passage this week of the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013, as well as the recent release of the Australian Government Guidelines on the Recognition of Sex and Gender. But other work, especially with the medical profession, remains to be implemented.

Finally, I would like to strongly endorse the Community support recommendations of OII Australia on page 21 of their submission. The recent history of OII Australia demonstrates that it has had incredible success in firstly, drawing attention to some important, but hitherto largely ignored, human rights issues and secondly, to achieving some key victories (such as the recent passage of federal anti-discrimination protections, which was a world first at federal level).

The fact that it has done so as a small, member and volunteer-run organisation, with no government funding, is truly impressive. With many issues yet to be resolved, hopefully the Commonwealth can see fit to provide an ongoing funding source for OII Australia.

LGBTI refugees on Nauru & Manus Island

Posted on by

So, the past few weeks have been pretty busy (with the SDA Bill and my Change.org petition to help ensure the national Health & Physical Education curriculum is genuinely LGBTI-inclusive). One thing which happened earlier in June, which I had previously committed to place on my blog, is that I finally received a response to my letter to the then Minister for Immigration, Chris Bowen – which I first sent in September 2012!

It has only taken 9 months, including a follow up letter to Minister Bowen, a new message to Minister Brendan O’Connor, who was appointed in February, and then some ongoing twitter harassment/stalking. Even after all of this the response which I have received is not from the Minister himself (either of them) but rather from the Director of the relevant Branch in the Department.

I have included the full text of the letter below. But I have chosen to omit the name of the Branch Director, because as a former public servant I can only imagine that they were instructed to draft the letter in this particular way, and after all, this is about the Government’s policy and not an individual.

In my original letter (see: https://alastairlawrie.net/2012/09/07/letter-to-chris-bowen-on-lgbti-asylum-seekers/), amongst other questions, I asked whether the Government supported the rights of LGBTI people to seek asylum, as well as whether these asylum seekers would be subject to the laws of Nauru and Papua New Guinea (Manus Island) which still criminalise homosexuality.

The response to the first question appears to be yes – the letter at least accepts the fact that people can claim refugee status on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity (although it is less clear that intersex status is accepted). How well Australia implements this commitment is, of course, a much longer discussion.

However, the letter refuses to answer the second key point. I can only assume that, based on the Director’s avoidance of this issue, the criminal offences relating to homosexuality in Nauru and Papua New Guinea do, at the very least, technically apply to the asylum seekers which we as a country distressingly continue to send to these places.

The letter then rather cryptically goes into detail about what individuals can do if they object to being transferred to a particular Regional Processing Country. While I would fully expect that the ‘Ministerial discretion’ which is alluded to would be exercised to override such concerns, I believe that the lawyers who represent LGBTI asylum seekers being sent to Nauru or Manus Island should at the very least raise their concerns under s198AE with the Minister (whoever that might be after the reshuffle tomorrow).

As an aside I don’t actually think that it matters whether the particular asylum seeker is seeking protection because of persecution on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity (or intersex status), merely that they are LGBTI and fear persecution by the Governments of Nauru or Papua New Guinea because of their ongoing criminalisation of same-sex activity.

I will now endeavour to ensure that LGBTI and/or general refugee advocates are aware of this advice and can take any appropriate steps (noting that these applications may have already been made to, and rejected by, the Minister for Immigration since the detention centres were reopened last August).

Overall, of course, even if LGBTI asylum seekers were removed from Nauru and Manus Island, this would only be ‘fiddling at the edges’ of the revived Pacific Solution, a policy so awful that it brings shame to the entire Australian population, myself included. No asylum seeker, whether LGBTI or not, should ever be sent to such places, for an indefinite period, merely for exercising their fundamental right to seek protection from persecution.

Most depressingly of all, the upcoming federal election doesn’t appear like it will change these policies – if anything, the probable election of Tony Abbott as Prime Minister, with Scott Morrison as Minister for Immigration, will make things substantially worse.

On that ‘glass-completely-empty’ note, here is the response from the Department which only took 9 months to conceive:

Dear Mr Lawrie,

Thank you for your email of 7 September 2012 to the former Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, the Hon Chris Bowen MP, concerning the treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) asylum seekers. Your letter has been referred to me for a reply. I apologise for the delay in responding.

The Australian Government’s commitment to removing discrimination was demonstrated by its reforms to remove discrimination from 85 Commonwealth laws. These reforms, which passed in 2009, removed discrimination and equalised treatment for same-sex couples in areas of taxation, social security, health, aged care, superannuation, immigration, child support and family law.

The Government is also proceeding with introducing long overdue protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status. On 21 March 2013, the Attorney-General introduced the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013. This Bill will ensure that protections from discrimination for people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex are put in place as soon as practicable.

Concerning the transfer of post-13 August 2012 irregular maritime arrivals (IMAs) to Regional Processing Countries (RPC) and the treatment of LGBTI asylum seekers, as a signatory to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (the Refugee Convention), Australia takes its international obligations seriously and is committed to providing protection to refugees consistent with the obligations set out in the Refugees Convention and other human rights treaties to which Australia is a party. Any person has the right to seek protection in Australia from persecution in their home country.

The Government has signed Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) with the Governments of Nauru and Papua New Guinea which permit people who arrived irregularly by boat on or after 13 August 2012 to be taken to Nauru or Papua New Guinea (Manus Island) for assessment of their claims against the Refugee Convention. Changes to the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) which give effect to regional processing arrangements were passed by the Australian Parliament and became law on 18 August 2012.

The MoU signed with Nauru and Papua new Guinea reaffirms the commitment of both countries to the Refugee Convention, with people transferred to the Regional Processing Country (RPC) to be treated with dignity and respect in line with human rights standards.

The Department of Immigration and Citizenship recognises that human rights abuses and gender-related persecution can also be experienced by people on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. As such, an applicant’s gender-related claims may include claims relating to their
sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

In the guidelines set out in the Departmental Procedures Advice Manual 3 (PAM3), for the guidance of interviewing officers, they are advised that

“Unlike other persecuted groups, sexual orientation and gender identity is not a readily visible characteristic and has to be revealed by the individual. Homosexual and transsexual applications may, therefore, have only spoken to a handful of people, or none at all, about their sexuality and have kept it a secret. Interviewers and decision makers should, therefore, not be surprised if an applicant suddenly raises the issue of sexual orientation or gender identity late in an application process, prefaced perhaps by an earlier weak or false claim on other grounds.”

Pre-Transfer Assessment is undertaken prior to a person’s transfer to an RPC to consider whether there are specific circumstances or special needs that mean it is not reasonably practicable to transfer an asylum seeker to an RPC at this time.

Where a person raises concerns against a designated RC, the Departmental officer refers to relevant country information, as well as the assurances received by Australia from the RPC governments, to assess if those charges are credible. If the person makes credible protection claims against all RPCs, the case is brought to the Minister’s attention in accordance with his guidelines for considering the exercise of his power under section 198AE of the Migration Act 1958 to exempt that person from transfer.

A copy of the Minister’s s198AE guidelines and the Pre-Transfer Assessment form and guidelines can be found at the Department’s website at: www.immi.gov.au/visas/humanitarian/whatsnew.htm

Also for your information, I attach a copy of the relevant sections of PAM3 regarding gender and sexual orientation. For a full interactive copy of that document you may need to contact your nearest public library which should be able to provide free access.

Thank you for writing about this matter and I apologise again for the delay in respond.

Yours sincerely

[Name withheld]

Director

Protection Policy Section

6 June 2013

Federal LGBTI Anti-Discrimination Protections, At Last

Posted on by

This week, there was a major legal development which will have a direct and lasting impact on the lives of all lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) Australians. No, I am not talking about the US Supreme Court decisions overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, and Prop 8 in California.

Welcome as those decisions are, they will not directly impact Australians, outside of those people who are in bi-national relationships with US citizens (of course, the SCOTUS decision could have significant indirect impact in terms of confirming the global momentum towards marriage equality and heightening the embarrassment we feel that Australia has not adopted this reform).

The major achievement which I am referring to is the passage of the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013. 38 years after the passage of the Racial Discrimination Act, three decades after the Sex Discrimination Act, two decades since Disability was protected, and nine years since Age was covered, we finally have federal anti-discrimination legislation of our own.

Five days later and I am still smiling about this. And I am still pleased that the removal of exceptions for religious organisations in the provision of aged care services was included, despite the formal Opposition of the Liberal and National Parties. This is incredibly important, not just in terms of protecting vulnerable older LGBTI Australians as they enter aged care facilities, but also in terms of its precedent value – contrary to the public statements of Shadow Attorney-General Senator George Brandis, freedom of religion should not trump the right of LGBTI Australians not to be discriminated against.

Hopefully, the removal of religious exceptions – outside of who can be a member of a congregation, how religious ceremonies are conducted and who is appointed as ministers of religion – will ultimately be delivered.

In the meantime, it is very important that we remember and pay tribute to those LGBTI activists who have helped to make this happen, as well as the politicians who have assisted to achieve this historic reform.

In terms of activists, I would particularly like to mention Anna Brown of the Victorian Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby, long-term activist Corey Irlam and NSW Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby policy officer Jed Horner, who were all on the ground in Canberra in the critical final weeks, as people who the community should thank. I think we should also congratulate people like Sally Goldner of Transgender Victoria (and likely several others who I am not aware of) for their success in ensuring an inclusive definition of trans issues in the Bill.

Above all, it was an amazing effort by Gina Wilson and Morgan Carpenter of OII Australia for them not only to raise public consciousness of the needs of intersex Australians, but also for achieving their inclusion as a specific protected attribute in the SDA Bill, the first time intersex people have been explicitly protected at federal level anywhere in the world.

Unfortunately, given the long and winding road which eventually delivered federal LGBTI anti-discrimination protections in Australia it is next to impossible to note all of those who put in the ground work which led up to this year’s Bill, but thank you nonetheless.

In terms of political support, I think it is fair to say that the legislation could not have been delivered without the hard work of Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, who had oversight of the Bill, as well as the more ‘behind-the-scenes’ support of the ALP’s two queer Senators, Penny Wong and Louise Pratt. And I genuinely believe the removal of the religious aged care service provision exception would not have happened without the efforts of Minister for Mental Health & Ageing Mark Butler. Underneath all of this work, Rainbow Labor played a key role in ensuring the issue of LGBTI anti-discrimination reform remained on the ALP’s agenda.

In the current Parliament, the Bill obviously would not have progressed without the critical support of the Australian Greens and people like Senator Sarah Hanson-Young (who has portfolio responsibility for LGBTI issues). And the Independent cross-benchers should be thanked for shepherding the Bill through, as well as Liberal Senators Sue Boyce (for supporting) and Dean Smith (for abstaining), for providing moral support for the, as yet unnamed, House of Representatives Liberal MPs who were prepared to abstain to ensure its ultimate passage.

As with LGBTI activists, the long history of this issue means it is difficult to point out all of the MPs who have championed this issue over the years. But I would like to pay special tribute to the gay former Democrats Senator Brian Greig who helped to put this issue on the national legislative agenda through his private member’s bill.

Anyway, that is a not-at-all comprehensive list of people who have helped to make the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013 a reality. Apologies to those people omitted – please accept that it was not deliberate. This might seem to some like an indulgent blog post, but thanking those people who make our successes happen is not something which our community has traditionally been very good at, and this is my small attempt to redress a little bit of that. Hopefully those people, named and unnamed, know the incredible difference they have made to current and future generations of LGBTI Australians.

#QandA, Senator Brandis and LGBTI Anti-Discrimination Reforms

Posted on by

On Monday night (June 24th) I had the opportunity to attend the filming of QandA at the ABC studios in Ultimo, Sydney. As on two previous occasions, I was told that my question had been shortlisted. However, unlike those previous occasions, this time I got to ask it.

I feel privileged to have done so. I got to ask Senator George Brandis, the Shadow Attorney-General, live on national television why the Liberal and National Parties were so desperate that religious aged care facilities should be able to discriminate on the basis on sexual orientation and gender identity, that they would scupper the entire anti-discrimination reform if this exception was not preserved.

And it was also timely – the Senate had voted on the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013 that evening (where it was passed by the Labor Government and the Greens), and it was due to be voted on by the House of Representatives the following day (and where the numbers were also far closer).

The answer given by Senator Brandis to my question (and to my supplementary) was of course disappointing, confirming that the Liberal and National Parties do not believe that the right of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians not to be discriminated against is either fundamental or universal.

But it was his answer to Tony Jones’ follow-up that was truly extraordinary, particularly this exchange:

Tony Jones: But just on principle, you are saying that religious freedom supersedes the freedom of your sexuality?

George Brandis: Yes, I am, as a matter of fact. Yes I am.

All Australians, and especially LGBTI Australians, should consider this statement, from the likely Attorney-General under a Tony Abbott-led Government, before casting their ballot later this year.

There was one final bonus of my appearance on QandA, and it was unexpected. On Thursday (June 27th) the Australian Christian Lobby put out a media release condemning the Government for the passage of the Sex Discrimination Amendment Bill, and supporting Senator Brandis’ position. This media release included the full transcript of my exchange with Senator Brandis, as well as Tony Jones’ questions.

So, not only do I now have the ‘street cred’ of having been quoted disapprovingly in an ACL media release, but they also saved me the time and effort of having to put together the following transcript. Thanks ACL!

ALASTAIR LAWRIE: My question is to Senator Brandis. Last Tuesday you announced that the Coalition would block any LGBIT anti-discrimination bill that did not allow religious aged-care service providers to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. This is despite the fact that these agencies themselves do not believe they need this exception. You seem to be putting a theoretical religious freedom above practical protections. Why don’t you believe that older lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender Australians, people who have grown up when their love was criminalised, who lost friends and lovers to HIV and AIDS, have the right to grow old in dignity and respect that they deserve?

GEORGE BRANDIS: It is a very important question that you ask and let me explain what the Opposition’s position is. But there was one statement in your question which wasn’t quite right. You said that the religious institutions, the churches, didn’t themselves want the exemption so far as concerned aged care facilities. That’s not right. Some said they didn’t want it. Most said they did. So don’t be misled by a misleading statement by the Attorney-General. On the broader issue, when the bill, the sex discrimination bill, was introduced into the Parliament, I took a submission to the Shadow Cabinet and to our party room which was, I think without a dissenting voice, endorsed that we should support it. And the reason we support it is because it is actually the policy we took to the 2010 election, that the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act should extend to sexuality as a protected attribute. The Government knew that they had the Opposition on board with this. In fact, the Government’s measure was itself taken from the Opposition’s report on the broader human rights and anti-discrimination bill, the bill that was abandoned by the Government earlier this year because it was acknowledged to have gone way too far. So we had, on this very tricky and important issue of discrimination against gay people, we had bipartisanship and unanimity. And then into the middle of this harmonious bipartisan moment, the Labor Party, out of the blue, threw in an amendment never anticipated, never expected, that would have caused the religious exemption issue to come into play. Now, if you want to build a consensus around this issue, that gay people should be protected from discrimination by the Sex Discrimination Act, then you would not have done that and the Labor Party, on all other grounds, in all other arenas, has said that it will respect the religious exemption. I am cynical about why the Labor Party did that…

TONY JONES: Okay, George.

GEORGE BRANDIS: …knowing that by introducing the religious exemption, it would make it impossible for that bipartisanship to continue.

TONY JONES: George Brandis, the questioner has his hand up so we’ll go back to you.

ALASTAIR LAWRIE: I would just like to pick up a point you seem to be making. In Senator Humphrey’s dissenting report to the sex discrimination senate inquiry, the two organisations that he quoted justifying the call for religious exception in that circumstance were the Australian Christian Lobby and the Catholic Women’s League. Neither of them provide religious aged care services. So in that circumstance, why are we trying to impose a religious exception to the detriment of older LGBT people for those groups that don’t actually run those services?

GEORGE BRANDIS: Well, I’m very familiar with that minority report because I was one of the signatories to it and I had a lot to do with drafting it. There were many more submissions to the inquiry from other churches and religious institutions than those two. So don’t infer that because those two were mentioned as a ‘For example’, those were the only ones, because they weren’t.

TONY JONES: Okay. George, I would like the hear other people on this subject. Anne Summers?

ANN SUMMERS: Well, I’m afraid I don’t know much about the legislation. I mean I just obviously would support the principle that LGBT people should be able to go to retirement homes and nursing homes free from any form of discrimination, which I take to be the central point and I know that, you know, one of the problems with homes that are run by some religions is they have been discriminatory in the past and I imagine what we are trying to avoid is the continuation of that discrimination and I would support that.

TONY JONES: Yeah, very briefly, George, before I go back to the other panelists, shouldn’t anti-discrimination be universal?

GEORGE BRANDIS: No.

TONY JONES: Why shouldn’t it?

GEORGE BRANDIS: Anti-discrimination laws should not be universal because the right to fair treatment is one of several very important but sometimes inconsistent values. The right of people who practice or profess a particular religious faith to live their lives and to conduct their institutions in accordance with the precepts of their religious faith is integral to religious freedom and religious freedom is also a fundamentally important value.

TONY JONES: So religious…

GEORGE BRANDIS: And if I may say…

TONY JONES: But just on principle, you are saying that religious freedom supersedes the freedom of your sexuality?

GEORGE BRANDIS: Yes, I am, as a matter of fact. Yes, I am. But I am also making a political point. There are – we in the Liberal Party have joined with people in the Labor Party to progress this agenda for years and those who wanted to see the Sex Discrimination Act extend to protect people on the grounds of their sexuality were furious that the Labor Party decided to throw in a curve ball into the debate that deprived the country of the opportunity for unanimity on this.

Letter to Ministers re National Health & Physical Education Curriculum

Posted on by

So, you may recall that I lodged a submission with the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) regarding the draft national Health and Physical Education (HPE) Curriculum which they released for public comment in December 2012 (see my post in April 2013 for a copy of my submission).

Well, the draft HPE curriculum is now being considered in detail between different state and territory Governments, and the Commonwealth Government, before its expected agreement in the second half of this year.

It is unclear what, if any, changes have been made to the curriculum as a result of the consultation process. Given the importance of the issue, today I wrote to the Commonwealth Minister for School Education, the Hon Peter Garrett MP, and his NSW counterpart, the Hon Adrian Piccoli, expressing my concerns about the draft. And, because of the potential impact on LGBTI health, I copied in the Commonwealth Health Minister, the Hon Tanya Plibersek MP, and the NSW Health Minister, the Hon Jillian Skinner, to these letters.

It is still my hope that someone, somewhere, will finally realise that it is completely inappropriate and detrimental to adopt a Health and Physical Education Curriculum that does not specifically mention lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex (LGBTI) people, and does not even explicitly include HIV.

Anyway, here is a copy of my letter to Minister Garrett:

Dear Minister Garrett

NATIONAL HEALTH AND PHYSICAL EDUCATION CURRICULUM

I am writing to you to express my significant concerns about the draft national Health & Physical Education (HPE) curriculum.

The draft curriculum that was released for public consultation by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) in December 2012 fails to appropriately include lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) students, and does not guarantee that content relevant to their needs is provided in every classroom.

I have already lodged a submission to ACARA through their public consultation process. However, I would like to bring these issues directly to your attention because the consequences of excluding these students, and ignoring their educational requirements, are so severe.

I have also copied the Health Minister, the Hon Tanya Plibersek MP, into this correspondence, because many of these consequences will impact on the health of the LGBTI community. These impacts could include increased transmission of HIV and other STIs, as well as the continuing high, and disproportionate, rate of youth suicide among LGBTI people.

As you can see from my submission to ACARA, I have a range of criticisms of the draft curriculum. However, the three major issues which I would like to see addressed are:

1.       The national HPE curriculum must explicitly include LGBTI students and their concerns.

The draft HPE curriculum released by ACARA does not include any references to sexual orientation, homosexuality, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or intersex. This is a gross oversight, and has the potential effect of making these students, and their needs, invisible.

There is a token effort to address this issue on page 18 of the draft, where it acknowledges that same sex attracted and gender diverse students exist in all schools. However, it does not back this acknowledgement up with any concrete action – instead, the draft curriculum notes that “it is expected that opportunities will be taken when implementing the [curriculum] to ensure teaching is inclusive and relevant to their lived experiences.”

This “expectation” does not actually guarantee anything. There are no explicit references to LGBT or I students in any of the band descriptions for years which follow from page 26. It is also difficult to see how any teaching can be “inclusive and relevant” when the curriculum does not even use the terms which most people from the LGBTI community use to describe themselves.

Unfortunately, adopting a national HPE curriculum which does not explicitly refer to LGBTI students or address their particular needs will only compound the feelings of isolation, and the discrimination, which many of these students experience, rather than cater to the health and physical education needs of all students, not just cisgender heterosexual ones.

2.       The national HPE curriculum must provide inclusive sexual health education.

Another key failing of the draft national HPE curriculum is that the ‘sex ed’ which it includes is both narrow in scope and limited in detail.

The primary reference to this essential area of health and physical education is on page 59 where it states students will be taught “investigating practices that support reproductive health and wellbeing”. And that is the extent of the content.

There are two major problems with this approach. First, “reproductive health and wellbeing” is an exclusionary terms, that primarily focuses on sexual health practices and issues for cisgender heterosexual students. It implicitly excludes same-sex sexual activity and other practices which do not relate to reproduction (and in fact omits many opposite-sex sexual activities). It would be far preferable to use the term “sexual health” which would include a much wider range of sexual activities and issues.

The second major problem is that one sentence is insufficient to cover the range of issues which need to be taught as part of sexual health. There should be significantly more detail in this area, including a guarantee that all students learn ‘safe sex’ messages, learn about condoms, basically that all students learn about ways to reduce STI transmission.

3.       The national HPE curriculum must include explicit reference to HIV.

On the subject of STIs, I find it astonishing that the draft national HPE curriculum does not include even a single reference to HIV.

As a gay man who came of age in the 1990s, I think that this is irresponsible, and fails to undertake the most basic requirement of a ‘health and physical education’ curriculum – namely, to provide education on how students can stay safe and protect their own personal health.

Yes, the consequences of a diagnosis have (thankfully) reduced because of improvements of treatment over the past 20 years. Yes, for many people HIV is now a chronic manageable condition rather than a ‘death sentence’.

However, many people, including young people, are still contracting HIV. And some people are still dying with HIV/AIDS at least a contributing factor.

Surely, in a document of more than 80 pages, there is room to incorporate basic information regarding HIV, and the main ways to prevent its transmission?

The NSW PDHPE curriculum finds room to reference HIV in both the K-6 syllabus, and the 7-10 syllabus. I expect that other states and territories would have similar components. At the very least, any national HPE curriculum must do the same.

As I indicated before, I think that the draft of the HPE curriculum released by ACARA in December 2012 fails in its important duty to provide education for the benefit of all students, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex students.

I hope that you and the Federal Government share these concerns and can help address the issues raised in this letter during the inter-governmental consultation on the final version of the HPE curriculum.

Should you have any questions about this letter, or my attached submission, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thank you in advance for considering this correspondence.

Sex Discrimination Amendment Bill 2013 – The Final Countdown

Posted on by

There are now only two sitting weeks left before the upcoming federal election. Which means there are only 8 days during which Parliament can pass the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013, historic legislation which would finally provide federal anti-discrimination protections to Australia’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community.

It goes without saying that this could go down to the wire. Which is why I sent the email posted below to all cross-bench MPs, as well as key figures in the Opposition and Greens (and a slightly re-worded version to the Government). I don’t think that we, as members of the LGBTI community, should ‘die wondering’ about this Bill. So, I would encourage you to consider sending you own emails to these parliamentarians, to help get the Sex Discrimination Amendment Bill 2013 over the line.

To help you on your way, I have included the email addresses of a range of relevant MPs at the end of this post. And please feel free to ‘borrow’ any and all of the following:

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

In particular, I am requesting that you:

  • Please support the Government’s proposed amendments which exclude the operation of religious exceptions in the area of aged care service provision; and
  • Please support the passage of the amended Sex Discrimination Amendment Bill 2013 in the final two sitting weeks of this Parliamentary term.

This Bill is a significant reform that will benefit the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) citizens of Australia, because, if passed, it will be the first term LGBTI people will enjoy anti-discrimination protections under federal law.

It is historic because it will be the first time any federal anti-discrimination law, anywhere in the world, explicitly covers intersex people. And the Sex Discrimination Amendment Bill 2013 will also help to protect more people than some state and territory schemes – for example, the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 does not currently apply to bisexual or intersex people, both groups that are protected under this proposed law.

Unfortunately, the Bill as drafted will ensure that religious organisations are provided with wide-ranging exceptions from otherwise lawful obligations not to discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. This will allow religious organisations to continue to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment and service provision, which will operate to undermine the scope and effectiveness of these anti-discrimination provisions. In principle, I do not support the operation of any religious exceptions outside the appointment of religious officials, membership of religious organisations and celebration of religious ceremonies.

However, I understand that LGBTI anti-discrimination legislation which did not contain any religious exceptions would be unlikely to pass the current Parliament. What is possible is for the Sex Discrimination Amendment Bill 2013 to be passed with amendments proposed by the Government that exclude the operation of religious exceptions in the area of aged care provision.

I strongly support the removal of religious exceptions in these circumstances. Older lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people should not be subjected to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity when they are accessing aged care services. This is particularly important when you consider that for many people, aged care facilities will be their home for long periods of their life – nobody deserves to be lawfully discriminated against in their home.

Above all, I see this as the very least which should be done for older lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Australians. These are people who grew up when homosexuality was still a criminal offence, who had to fight simply for the right to be who they are, who lost partners and friends through the devastation caused by HIV/AIDS, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s. These are people who deserve our respect, not the operation of provisions which could force them back into ‘the closet’ because of the fear of being discriminated against.

It is my sincere hope that all Parliamentarians will vote in favour of the Government’s amendments to exclude the operation of religious exceptions in the area of aged care services.

It is also my sincere hope that all Parliamentarians will unite and work together to ensure that the Sex Discrimination Amendment Bill 2013 is passed, as amended, in the final two sitting weeks of this Parliamentary term.

With Parliament rising on 27 June, there is only limited time to ensure this legislation is passed. Please help ensure that the Bill receives sufficient priority, through both Chambers, that it will finally be made law before the upcoming federal election.

I believe that the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex citizens of Australia, like myself, have waited long enough to be protected under federal anti-discrimination laws. I hope that you agree.

Attorney-General, The Hon Mark Dreyfus QC MP Mark.Dreyfus.MP@aph.gov.au

Mental Health and Ageing Minister, The Hon Mark Butler MP Mark.Butler.MP@aph.gov.au

Leader of the Opposition, the Hon Tony Abbott MP Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au

Shadow Attorney-General, Senator George Brandis senator.brandis@aph.gov.au

Greens Spokesperson for Attorney-General, Senator Penny Wright senator.wright@aph.gov.au

Greens Spokesperson for LGBTI issues, Senator Sarah Hanson-Young senator.hanson-young@aph.gov.au

Member for Kennedy, the Hon Bob Katter MP Bob.Katter.MP@aph.gov.au

Member for Fisher, the Hon Peter Slipper MP Peter.Slipper@aph.gov.au

Member for Dobell, Mr Craig Thomson MP Craig.Thomson.MP@aph.gov.au

Member for Lyne, Mr Rob Oakeshott MP Robert.Oakeshott.MP@aph.gov.au

Member for New England, Mr Tony Windsor MP Tony.Windsor.MP@aph.gov.au

Member for Denison, Mr Andrew Wilkie MP Andrew.Wilkie.MP@aph.gov.au

Member for O’Connor, Mr Tony Crook MP Tony.Crook.MP@aph.gov.au

Member for Melbourne, Mr Adam Bandt MP Adam.Bandt.MP@aph.gov.au

Senator for South Australia, Senator Nick Xenophon senator.xenophon@aph.gov.au

Senator for Victoria, Senator John Madigan senator.madigan@aph.gov.au

5 Quick Thoughts on the 2013 GLORIAs

Posted on by

On Wednesday night (May 8), Steve and I attended this year’s GLORIAs Awards at NSW Parliament House. The GLORIAs literally stand for the Gay & Lesbian Outrageous, Ridiculous and Ignorant comments Awards, and are an opportunity for the LGBTI community to get one back on the bigots who say offensive things about us throughout the year, but to do so in a humorous way. The winners of this year’s awards are reproduced at the end of this post. But before we get to that that I thought I might share my five quick observations about the GLORIAs.

1. I think that this is a great event. NSW Upper House Labor MP, Penny Sharpe – who is also one of Australia’s small (but slowly growing) number of out parliamentarians – ‘borrowed’ the idea from the already established Ernies, which themselves ‘celebrate’ sexist and misogynist public comments. It makes for a fun night for those who attend, while also reinforcing the serious point that homophobia, bi-phobia, trans-phobia and anti-intersex prejudice remain ongoing issues, requiring our continuing attention. This is especially important to remember when so much effort can go into legal reforms, like marriage equality, which won’t in and of themselves permanently remove the blight of discrimination from our society.

2. David Marr really is a very funny host. His dry wit certainly adds to the occasion, as does the relish which he brings to announcing the well-deserving recipients of each award. This year, I nominated the winner in one of the categories – Andrew Bolt for his absolutely ridiculous comments about marriage equality (which leads me to wonder what he thinks about his lesbian sister’s own marriage?). Somehow I suspect David took a fair bit of delight in reading that one out. I also had the chance to have a chat with David during the evening – he seems raring to go for the Guardian Australia as they launch ahead of this year’s Federal Election.

3. The courage of Ian Roberts in coming out while at the height of his rugby league career, back in 1995, should not be under-estimated. Ian Roberts was, maybe surprisingly, at this year’s GLORIAs, and this was the first time I had ever had the opportunity to meet him. We chatted about Jason Collins and the impact which his recent coming out will have on other players in the NBA, and indeed other major US codes. Hopefully Collins’ announcement will inspire other people to follow in his footsteps – but then again, that is something many people said after Roberts’ came out EIGHTEEN whole years ago (and no other male Australian football player has done so since). The fact that he did that way back then deserves nothing but respect. [I was also a little bit of a ‘fanboy’ and let him know that him coming out meant a lot to this particular writer, especially given I was a 17 year old closeted student at a religious boarding school at the time – but I don’t think that sentiment would be uncommon amongst gay guys who grew up in Australia in the 1990s.]

4. Duncan Gay has good media advisers. After winning this year’s Golden GLORIA, for the completely unjustifiable decision to rip up the Rainbow Crossing at Taylor Square earlier this year, the Roads Minister mitigated the damage somewhat by coming down from his Ministerial offices to collect the award in person. This led to him receiving a certain level of begrudging respect from some people in the crowd (for being able to face those who had given him the gong), as well as some not unfavourable media coverage afterwards http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/local-news/new-south-wales-news/2013/05/09/glorias-get-gay/103590 . All in all, it was very well-handled by the ironically-named Minister.

5. Tim Campbell, on the other hand, needs some media advice. In ‘defending the honour’ of his partner, Anthony Callea, who won the Silliest comment from someone within the LGBTI community award, Tim took to twitter to make some comments about the ‘sensational’ and ‘biased’ article from which the quotes came. What wasn’t disputed was that the quotes were actually made in the first place. [The relevant tweets: So @TheGLORIAs read a sensational and biased article and decided they can define Callea’s integrity. A shameful and pathetic game you play. Anthony does more to further GLBTI issues in the wider community than your narrow minded group will ever do. @TheGLORIAs]. There was also a now-apparently-deleted tweet direct to Penny Sharpe on the topic. What Tim should have realised is that, in these situations, it is best to ignore and move on, rather than taking umbrage and potentially making a bigger issue out of something that it would otherwise have been. I might be forgetting a lot about what I learnt in politics, but that lesson will stay with me for a long time [PS I am not disputing the content of Tim’s tweets – Anthony may well do a lot for the LGBTI community – just that with something like this, it is always best to be the bigger person.]

And so here they are, the ‘winners’ for 2013…

Golden GLORIA: Duncan Gay, the NSW Roads Minister, won this year’s golden gong for tearing up the Rainbow Crossing at Taylor Square. As is tradition, this was decided by a ‘boo-off’ by attendees at this year’s event.

Category Winners:
Politics / Law
Tess Corbett, Katter’s Australia Party Candidate who said in interview with The Hamilton Spectator that considered gay people to be in the same category as paedophiles: “Paedophiles will be next in line to be recognised in the same way as gays and lesbians and get rights,” she said.

International
John Sullivan, a councillor candidate for the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) for a series of Facebook posts that said gay activists were like termites; claimed homosexuality could be prevented by regular exercise in schools; congratulated Russia for banning gay pride; and said that although feminism was evil, being gay was even worse.

Media
Andrew Bolt: “But same-sex activists don’t want marriage equality — because they already have it. A gay man is as free as a straight man to marry a woman. A lesbian is as free as any other woman to marry a man. That’s equality…. And if we are to change what marriage means, we have a duty to consider not just the good such a huge change to such a critical social bond could bring, but the evil, too.”

Religion
Southern Baptist Convention President Rev. Fred Luter thinks that support of same-sex marriage and gay rights could be linked to North Korea’s most recent threats against the United States: “I’m not that strong in prophecy but I would not be surprised that there’s not a connection there simply because of the fact we’ve seen it happen in scripture before. I would not be surprised that at the time when we are debating same-sex marriage, at a time when we are debating whether or not we should have gays leading the Boy Scout movement, I don’t think it’s just a coincidence that we have a mad man in Asia who is saying some of the things that he’s saying.”

Sport
Former Major League Baseball player Mark Knudson writing about gay players in team sports: “No one has said that gays should not be allowed to play in the NFL. What has been said is that having a gay teammate would make some players uncomfortable… Nothing that infringes on the cohesiveness of the locker room can be tolerated. If a player who is not an irreplaceable superstar becomes any sort of distraction, he’s going to get released… That’s why it remains the best option for any homosexual athlete in a team sport to keep his orientation private. He’s doing what’s best for himself by doing what’s best for the team.”

Silliest GLBTI comment from within the GLBTI community
Anthony Callea says he’s not interested in activism “I have a great relationship, I live in normal house, I have a dog, I live a normal lifestyle, it’s just part of who I am – it’s not who I am. My friends and family don’t treat us like that either. I think if you make something an issue, then it becomes an issue [in] society.”

The organiser of the GLORIAs, Penny Sharpe, and my beautiful fiance.

The organiser of the GLORIAs, Penny Sharpe, and my beautiful fiance.

Sex Discrimination Amendment (LGBTI) Bill Senate Inquiry Submission

Posted on by

Another week, another submission, this time to the Senate Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee Inquiry into the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013.

Now that the Government has ‘deferred’ the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill/consolidation reforms, this Bill is the vehicle it has chosen to progress federal anti-discrimination protections for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendernand intersex (LGBTI) community.

It is by no means a perfect Bill – at the very least it should incorporate the Government’s own policy of removing religious exceptions for people accessing aged care services. At best, it should remove all religious exceptions outside of the appointment of ministers of religion and religious ceremonies.

Nevertheless, this Bill, if passed, would be a significant step forward in terms of LGBTI law reform. If you have a chance to write your own submission before this Friday (26 April), I strongly encourage you to do so. Details here: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=legcon_ctte/sex_discrim_sexual_orientation/info.htm

NB I have also not included the appendix to this submission, because it is simply the discussion about religious exceptions from my submission on the HRAD Bill last year.

Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Inquiry into Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013

Submission by Alastair Lawrie

I am writing this submission to make three main recommendations:

i)                    That the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013, which introduces federal anti-discrimination protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) Australians for the first time, should be supported.

ii)                   That the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013 should be passed as a matter of priority by the Commonwealth Parliament; and

iii)                 That the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013 should be amended to remove all religious exceptions which would otherwise allow discrimination against LGBTI Australians, outside of appointments of religious office-holders (such as priests) and religious ceremonies.

I was born in 1978. That is three years after the passage of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. In the year I turned 6, the Commonwealth Parliament supported the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. The Disability Discrimination Act was passed in 1992, about three years before I first came out as gay at age 17. Even the most recent stand-alone Commonwealth anti-discrimination law, the Age Discrimination Act 2002, has already been in operation for more than a decade.

In 2013, I am 34 years old, and I have still never enjoyed the protection of federal anti-discrimination laws on the basis of my sexual orientation. Discrimination on the basis of race has been prohibited for my entire life, and on the basis of sex for almost as long. But up until now, successive Governments have not seen fit to legislate to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status.

Which means that the reforms contained in the Labor Government’s Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013 are both incredibly welcome, and long overdue. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) Australians deserve the right to be employed, to access services, indeed to simply go about their everyday lives, without the threat of being discriminated against on these grounds.

If and when this Bill is eventually passed, it will be another key milestone on the long journey towards full equality for our LGBTI citizens. Which is why my first recommendation is that this legislation should be supported.

My second recommendation is that the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013 should be passed by the Commonwealth Parliament as a matter of priority.

There are now only five Parliamentary sitting weeks left before the end of this term, ahead of the federal election which is currently expected to be held on September 14th. Having waited so long – decades, in fact – it would be a devastating blow to the LGBTI community were this legislation to be delayed yet again because the current Parliament simply ran out of time.

The future is always unknowable: it may be that, should these reforms not be passed now, a new Parliament or even Government introduces similar legislation later this year, or early next year. That would obviously be a welcome development. But it may also be that, after the upcoming election, LGBTI anti-discrimination reforms are delayed for several more years.

The current Bill fulfils the general objective of signalling that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status is no longer tolerated, by society and by the Parliament. It is already drafted, and (leaving aside the amendments suggested in my third recommendation) it is ready to go.

That is why all serving Parliamentarians, from all political parties and independents, should pass the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013 as soon as possible.

My third and final recommendation is that the Bill should be amended to ensure that religious exceptions from LGBTI-anti-discrimination requirements are narrowly drafted, only covering religious appointments, such as priests, and religious ceremonies.

The justification for this position involves my personal experience. Like many, indeed probably most, LGBTI Australians I have been discriminated against in a wide variety of different situations. I have been abused on the street, and threatened with violence, simply for holding my boyfriend’s hand. I have received sub-standard treatment from different service-providers simply because of my sexual orientation, or at least because of their perceptions of me.

I have likely been discriminated against in terms of employment, because I have always been upfront about who I am, including through my job applications. But I will probably never know for sure, because discrimination like homophobia is insidious, and its victims can never know all of the different ways in which they are mistreated.

But by far the activity in which I have been discriminated against the most was the education I received during the five years that I attended a religious boarding school. There was, from memory, a school rule against homosexuality, I was bullied on the basis of my (perceived) sexual orientation and this was effectively condoned by the school which was aware of it but failed to take any action, the sex education that was provided completely ignored homosexuality (including omitting essential safe sex/HIV-prevention messages), and I had a pastor intimate that killing yourself because you were gay was not the worst possible outcome.

It distresses me to think that, if religious organisations are granted wide-ranging exceptions under anti-discrimination laws, they will lawfully be able to (mis)treat future students in this way.

No student should be subject to prejudice, from their schools as well as from other students, because of their sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status. No teacher should have to fear for their job simply because of who they are, or who they are attracted to.

This principle extends far and wide across a range of different activities. Patients receiving hospital and other health or community services should not have to consider whether disclosing their identity will compromise the standard of care they receive. LGBTI doctors, nurses and other employees in the health and community sector should be able to be confident in talking about who they are without fearing possible repercussions.

This principle obviously also includes aged care services. And I welcome the Labor Government’s commitment that they will legislate to protect people accessing aged care services from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status.

However, I question why these protections are not included in the current Bill – the drafting of such provisions is not overly complicated, and I would like to believe that no Parliamentarian could argue, or vote, against such a basic proposition.

I also question why such protections should not equally apply to the employees of aged care services. If we are going to have truly inclusive aged care services, then neither the service recipients nor the employees should be subject to discrimination simply because they are LGBTI.

But, for the reasons outlined above, I do not believe that even ‘carving out’ the aged care sector from the operation of religious exceptions goes far enough. There is no justification for allowing religious organisations to discriminate against service recipients or employees in any activity which is carried on in the public sphere. For further discussion of this, please see Appendix A, which I provided to the Senate Inquiry into the Exposure Draft of the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012 in December last year on this very topic.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to comment on the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013. As I have indicated, I think this Bill could be significantly improved by limiting the operation of religious exceptions which undermine protections that would otherwise cover LGBTI Australians.

However, even if these exceptions are not removed by the current Bill, the fact that some LGBTI anti-discrimination protections will finally be enacted federally is sufficient justification to recommend both that the Commonwealth Parliament support the Bill, and that it be passed as a matter of priority. The Australian LGBTI community has waited long enough for these reforms. It’s time to just get it done.

George Brandis, Tony Abbott, Marriage Equality & CNIs

Posted on by

Marriage Equality Red Background Rings

This week saw the passage of marriage equality in Uruguay, and then New Zealand. Next week will witness France adopt marriage equality legislation. These are the 12th, 13th and 14th countries around the world to have done so.

This spate of activity has provided renewed focus on the issue of marriage equality within Australia. In particular, it has prompted more people to scrutinise the position of Tony Abbott and the Liberal-National Opposition, because they will almost inevitably form Government after the election on September 14th.

Some people have pointed to Tony Abbott’s recent comments to say that he is softening his stance of marriage equality. Specifically, he has said that the matter will be debated inside the Coalition party-room after the election, with the possibility that they may adopt a conscience vote on the matter.

I disagree that this is necessarily a positive development. Instead, I think Abbott’s position is a complete cop-out. It avoids legitimate scrutiny in the lead-up to the poll, leaving voters unclear exactly what he, and his Government, will do once in office.

It also means that people and groups who oppose marriage equality can exert their homophobic influence behind closed doors to ensure that there is no progress. No doubt bigots like the Australian Christian Lobby will be there, actively lobbying in secret, with their decidely un-christian views.

The potential outcomes of this ‘evasive manoeuvre’ by Abbott include that the Coalition’s policy does not change, and that there is therefore no conscience vote next term. We could also end up with civil unions, a so-called compromise which basically nobody wants, but which seems to be favoured by people like Warren Entsch, who has traditionally been one of the more progressive Liberal MPs.

In fact, civil unions seem to me like the most likely outcome of an incoming Liberal-National Government. I genuinely can’t see marriage equality happening under someone as fundamentally conservative as one T Abbott, and that is why I fear we may still be three terms away from Australia-wide reform. Imagine how many countries we will have fallen behind by then?

But, there is one scenario in which we could even go backwards in terms of marriage equality in Australia. I know, that doesn’t seem possible, but there is actually one marriage reform which has been implemented by the current Labor Government which could be wound back under a Coalition Government, in what would be a worst-case scenario.

This would involve the incoming Attorney-General, who will most likely be Senator the Hon George Brandis SC, revoking the January 2012 decision by the then Labor Attorney-General, the Hon Nicola Roxon MP, which allowed Australian LGBTI-inclusive couples to obtain Certificates of No Impediment (CNIs) to marry overseas (in the countries that require them).

In fact, this would simply be the Coalition reverting to the policy which they adopted from 2004 to 2007, when, under then Attorney-General, the Hon Philip Ruddock MP, the Liberal-National Government refused to issue CNIs to same-sex couples, thereby cruelling the chances of most Australian LGBTI-inclusive couples from taking advantage of overseas developments.

To be honest, I don’t know how likely this worst-case scenario is. I would hope that we have come a long way since the end of the Howard era in 2007, and that an incoming Abbott regime would not wind back this particular right.

On the other hand, many Queenslanders probably thought last year that, even if he wasn’t going to be a pro-equality champion, Campbell Newman and the LNP wouldn’t wind back existing LGBTI rights. How wrong they were.

Anyway, that is why I have written the following letter to Shadow Attorney-General Brandis, and copied it to Mr Abbott. Basically, I am asking them to support marriage equality, through party policy or at least a conscience vote. But, if they are unable to do either of those, to at the very least continue to grant CNIs to Australian LGBTI-inclusive couples to marry overseas.

I don’t know what kind of reply to expect. But, as always, whatever I get I will post here.

This is the text of the letter which I sent yesterday:

Dear Senator Brandis

Marriage Equality and Certificates of No Impediment

I am writing to you about the issue of marriage equality, and specifically the policy which the Liberal-National Opposition will take on this issue to the Federal election to be held on 14 September 2013.

I am a 34 year old man who has been together with my wonderful fiancé for almost 5 years – and we have been engaged to be married for more than 3 of those.

All we want is to be able to have a legally-recognised wedding ceremony in front of our family and friends in our own country. All we want is exactly the same rights which other Australians already enjoy.

I strongly encourage the Liberal-National Opposition to support marriage equality as formal policy ahead of the September poll. This would show that the Liberal-National Coalition accept lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) Australians as first-class citizens, deserving of both respect and full legal equality.

Failing that, and as a bare minimum, the Liberal and National Parties should publicly commit to holding a conscience vote on this issue in the next term of Parliament, so that those MPs who wish to support LGBTI equality are free to do so. There have already been several Liberal MPs and candidates who have expressed their desire to take advantage of a non-binding vote to support marriage equality, should one be granted.

Finally, I have a specific question relating to the Attorney-General portfolio. In 2005, your Coalition colleague, the Hon Philip Ruddock MP, as Attorney-General prohibited the granting of Certificates of No Impediment (CNIs) to Australian LGBTI-inclusive couples who wished to marry overseas.

This ban remained in place until overturned by the Hon Nicola Roxon MP on 1 February 2012. This allows Australians couples, and those LGBTI-inclusive couples which include dual or multiple nationalities, to take advantage of the growing number of countries to have implemented marriage equality.

Just this month, Uruguay, New Zealand and France have become the 12th, 13th and 14th countries to accept marriage equality, as part of a growing worldwide movement. Even if the Australian Parliament does not grant marriage equality in the near future, should not mean we are prevented from taking advantage of the equality that already exists overseas.

My question is this: Do you commit a Liberal-National Government to continuing to grant CNIs to LGBTI-inclusive couples who wish to marry overseas?

I would appreciate your reply on all the issues raised in this letter, but in particular, on whether a Liberal-National Government would continue to grant CNIs to all Australian couples, irrespective of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status.

Thank you in advance for considering this important issue.

Yours sincerely,

Alastair Lawrie

Submission on National Health & Physical Education Curriculum

Posted on by

Below is the text of my submission to ACARA about the draft national Health & Physcial Education curriculum (due tomorrow 12 April). I think that my concern with the consultation draft, as released, shows through. I find it particularly worrying that the curriculum does not use the words lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex.

But it is even more worrying that it omits the terms or phrases condoms, safe sex and HIV/AIDS – that, to me, is negligently putting the lives of young people, and young gay and bisexual men in particular, at risk. Here’s hoping that ACARA listens to this submission, and to others from people writing about this issue.

Curriculum Photo

Submission on Draft National Health and Physical Education Curriculum: Foundation to Year 10

Thursday 11 April 2013

I am writing this submission as an ordinary member of the community. But I am also writing this submission as a gay man, and someone who was profoundly let down by my school education with respect to both inclusivity, and sexual health education.

In my opinion, both of these things – being genuinely inclusive of diverse sexual orientations, gender identities and of intersex people, and providing comprehensive and detailed sexual health education, including HIV prevention – are absolutely essential in any Health and Physical Education (HPE) curriculum.

Inclusivity is necessary because all students, whether they be heterosexual, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex (LGBTI), or a combination of these, have the right to an inclusive education, to learn about who they are, to develop their identity in a safe place, and to be provided with all of the information which they need as they grow up.

These rights are particularly important for LGBTI students because they will be entering a world in which homophobia, bi-phobia, trans-phobia and anti-intersex prejudice remain a sad and unarguable fact. The consequences of not providing an inclusive education can be severe – LGBTI students can be the victims of harassment and bullying on account of their sexual orientations, gender identity or intersex status. LGBTI students, and later adults, also have higher rates of mental health issues, including rates of suicide, as a result of the discrimination which they experience. Any HPE curriculum which is adopted should be furthering the health of LGBTI people – and should not instead perpetuate their exclusion.

Sexual health education is necessary for all students, again, irrespective of whether they are gay or straight and no matter their gender identity or intersex status. However, unless they are specifically mentioned, the needs of LGBTI people can easily be overlooked with teachers and schools sometimes providing for the needs of the majority of their students, while ignoring the fact that every student should receive all the information they need to stay safe.

This is especially important for same-sex attracted boys, given that men who have sex with men remain a high-priority population in terms of HIV prevention. This means that sexual health education cannot be limited to ‘reproductive health’ or simply outline the risks of heterosexual intercourse, but must be comprehensive and teach all students about the risks involved in different types of intercourse, and above all the measures, such as condoms, which reduce those risks.

Of course, there is an additional reason why a HPE curriculum must be inclusive of LGBTI students, and must provide inclusive sexual health education – and that is because in many cases teachers and schools will be unaware which of their students are LGBT or I. Some students do ‘come out’ while at school, and obviously I believe that all schools should provide encouraging and nurturing environments to allow those students to do so. But many students do not come out while at school.

And I do not believe that they should be compelled to do so in order to receive an education which teaches them what they need to know about their identity, and the sexual health education which they need to stay safe.

As I mentioned before, my school education failed, and failed miserably, on both of these grounds. My school did not mention homosexuality, unless it was from a negative perspective. And throughout my education, at both primary and secondary schools, I not once was taught about safe sex in a same-sex attracted (or ‘non-reproductive’) context. Sadly, while many schools have become better at both inclusivity and sexual health education since that time (the early to mid-1990s), many have not.

The development of a national Health and Physical Education curriculum presents an ideal opportunity to address these issues. It is a chance to ensure that HPE, taught in any class room in any school across the country, is inclusive of LGBTI students, and provides sexual health education that is appropriate for all students, not just those who are heterosexual.

Unfortunately, the draft national HPE curriculum released by ACARA in December 2012 does not seize this historic opportunity. In my opinion, it falls far short in terms of its inclusivity (or, more accurately, lack thereof) of LGBTI students. For example, it does not even mention the words lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI), and therefore contributes to what can feel like an all-pervasive silence about these issues. I do not understand how any document can aspire to being inclusive of the full diversity of students when it deliberately omits the words lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex.

The draft national HPE curriculum also falls short in terms of the sexual health education which it provides. As well as beginning too late (in year 7 rather than year 5), the sexual health education which is included appears to focus on ‘reproductive health’ rather than genuinely inclusive sexual health. It should, but does not, cover everything necessary for same-sex attracted students and for HIV prevention.

The remainder of this submission will focus on some of the specific parts of the draft HPE curriculum which I believe should be amended, focusing on the many opportunities for improvement. I hope that these recommendations or suggestions are taken up, so that all students, including LGBTI students, get the education which they deserve.

1. On pages 3 and 4 of the draft HPE curriculum, the ‘key idea’ of being ‘healthy, safe and active’ could be amended to read: ‘confident, healthy, safe and active’. This would reflect the need for students to be confident in their personal identity (which is discussed briefly on page 4, but should be elevated in importance). Personal identity is fundamental to a student’s sense of wellbeing, and just as important as being ‘healthy’ or ‘safe’. It should also be noted that personal identity is not limited to LGBTI students, but would include a wide range of diverse backgrounds and therefore benefit students from across the spectrum.

2. On page 6, under the heading ‘relationships and sexuality’, the dot point which currently reads ‘exploring sexual and gender identities’ could be amended to be more explicit. A possible replacement could read ‘exploring different sexual orientations, gender identities and sex and intersex status’.

3. On page 15, I disagree with the choice to delay relationships and sexuality education until years 5-6 onwards. Instead, I believe it should commence in years 3-4, in the same way that alcohol and other drugs education does. This would ensure that students are aware of the full range of identities as they enter puberty, and do not need to ‘suffer in silence’ because they might be attracted to someone of the same sex. This outcome could be achieved by introducing the ‘themes’ or general concepts of relationships and sexuality in years 3-4 (including the identities of lesbian, gay and bisexual), and then providing more detailed sexual health education in years 5 and 6. As it currently stands, students would not receive detailed sexual health education until year 7 at the earliest, when students are generally turning 13. Given what we know about the sexual activity of young people, and the fact that puberty is starting earlier and earlier, this is too late for effective sexual health education to begin.

4. Onto a more specific issue – I think that more consideration could be given to introducing the particular topics relating to transgender and intersex from Foundation onwards, rather than waiting for 3-4 when lesbian, gay and bisexual issues are introduced. This is because gender identity and intersex are not related to sexual attraction, but instead may well be known before or at the commencement of schooling. Obviously I am not an expert on these issues, and would defer to the input of transgender organisations and groups like OII Australia. I am merely raising this issue because it would not appear logical to delay teaching these particular matters until closer to puberty (unlike arguably the same-sex attracted issues referred to above).

5. I welcome the inclusion of a statement about same-sex attracted (SSA) and gender diverse students on page 18 of the draft HPE curriculum – at the very least the curriculum acknowledges that these students exist and have specific needs. However, I reject the idea that the curriculum should provide schools with the ‘flexibility’ to include these students, with a vague and non-committal ‘expectation’ that schools will take opportunities to be inclusive. This seems fundamentally inconsistent with a sentence in the same paragraph which correctly notes that ‘students facing these issues exist in all school communities’.

If that statement is correct, then ALL schools across the country MUST be inclusive. The best way to achieve this is to provide specific and detailed requirements for the inclusion of LGBTI-related content throughout the text of the curriculum, rather than through a non-binding ‘aspirational’ statement at the beginning of the document which will likely only be referred to and applied by those schools and teachers which are already supportive of LGBTI students.

6. As a broader point, while I understand that the terms same-sex attracted (SSA) and gender diverse are included on page 18 because they are considered more inclusive of the diverse range of possible identities, I disagree that these should be the only terms used in the document to describe these groups. The vast majority of students who grow up who are SSA or gender diverse, will over time identify with one or more of the following identities: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex.

For this reason, I believe that these specific identities/descriptors should be included in the curriculum as well. These students deserve to have their identities spoken about in the classroom – and other students should also learn about the diversity of sexual orientations, gender identities and intersex people, rather than just the catch-all phrases SSA and gender diverse. After all, these are the terms which all students are likely to be exposed to after they depart the school environment. If any students leave school without understanding these terms then I think we are doing them a great disservice.

7. On page 49, at heading 4.2, I welcome the introduction of discrimination on the basis of sexuality as one of the particular examples of negative forms of discrimination which may be discussed in the classroom. However, I would like to see this broadened to look at discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status (rather than the more generic term ‘sexuality’), and I would also like teachers to be required to use all of these examples (including race, gender, disability etc), rather than simply choosing one or two from the list and potentially ignoring or omitting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex.

8. In the discussion of years 7-8, from page 58 onwards, the curriculum finally looks at sexual health education in detail. As discussed above, I believe this is far too late (and should instead be taught from year 5 onwards). However, turning to the substance of what is proposed, I also believe that it is too narrowly defined and limited in content.

For example, on page 59 the draft curriculum only refers to ‘reproductive health and wellbeing’. This is a very exclusionary term, traditionally focusing on sexual practices which are related to reproduction. This does NOT include other forms of sexual intercourse, including the behaviours of people who are same-sex attracted (as well as a range of other behaviours of heterosexual students which are also unrelated to reproduction). It is for this reason that the term sexual health should be used instead (or at least sexual and reproductive health), as it captures all of the behaviours which should be discussed.

9. The discussion of sexual health also needs to be made significantly longer, with more detail provided about what exactly has to be taught. This should include explicit reference to condoms, safe sex and the need for the prevention of HIV and other STIs. As a gay man who grew up in the 1980s and 1990s, I believe that it is negligent to draft a curriculum for primary and secondary students that does not include the words condom, safe sex or even HIV. Any comprehensive guide for the ‘health and physical education’ of young people must include these terms, especially when considering the health and wellbeing of young gay men, bisexual men and men who have sex with men generally. I would hope that organisations from the HIV/AIDS sector will be making similar points on this particular issue.

10. Finally, in years 9-10, on page 70, in addition to the reference to homophobia, there should also be references to bi-phobia, trans-phobia and anti-intersex discrimination. Students should be aware of the existence of, and unacceptability of, each of these types of prejudice. Of course, logically these types of discrimination cannot be discussed without an understanding of the identities lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex, further underscoring the need for these issues to be taught from earlier in the curriculum.

As discussed earlier, I believe that significant amendments and improvements should be made to the draft national HPE curriculum to ensure that it is genuinely inclusive of, and provides appropriate sexual health education for, LGBTI students. I hope that ACARA takes these suggestions or recommendations for improvement into consideration as it revises the HPE curriculum before it is submitted to the Commonwealth and State and Territory education ministers for approval later this year.