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

Alex Greenwich MP

58 Oxford St

PADDINGTON NSW 2021

sydney@parliament.nsw.gov.au

Friday 21 August 2015

Dear Mr Greenwich

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

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

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

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

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

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

These include:

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Alastair Lawrie

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

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

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

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

An LGBTI Agenda – Submission on Draft ALP National Platform 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alastair Lawrie

Remove religious exceptions to anti-discrimination laws

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

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

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

Explanation

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

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

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

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

Further improve LGBTI equality in aged care services

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

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

Explanation

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

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

Support programs to prevent bullying and harassment of LGBTI students

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

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

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

Explanation

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

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

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

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

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

Explanation

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

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

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

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

Abolish the National School Chaplaincy Programme

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

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

Explanation

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

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

Abolishing the NSCP will:

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

Remove out-of-pocket medical expenses for transgender Australians

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

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

Explanation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Explanation

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

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

Support programs to address LGBT homelessness

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

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

Explanation

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

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

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

Improve recognition of LGBTI parents in domestic law

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

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

Explanation

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

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

Ensure LGBTI parents have equality in inter-country adoption

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

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

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

Explanation

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

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

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

Improve LGBTI Inclusion in Sport

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

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

Explanation

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

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

Appoint a Spokesperson for LGBTI Equality

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

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

Explanation

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

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

Establish an LGBTI Ministerial Advisory Committee

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

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

Explanation

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

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

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

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

Explanation

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

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

Introduce LGBTI Anti-Vilification Protections

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

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

Explanation

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

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

Include LGBTI people in foreign aid

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

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

Explanation

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

Intersex Recommendations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Refugee Recommendations

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

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

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

and replacing it with the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changes to the Party Rules

1. Pre-selection of LGBTI candidates

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

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

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

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

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

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

Explanation

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

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

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

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

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

2. Introduce a binding vote for Marriage Equality

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

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

Explanation

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

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

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

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

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

Letter to Bruce Notley-Smith re Baird Liberal-National Government Commitments on NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977

Mr Bruce Notley-Smith MP

80 Bronte Road

Bondi Junction NSW 2022

coogee@parliament.nsw.gov.au

Sunday 1 March 2015

Dear Mr Notley-Smith

REVIEW OF NSW ANTI-DISCRIMINATION ACT 1977

I am writing as an attendee at the recent #rainbowvotes forum, where five Members of Parliament from across the political spectrum, including yourself, outlined their respective approaches to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) issues ahead of the upcoming NSW State Election.

Specifically, I am seeking clarification of your answers concerning the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 and what action you, and the Liberal-National Government, will take if you are re-elected.

At the forum, the representative attending on behalf of the NSW Labor Opposition, Ms Penny Sharpe MLC, gave a clear commitment that, if elected, a Foley Labor Government would undertake a formal review of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.

Following that clear commitment, you made several comments that appeared to indicate your personal support for such an approach.

However, later during the same forum, you indicated that you were appearing at the forum in your capacity as an individual MP only, and not as a spokesperson for the current Baird Liberal-National Government.

As a result, I sought clarification from you, via twitter, whether it is indeed NSW Liberal policy to support a formal review of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.

Given I have not received a response via social media, I am now writing to you more formally, with essentially the same question: is the Baird Liberal-National Government committed to reviewing the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 if it is re-elected on Saturday 28 March 2015?

As I have written previously (see: https://alastairlawrie.net/2015/02/20/questions-for-mps-and-candidates-during-sydney-gay-lesbian-mardi-gras/ ), I believe the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 is now the worst LGBTI anti-discrimination legislation in Australia.

This is because:

  • It fails for protect bisexual people from discrimination (the only jurisdiction in the country to do so)
  • It fails to protect intersex people from discrimination
  • The religious exceptions in sub-section 56(d) are the broadest in Australia
  • The exceptions allowing all private schools to discriminate against lesbian, gay and transgender students are abhorrent
  • It fails to protect both bisexuals and intersex people from vilification and
  • The maximum individual fine for lesbian, gay and transgender vilification is only one-fifth of the maximum fine for racial vilification.

For all of these reasons, I believe that the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 should be amended as a matter of priority.

However, if you are unable to give a clear commitment that a re-elected Baird Liberal-National Government would make changes to these provisions, I submit that, at the bare minimum you, and the Government, should be able to commit to holding a formal review of this narrow and out-dated legislation.

Given there are now less than four weeks left until polling day, I would appreciate a response to this letter, outlining what commitments (if any) the Liberal-National Government is prepared to make in this area, at your earliest convenience.

I have also copied the Premier, the Hon Mike Baird MP, and the Attorney-General, the Hon Brad Hazzard MP, into this correspondence.

Thank you in advance for you consideration of the issues raised in this letter.

Sincerely,

Alastair Lawrie

cc: The Hon Mike Baird MP, NSW Premier

GPO Box 5341

Sydney NSW 2001

The Hon Brad Hazzard MP, NSW Attorney-General

GPO Box 5341

Sydney NSW 2001

office@hazzard.minister.nsw.gov.au

Will Liberal Member for Coogee, Bruce Notley-Smith, be able to provide a clear commitment to review the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977?

Will Liberal Member for Coogee, Bruce Notley-Smith, be able to provide a clear commitment to review the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977?

Submission to Australian Law Reform Commission Traditional Rights and Freedoms Inquiry

The Australian Law Reform Commission is currently conducting an inquiry into Traditional Rights and Freedoms – Encroachment by Commonwealth Laws (at the behest of Commonwealth Attorney-General, Senator the Hon George Brandis). They have released an Issues Paper for public consultation, with submissions due by Friday 27 February 2015. For more information about the inquiry, see <http://www.alrc.gov.au/inquiries/freedoms The following is my submission, focusing on LGBTI vilification, religious exceptions to anti-discrimination law, and asylum-seekers and refugees, including LGBTI refugees.

The Executive Director

Australian Law Reform Commission

GPO Box 3708

Sydney NSW 2001

c/- freedoms@alrc.gov.au

Sunday 15 February 2015

To whom it may concern

SUBMISSION TO TRADITIONAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS INQUIRY

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission to the Traditional Rights and Freedoms – Encroachment by Commonwealth Laws Inquiry.

The subject of human rights and freedoms, and how they should best be protected, both by and from Government, is an important one, and is worthy of substantive consideration.

In this submission, I will focus on three particular areas in which the rights of people are currently being breached as a result of Commonwealth Government action, or in some cases, inaction:

  1. The Commonwealth Government’s failure to protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) Australians from vilification
  2. The Commonwealth Government’s tacit endorsement of discrimination, by religious organisations, against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Australians, and
  3. The gross violation of human rights of asylum-seekers and refugees, including LGBTI refugees, by the Commonwealth Government.

Before I move to these issues in more detail, however, I wish to express my concern about the Terms of Reference (provided by Attorney-General, Senator the Hon George Brandis) and therefore the overall direction of this inquiry.

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

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

My criticism of this inquiry is therefore similar to that of the Rights & Responsibilities 2014 Discussion Paper released by the Human Rights Commissioner Mr Tim Wilson. From my submission to that inquiry[1]:

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

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

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

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

Similarly, article 21 of the ICCPR establishes that:

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

The United Nations Human Rights Committee has, in cases which both involved complaints by Australian citizens against actions by the Tasmanian and Commonwealth Government respectively, found that the wording of these articles includes the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.[2]

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

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

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

[End extract]

Encouragingly, the ALRC at least acknowledges, on page 31, that “[f]reedom from discrimination is also a fundamental human right.” But the Issues Paper does not include a chapter on this right, nor does it include it within the list of “[o]ther rights, freedoms and privileges” in Chapter 19.

I believe that this imbalance, in examining and prioritising some fundamental rights, while essentially ignoring others, undermines the utility of this process – and is something which must be redressed in the Final Report, expected by December 2015.

I turn now to three particular areas in which the Commonwealth Government either itself breaches human rights, or authorises others to do so.

  1. The Commonwealth Government’s failure to protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) Australians from vilification

[NB This topic relates to Chapter Two: Freedom of Speech, and its questions:

  • What general principles or criteria should be applied to help determine whether a law that interferes with freedom of speech is justified?
  • Which Commonwealth laws unjustifiably interfere with freedom of speech, and why are these laws unjustified?]

I acknowledge the importance of the right to freedom of expression, or freedom of speech. However, I also welcome the Issues Paper’s acknowledgement that there are possible justifications for encroachment on this right. In particular, the Issues Papers notes, at paragraph 2.2.4 on page 26:

“Similarly, laws prohibit, or render unlawful, speech that causes harm, distress or offence to others through incitement to violence, harassment, intimidation or discrimination.”

This obviously includes the prohibition on racial vilification contained in section 18C of the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act 1975[3].

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

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

It is for this reason that I provided a submission last year in response to the Senator Brandis’ Exposure Draft Bill seeking to repeal section 18C, in which I argued that, instead of abolishing racial vilification laws, similar protections against vilification on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status should be added to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984[4].

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

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

Finally, I note that this answer is, in some respects, contrary to the intention of “Question 2-2: [w]hich Commonwealth laws unjustifiably interfere with freedom of speech, and why are these laws unjustified?” because it instead proposes an additional area where freedom of speech should be limited.

I submit that such an answer is necessary to redress the imbalance contained in the Terms of Reference, and Issues Paper, because the right to freedom from vilification is equally worthy of recognition, and protection, in Commonwealth law. It is a right that should be extended to LGBTI Australians as a matter of priority.

  1. The Commonwealth Government’s tacit endorsement of discrimination, by religious organisations, against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Australians

[NB This topic relates to Chapter 3: Freedom of Religion, and its questions:

  • What general principles or criteria should be applied to help determine whether a law that interferes with freedom of religion is justified?
  • Which Commonwealth laws unjustifiably interfere with freedom of religion, and why are these laws unjustified?]

I acknowledge the fundamental importance of the right to freedom of religion. However, just as importantly, I support the statement on page 31 of the Issues Paper that:

“[f]reedom of religion is fundamental, but so too is freedom from discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, sexual orientation or some other protected attribute. Freedom from discrimination is also a fundamental human right.”

Indeed, the case at paragraph 3.20 on the same page, namely R v Secretary of state for education and employment; ex parte Williamson (2005) from the UK, provides a useful formulation:

“… there is a difference between freedom to hold a belief and freedom to express or ‘manifest’ a belief. The former right, freedom of belief, is absolute. The latter right, freedom to manifest, is qualified. This is to be expected, because the way a belief is expressed in practice may impact on others.”

Unfortunately, I do not believe that Australian law currently strikes the right balance between respecting the right to freedom of religion, and protecting others from the harms caused by the manifestation of those beliefs, including through breaches of the right to non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status.

Specifically, I am concerned that the broad exceptions and/or exemptions which are provided to religious organisations under Commonwealth, state and territory anti-discrimination laws, including those protections added by the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013, are far too generous.

In practice, these exceptions provide Government approval and endorsement of the discriminatory treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Australians by religious bodies in a large number of areas of public life[5].

For example, the combined impact of sub-section 37(1)(d) of the amended Sex Discrimination Act 1984[6] and section 38 of the same law (which applies to educational institutions established for religious purposes), means that, according to Commonwealth law:

  • Religious schools can freely discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students, including expelling those students simply for being who they are;
  • Religious schools can also freely discriminate against LGBT staff members, including by refusing to provide or terminating their employment, where sexual orientation and gender identity is completely irrelevant to the ability of that person to perform the duties of the role;
  • Religious health and community services can similarly discriminate against both LGBT employees/potential employees, as well as LGBT individuals and families accessing these services, with impunity; and
  • Religious aged care services can discriminate against LGBT employees or potential employees.[7]

It is difficult to see how these exemptions, which allow LGBT people to be discriminated against simply as they seek to obtain an education, or access healthcare (which are themselves fundamental international human rights), and to be treated unfairly in employment in a large number of jobs across a wide range of areas, is not a gross breach of their human rights.

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

To this end, I believe the religious exemptions which are included in sub-sections 37(1)(a),(b) and (c) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984[8], if supplemented by exemptions covering how religious ceremonies are conducted, are both more justifiable in being better targeted to protecting freedom of religious worship itself, and less likely to result in harm to LGBT people through the breach of their right to non-discrimination across broad areas of public life. These are the only religious exemptions that, I believe, should be retained.

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

Finally, as with my previous answer, I note that this discussion is potentially contrary to the intention of “Question 3-2: Which Commonwealth laws unjustifiably interfere with freedom of religion, and why are these laws unjustified?” because it highlights an area where, arguably, freedom of religion should be further restrained.

I believe that providing this answer is nevertheless important because, in Australia, freedom of religion is not unduly limited. Instead, freedom of religion is unjustifiably privileged, including where it tramples upon the rights of others, and especially the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Australians not to be discriminated against in public life.

A mature discussion of rights and freedoms would recognise this serious imbalance and seek to redress it, by ensuring that religious exceptions to and exemptions from anti-discrimination law only protected genuine freedom of religious worship, not establishing a supposed ‘right’ to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

  1. The gross violation of human rights of asylum-seekers and refugees, including LGBTI refugees, by the Commonwealth Government

I am not an expert in migration and refugee law, nor in the international human rights instruments that apply in this area.

Nevertheless, I know enough about this subject matter to submit that:

  • Seeking asylum is a human right, and is not a criminal act, irrespective of the manner of arrival (whether by plane or by boat),
  • Responding to people exercising their right to seek asylum by detaining them in offshore processing centres, indefinitely, in inhumane conditions, and without free and fair access to justice, is a fundamental breach of their human rights, and
  • An inquiry into the encroachment by Commonwealth laws upon traditional rights and freedoms would be incomplete without a thorough examination of this issue.

As a long-term LGBTI advocate and activist, I also feel compelled to raise the specific issue of LGBTI asylum seekers and refugees being processed and ultimately resettled in countries that criminalise homosexuality, namely Nauru and Papua New Guinea.

As I have written to several Commonwealth Immigration Ministers, under both Labor[9] and Liberal-National[10] Governments, such a policy clearly abrogates the responsibilities that the Commonwealth Government has towards LGBTI asylum-seekers.

From my letter to then Minister for Immigration the Hon Scott Morrison MP:

“… the mistreatment of LGBTI asylum seekers and refugees raises particular problems, problems that do not appear to be recognised by the Australian Government. Nor does there appear to be any evidence the Government is taking action to remedy them.

Even if the offshore processing and permanent resettlement of refugees continues, this must not include the processing and resettlement of LGBTI asylum seekers and refugees in countries which criminalise homosexuality (which both PNG and Nauru currently do).

If you, as Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and therefore Minister responsible for the welfare of asylum seekers and refugees, cannot guarantee that sections 210 and 212 of the PNG Penal Code do not apply to detainees on Manus Island, then you cannot send LGBTI people there in good conscience.

If you, as Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, cannot guarantee that LGBTI asylum seekers and refugees will not be subject to homophobic bullying and harassment, and will be free to lodge claims for protections on the basis of persecution due to their sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status, then you must not detain them in such facilities.”

[End extract]

As I indicated at the beginning of this section, I am not an expert in this area of law, and therefore am not in a position to provide a more thorough analysis of the (multiple) breaches of human rights law involved in the offshore processing and resettlement of asylum seekers and refugees. I am confident, however, that there will be a number of submissions from human rights and refugee organisations in coming weeks that will do exactly that.

Nevertheless, I felt obliged to include this issue in my submission, given both the severity of the human rights breaches involved, and because of their particular impact on LGBTI asylum seekers and refugees, whose only ‘crime’ is to have sought the protection of our Government.

In conclusion, I wish to thank the Law Reform Commission again for the opportunity to provide this submission, and consequently to raise issues of concern for LGBTI people, namely the absence of anti-vilification protection in Commonwealth law, the breach of our right to non-discrimination because of religious exemptions in the Sex Discrimination Act, and the mistreatment of asylum seekers and refugees, including LGBTI refugees, by the Commonwealth Government.

I look forward to these issues being addressed in the inquiry’s Final Report, to be released by the end of 2015.

Sincerely

Alastair Lawrie

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

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

[3] “Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin.

  • It is unlawful for a person to an act, otherwise than in private, if:
  • the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate, or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
  • the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.”

[4] Full submission at: https://alastairlawrie.net/2014/04/24/dont-limit-racial-vilification-protections-introduce-vilification-protections-for-lgbti-australians-instead/

[5] Noting that the religious exemptions contained in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 do not apply to intersex status, only to sexual orientation and gender identity.

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

[7] Noting that the religious exemptions contained in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 do not apply to LGBT people accessing aged care services.

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

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

[9] My letter to Labor Immigrations Ministers, the Hon Chris Bowen and the Hon Brendan O’Connor from 2012 and 2013: https://alastairlawrie.net/2012/09/07/letter-to-chris-bowen-on-lgbti-asylum-seekers/

[10] My letter to then Immigration Minister the Hon Scott Morrison from February 2014: https://alastairlawrie.net/2014/02/02/letter-to-scott-morrison-about-treatment-of-lgbti-asylum-seekers-and-refugees-sent-to-manus-island-png/

Submission to Australian Human Rights Commission Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex (SOGII) Rights Consultation

One of my favourite campaigns of recent times – It Gets Better – performs a valuable role, letting vulnerable LGBTI youth know that, while the homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and intersexphobia they may be experiencing is awful, for most of them, it will get better. I emphasise the word most here because we should always remember that it does not get better for everyone.

Meanwhile, as the LGBTI movement itself ‘ages’, many of us are increasingly celebrating the past, and reflecting on significant community milestones (such as last year’s 30th anniversary of the decriminalisation of male homosexuality in NSW, or the 40th anniversary of Sydney’s Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras which is now only three years away). But, while absolutely necessary, looking backwards should never obscure the challenges that remain ahead.

This consultation, including an examination of legislation, policies and practices by government(s) that unduly restrict sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex rights, provides an opportunity to highlight some of the major obstacles which continue to prevent LGBTI Australians achieving full equality. In this submission, I will concentrate on six such areas:

  1. Involuntary or coerced sterilisation of intersex children

These unjustified practices – surgeries performed with the aim of ‘normalising’ intersex children according to the expectations of their parents, their doctors, and/or society at large, so that they conform to an exclusionary man/woman binary model of sex – are human rights abuses, plain and simple.

Obviously done without the child’s consent, such practices can involve sterilisation, as well as other ‘cosmetic’ (ie unnecessary), largely irreversible surgery on genitalia to make their bodies fit within the idea of what a man or woman ‘should’ be, ignoring the individual involved and their fundamental rights to bodily integrity, and personal autonomy.

That these practices continue in 2015 is abhorrent – and the fact the Commonwealth Government has yet to formally respond to the Senate’s 2013 Report into this issue (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Involuntary_Sterilisation/Sec_Report/~/media/Committees/Senate/committee/clac_ctte/involuntary_sterilisation/second_report/report.ashx) is, or at least should be, a scandal.

  1. Restrictions on the rights of transgender people

Another group within the LGBTI community whose rights continue to trail those whose identities are based on sexual orientation (lesbian, gay and bisexual people) are transgender Australians.

This includes the fact there continue to be ‘out-of-pocket’, in many cases quite significant, expenses for medical support for trans* people simply to affirm their gender identity. This is a denial of their human rights – access to trans* surgeries and related medical services should not be restricted by the capacity to pay, but instead should be fully publicly-subsidised through Medicare.

The ongoing requirement that married transgender Australians must divorce their spouses in order for their gender identity to be legally recognised is also a fundamental breach of their rights, and must end.

  1. Processing and resettlement of LGBTI refugees in countries which criminalise homosexuality

Australian Governments, of both persuasions, are guilty of violating the human rights of LGBTI refugees. These are people who are (often) fleeing persecution on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status, and seeking our protection.

Australia’s response? To detain them, indefinitely, in inhumane prison camps on Nauru and Manus Island. For many, while detained they are at risk of prosecution under the laws of Papua New Guinea and/or Nauru, both of which continue to criminalise male-male intercourse. Even after they are found to be refugees, they are then ‘resettled’ in these countries, in effect exposing people who have fled persecution to potentially more persecution.

While I believe the offshore processing and resettlement of all refugees is unjust, it should be recognised it has a disproportionately negative impact on LGBTI refugees.

  1. Denial of the right of LGBTI students to an inclusive education

It is encouraging that greater numbers of young LGBTI people feel comfortable in disclosing their status at an earlier age – and for some, that they attend genuinely inclusive schools. However, this inclusion is by no means universal.

For example, the recently developed national Health & Physical Education curriculum does not even include the words lesbian, gay or bisexual, and does not guarantee students will be taught comprehensive sexual health education (even omitting the term HIV). This is a massive failure to ensure all students learn vital information that is relevant to their health.

Similarly, while the national Safe Schools Program is a welcome initiative to counter homophobia and bullying, participation in the program is optional, with most schools (and even some entire jurisdictions) opting out. The right to attend school free of discrimination should not depend on a student’s geographic location, or their parent/s’ choice of school.

Finally, religious exceptions to anti-discrimination legislation (in all jurisdictions outside Tasmania), mean many LGBTI students are at risk of discrimination, by their school, simply for being who they are.

  1. Limitations on anti-discrimination protections

Students are not the only LGBTI individuals let down by Australia’s current anti-discrimination framework. These same religious exceptions mean that, in most jurisdictions, LGBTI people can be discriminated against in a wide range of areas of public life, both as employees and people accessing services, in education, health, community services and (as employees) in aged care.

The attributes which are protected under anti-discrimination law also vary widely, with intersex people only truly protected under Commonwealth and Tasmanian law, different definitions of transgender (including extremely narrow protections in Western Australian legislation), and NSW excluding bisexual people altogether.

Finally, only four jurisdictions have vilification protections for (some) members of the LGBTI community – with no Commonwealth LGBTI equivalent of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

  1. Ongoing lack of marriage equality

I include this not because I consider it as important as the issues listed above, but simply as someone who has been engaged to be married for more than five years – and has no idea how much longer he will have to wait to exercise the same rights as cisgender heterosexual couples, with the only difference being who I love. Marriage discrimination is wrong, it is unjust, and it must go.

This submission is by no means comprehensive – there are a variety of other issues which I have excluded due to arbitrary word length restrictions (including mental health issues, anti-LGBTI violence, and discrimination against rainbow families – with my partner and I able to adopt in Sydney, but not Melbourne or Brisbane).

In conclusion, while it does get better, and over time, it most certainly has got better, there are still many ways in which the rights of LGBTI Australians continue to be denied – and about which we, as LGBTI advocates and activists, should remain angry, and most importantly, take action.

Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson, who is leading the consultation on SOGII Rights

Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson, who is leading the consultation on SOGII Rights

NB Public submissions to the AHRC SOGII Rights consultation close on Friday 6 February. For more details, head to: <https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sogii-rights

For more information on some of the topics listed above, see my previous posts on:

– Submission to Involuntary and Coerced Sterilisation of Intersex People Senate Inquiry <https://alastairlawrie.net/2013/07/01/submission-to-involuntary-and-coerced-sterilisation-senate-inquiry/

– Letter to Scott Morrison About Treatment of LGBTI Asylum-Seekers and Refugees Sent to Manus Island <https://alastairlawrie.net/2014/02/02/letter-to-scott-morrison-about-treatment-of-lgbti-asylum-seekers-and-refugees-sent-to-manus-island-png/

– Letter to Minister Pyne Calling for COAG to Reject Health & Physical Education Curriculum Due to Ongoing LGBTI Exclusion <https://alastairlawrie.net/2014/12/09/letter-to-minister-pyne-calling-for-coag-to-reject-health-physical-education-curriculum-due-to-ongoing-lgbti-exclusion/

– The Last Major Battle for Gay & Lesbian Legal Equality in Australia Won’t be about Marriage <https://alastairlawrie.net/2014/02/26/the-last-major-battle-for-gay-lesbian-legal-equality-in-australia-wont-be-about-marriage/  and

– Bill Shorten, Will you Lead on Marriage Equality? <https://alastairlawrie.net/2015/01/24/bill-shorten-will-you-lead-on-marriage-equality/

Senator Leyonhjelm’s Marriage Equality Bill undermines the principle of LGBTI anti-discrimination. Should we still support it?

Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm introduced his Freedom to Marry Bill 2014 on Wednesday 26 November. As the name implies, if passed it would provide lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) Australians the freedom to marry their partner, something denied to them currently.

The fact it is being proposed by the Liberal Democrats, and not the Labor Opposition or the Greens, is seen as giving it a greater chance of securing the support of enough Liberal MPs to force Prime Minister Tony Abbott to grant a conscience vote within the Liberal Party, and therefore of having at least some chance of becoming law in 2015.

Which means we should automatically be putting our collective energies behind this Bill, in an effort to ensure its passage through parliament as quickly as possible, shouldn’t we? Well, no actually. Because, while the Leyonhjelm Bill gives marriage equality with one hand, it takes away from LGBTI non-discrimination with the other.

Alongside provisions which would grant all Australian couples the ability to get married, irrespective of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status, the Freedom to Marry Bill 2014 would also grant all non-government employed marriage celebrants, including civil celebrants, the ‘right’ to refuse to perform the marriages of LGBTI-inclusive couples.

Currently, section 47 of the Marriage Act 1961 restricts the right to refuse to officiate a marriage to ministers of religion, which is both increasingly irrelevant (given only 27.4% of marriages in 2014 were performed by religious celebrants) and at the very least philosophically consistent with existing exceptions to anti-discrimination laws which are granted to religious organisations.

Instead, the Freedom to Marry Bill 2014 would provide civil celebrants, who now perform 72.5% of weddings (up from 42.1% just twenty years ago), the ability to refuse to officiate marriages for LGBTI-inclusive couples. It would do so without even requiring them to be religious themselves, or to provide an explanation for their refusal – their ‘claims of conscience’ in this regard apparently trump any expectation they should perform their roles in a non-discriminatory manner.

Technically, the Bill grants religious and civil celebrants the right to reject heterosexual couples, too – and this is something that was stressed by Senator Leyonhjelm in spruiking the law to the Sydney Morning Herald in September (“[i]t’s a minor tweak but we envisage that there will be people who wish to specialise as same sex celebrants and they may not want to do conventional weddings. It will work both ways.”).

But, make no mistake, these provisions are squarely aimed at granting civil celebrants the right to refuse service to LGBTI-inclusive couples. That much is made clear by the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill, which states that “[s]econd, it imposes no claims or burdens of conscience on those persons who object to marriages other than between a man and a woman for both religious and non-religious reasons”. There is no equivalent statement of principle setting out the ‘right’ of celebrants to refuse to perform man/woman marriages.

This view – that the provisions are aimed at allowing all celebrants to refuse LGBTI-inclusive couples (and not heterosexual couples) – is reinforced by the fact the only other specific example of refusal cited is in clause 10 of the Bill (“[i]f a chaplain refuses to solemnise a marriage because the marriage is not the marriage of a man and a woman, the chaplain must, if possible, substitute another chaplain who is willing to solemnise the marriage.”

In short, the Freedom to Marry Bill 2014 goes to great lengths to ensure that civil celebrants can refuse to officiate the marriages of LGBTI Australians, and they can do so for any reason whatsoever.

The instinctive response of many people to these changes is to say “so what, who would want their marriage officiated by someone who doesn’t approve of that marriage anyway?” And of course, there is much validity in this sentiment – as someone who is engaged to be married myself (and has been for almost five years now), I would obviously not want my wedding to be presided over by someone who opposed the fundamental equality of my relationship.

But, if we are to leave our response at that, then we are guilty both of intellectual laziness, and of misunderstanding the role of anti-discrimination protections. Because anti-discrimination laws are designed to protect people from adverse treatment on the basis of particular attributes (in this case, sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status) in a wide range of areas across society, not simply to reinforce the understandable tendency for people to ‘choose’ employers, or goods and service providers, that are already favourable to them.

To presuppose that people have the ability to ‘choose’ is also to assume everyone has the same level of power or privilege in society that you may have. In many cases this is clearly not true – just because a highly-qualified gay man in inner-Sydney may be able to reject employment by a homophobe, does not mean a less-qualified trans* person in a regional centre with high unemployment would have the same power to do so.

With respect to the Freedom to Marry Bill 2014 in particular, just because LGBTI-inclusive couples in major cities could easily find alternative celebrants, does not mean people in small country towns, or even larger non-metropolitan centres, would have the same ‘freedom’. It is entirely conceivable that, in a place with few celebrants, all may exercise their ‘claim of conscience’ to refuse service.

Indeed, the Explanatory Memorandum concedes the possibility of lack of access to marriage due to geography in discussing the aforementioned defence chaplains provision (“[t]he requirement of ‘possibility’ recognises that there may be circumstances where a willing chaplain cannot be arranged (e.g. if the people involved are in a remote location”).

Why then should the Marriage Act 1961 allow the few civil celebrants that do exist in remote areas to refuse to perform LGBTI-inclusive weddings, imposing on those couples significant extra expense simply because of their sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status? (After all, wouldn’t that be the definition of adverse treatment?)

There is an even larger problem with these provisions of the Leyonhjelm Bill, however. That is because there is absolutely no ideological or conceptual reason why, if the law is to recognise the ‘claim of conscience’ of a civil celebrant to refuse to officiate an LGBTI-inclusive wedding ceremony, it should not also allow goods and service providers to refuse to host or supply that wedding, for hotels or bed-and-breakfasts to deny accommodation to the couple on their honeymoon, for restaurants to deny reservations to that couple celebrating their wedding anniversary, and even to employers to be able to deny recognition to that relationship in the workplace.

All of these people can have similar, and similarly passionate, views and beliefs opposing LGBTI-inclusive marriages – and, perhaps in a preview of where Australia might be heading, all are the subject of ‘claims of conscience’ by individuals and groups against marriage equality in the United States.

If a claim of conscience exists for a civil celebrant – allowing them to treat LGBTI people unfavourably on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status – then, logically, it should also exist for anyone else in society who has an ‘objection’ to LGBTI equality, whether based on religion or otherwise.

Thus, the civil celebrant provisions of the Freedom to Marry Bill 2014 can be seen for what they are – a dangerous new precedent establishing a fundamental ‘right to discriminate’ against LGBTI Australians, one that goes much further than existing laws granting anti-discrimination exceptions to religious organisations, because they would allow private citizens, without any connection to organised religion, the ability to exercise this ‘right’.

In some respects, these provisions are simply the natural extension of Senator Brandis’ claims earlier in 2014 (in a different context) that “people do have a right to be bigots.” It certainly appears as if Senator Leyonhjelm was listening – with his first private member’s bill, he is promoting the right of civil celebrants to be homophobes (and biphobes, transphobes and intersexphobes, too).

This fits perfectly within his overall political approach as well – when describing the Bill in the Sydney Morning Herald he said “[i]t’s libertarian philosophy: Individuals should be able to discriminate but governments should not.”

It is therefore easy to see this move as the first step in efforts to unwind our relatively comprehensive system of anti-discrimination laws, not just in relation to sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status, but also race, sex, disability and age (among other attributes).

The threat is that he is not alone in holding such an extremist view of – or more accurately, against – the principle of anti-discrimination generally, and anti-discrimination laws specifically. He is bound to receive significant support from more radical elements within the Liberal and National Parties (such as Senator Bernardi, and even the aforementioned Attorney-General) in this approach.

It will also be cheered on by conservatives in the media (hello Andrew Bolt) and by right-wing think-tanks, such as the Institute of Public Affairs, who hold an inordinate amount of influence over the current Abbott Coalition Government.

In fact, the current Australian Human Rights Commissioner with responsibility for sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex issues, Tim Wilson, made exactly the same arguments as Senator Leyonhjelm when appearing on behalf of the IPA at the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Exposure Draft Bill in early 2013 (notable quotes including:

  • “We certainly support very strongly discrimination law related to government and the way it operates towards government, but in a broad philosophical concept we [the IPA] are not a big fan of discrimination law being imposed across civil society in the private sector. The private sector should be able to make choices…” (emphasis added)
  • “What we have made crystal clear is we believe that anti-discrimination laws should operate on government. That is different from what operates within the private sector and within a free society…”
  • “Discrimination occurs within society. Sometimes it exists for the right reasons, because there are organisational goals that people, when they freely come together and associate, believe in. People should be allowed to reasonably exercise those and they do themselves a disservice because of something that is not relative to the objective of the organisation. I think that is a very fair and reasonable principle.”
  • “[Y]ou have a human right of freedom of association, you have right of speech; I am not sure I am convinced there is a human right against discrimination, as abhorrent as it is.”)

Viewed in this context, the decision by Senator Leyonhjelm to introduce the civil celebrant ‘claim of conscience’ provisions, as part of the Freedom to Marry Bill 2014, is a very clever move – in the ‘John Howard’ sense of the word. It undermines the principle of LGBTI anti-discrimination as part of a law which simultaneously recognises a separate LGBTI right – to have our relationships treated in the same way as cisgender, heterosexual couples.

The question then is, how should we, as members of the LGBTI community, respond to this Bill? I would argue that the initial response is relatively straightforward – to call on Senator Leyonhjelm to withdraw these aspects of the legislation, so that the forthcoming debate can be solely about the principle of marriage equality, and not also the potential roll-back of LGBTI anti-discrimination laws.

If, as expected, he refuses to amend the Bill, then I believe we should be lobbying the ALP, Greens, crossbench Senators and LGBTI-friendly sections of the Coalition to vote against these provisions in the Parliament. Hopefully, enough votes can be secured on the floor to ensure marriage equality succeeds without establishing a new ‘right to discriminate’ against LGBTI people in the process.

But the most important question comes if this effort is unsuccessful – what should we do if the Bill reaches the final vote, unamended, especially if this is seen as the best chance of securing marriage equality during this term of parliament?

Should we support passage of the Freedom to Marry Bill 2014 even though it actively undermines the principle of LGBTI anti-discrimination? Or should we call for the Bill to be rejected, so that another marriage equality Bill can take its place, in full knowledge it could be delayed until 2017 as a result?

I acknowledge that this is a very difficult question to answer, and that there will obviously be a range of different responses across our community. For my part, I would choose the latter option – because I sincerely believe that the Senator Leyonhjelm Bill is so flawed, in its current state, that it should not be supported.

I write this as someone who strongly believes in marriage equality (both personally, and for our community), but who does not see this one issue as trumping other LGBTI rights which we have either already achieved, or for which we must still campaign.

It took 38 years from the passage of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians to receive equivalent anti-discrimination protections under Commonwealth law (with the passage of the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013).

To me, it is unconscionable that the very next major Commonwealth law reform concerning LGBTI rights would actively undermine the principles at the heart of the Sex Discrimination Act reforms.

Indeed, one of the most positive features of those amendments was the ‘carve-out’ which meant that Commonwealth-funded aged care services operated by religious organisations cannot discriminate against LGBT people accessing their services (unlike religious organisations in other areas).

This was important not just to protect ageing LGBT individuals and couples who need this care, but also because it set an important precedent, demonstrating that the ‘right’ for religious organisations to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is not inviolable, thereby paving the way for future reforms in this area.

A victory for Senator Leyonhjelm and the extreme libertarians on the civil celebrant provisions would set an equally-important (and perhaps even more important) precedent in the other direction, establishing the ‘claim of conscience’ for private citizens to discriminate against LGBTI people, for any reason whatsoever, and emboldening them to pursue wider reforms aimed at unwinding anti-discrimination law. I believe this precedent should be denied to them, even if it means marriage equality might be delayed in the process.

Of course, I absolutely respect that other people may reach a different conclusion – that, having waited more than a decade since the Howard Coalition Government’s original homophobic ban on marriage equality in 2004, and the failure of successive Parliaments since then to remedy this injustice, people may be willing to accept the ‘claim of conscience’ provisions in this legislation as simply the price of doing business.

In fact, I suspect the majority of our community may feel that way – if so, I would accept that verdict, and agree we should actively lobby to have the Freedom of Marry Bill 2014 passed in 2015 (while making sure we strengthen our collective resolve to fight against any further moves against LGBTI anti-discrimination protections in the future).

But, as I have attempted to outline above, this is not an easy or straight-forward decision. I believe this debate – whether we are willing to accept a marriage equality Bill that undermines the principle of LGBTI anti-discrimination – is one that we must have first, before the Bill is to be voted upon.

We should not simply ‘sleepwalk’ into supporting the Freedom to Marry Bill 2014 without first considering the consequences. Nor should we automatically allow Senator Leyonhjelm to take the helm of the marriage equality push – because, while he might be an ally in allowing us to say “I do”, he also wants to allow civil celebrants to tell us that they won’t.

Senator Leyonhelm might want you to be able to say "I do", but he also believes civil celebrants should be able to tell you they won't.

Senator Leyonhelm might want you to be able to say “I do”, but he also believes civil celebrants should be able to tell you they won’t.

Submission to Rights & Responsibilities 2014 Consultation

The Human Rights Commissioner, Tim Wilson, is currently undertaking a public consultation called Rights & Responsibilities 2014. Unfortunately, similar to the ALRC Freedoms Inquiry, it is very much focused on ‘traditional’ rights at the expense of other rights like the right to non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status. This post is my submission to this consultation process.

You can find out more about the inquiry, including downloading the Discussion Paper, at the following link: https://www.humanrights.gov.au/rights-responsibilities-2014 Written submissions, including an option to complete an online survey, are due by Friday 14 November 2014. Public consultations are also being held across the country, with a session in Sydney scheduled for Wednesday 19 November 2014 (details at the AHRC website).

Mr Tim Wilson

Human Rights Commissioner

Australian Human Rights Commission

c/- rights2014@humanrights.gov.au

Monday 27 October 2014

Dear Commissioner Wilson

SUBMISSION TO RIGHTS & RESPONSIBILITIES 2014 CONSULTATION

I welcome the opportunity to provide a submission to the Rights & Responsibilities 2014 public consultation, and in particular to provide feedback on the Discussion Paper, of the same name, published on the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) website.

In this submission, I will provide feedback on two of the four rights, or related sets of rights, featured in Appendix A of the discussion paper (namely, the right to freedom of expression, and the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religious worship).

However, before doing so I would like to express my serious concern that the focus of the discussion paper is limited to some rights, which could be characterised as being more ‘traditional’ in nature (for example, the right to property), to the apparent exclusion of other rights which, I believe, are no less important in the contemporary world.

Specifically, I would argue that prioritising certain rights above others potentially neglects and devalues the importance of those other rights which are no less essential to ensuring that all Australians are able to fully participate in modern society. From my point of view, chief among these rights is the right to non-discrimination, or to put it another way (which may be more favourably received), to be free from discrimination, including unfair or adverse treatment on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status.

The right to non-discrimination is fundamental in international human rights law adopted immediately post-World War II. Article 2(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides that: “Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognised in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, property, birth or other status.”

Similarly, article 21 of the ICCPR establishes that: “All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”

The United Nations Human Rights Committee has, in cases which both involved complaints by Australian citizens against actions by the Tasmanian and Commonwealth Government respectively, found that the wording of these articles includes the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.[1]

The Commonwealth Parliament has also recognised that the right to non-discrimination for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) Australians is worthy of protection, with the passage of the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013. This historic legislation, providing similar rights to non-discrimination to those already enjoyed on the basis of race, sex, disability and age, was a significant, albeit long overdue, step forward for the LGBTI community.

For this reason, I would not wish to see the right to be free from discrimination on these attributes to be diminished in comparison to other, more ‘traditional’ rights. Unfortunately, that is the almost inevitable conclusion of a consultation process which aims to consider “how effectively we protect people’s human rights and freedoms in Australia” (page 1 of the Discussion Paper) but which then only focuses on a small number of freedoms, including the right to property, and which neglects others.

In this way, the Rights & Responsibilities 2014 Discussion Paper appears to reinforce the message, already made clear by the Attorney-General, Senator the Hon George Brandis’ ‘Freedom Inquiry’ reference to the Australian Law Reform Commission (see http://www.alrc.gov.au/inquiries/freedoms/terms-reference for the terms of reference), that some freedoms are somehow better or more worthy of protection than others. Both inquiries appear to suggest that there is a hierarchy of rights, with ‘traditional’ rights at the top, and other rights, such as the right to non-discrimination, placed below them.

This is particularly concerning when some of those traditional rights being promoted or ‘privileged’ in these consultations, including the right to property and the right to ‘common law protection of personal reputation’ (aka defamation), are rights which are inherently more valuable to those who already enjoy ‘privilege’ within society, while other rights vital to protect the interests of people who are not ‘privileged’ are largely ignored.

Above all, I am concerned that you, in your role as Human Rights Commissioner, should actively participate in the reinforcement of this supposed hierarchy of rights, with the right to non-discrimination placed somewhere toward the bottom – especially as you are also the Commissioner at the AHRC with responsibility for sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status issues.

I would ask that you reconsider your approach to these issues in the Rights & Responsibilities 2014 consultation process, and, instead of promoting a narrow view of what constitutes fundamental human rights, ensure that other rights, including the right to non-discrimination – or to be free from discrimination – are also given appropriate consideration.

I will now turn my attention to two of the four rights, or related sets of rights, featured in Appendix A of the Discussion Paper.

Right to freedom of expression (page 5 of the Discussion Paper)

I acknowledge the importance of the right to freedom of expression, or freedom of speech. However, I also welcome the Discussion Paper’s statement that freedom of speech is not absolute, in particular where it notes that: “Under international law, freedom of expression may only be limited where it is prescribed by law and deemed necessary to protect the rights or reputations of others, national security, public order, or public health or morals. A mandatory limitation also applies to the right to freedom of expression in relation to ‘any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence’.”[2]

In this context, I question why laws should be established to prohibit ‘advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred’ but not to prohibit advocacy of hatred on other grounds, including sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status. The impact of vilification on these grounds, and the negative influence of public homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and intersexphobia more generally, is just as harmful as racial or religious vilification. Therefore I can see no good reason why there should not also exist equivalent anti-vilification protections covering LGBTI Australians a Commonwealth level.

It is for this reason that I provided a submission earlier this year in response to the Attorney-General, Senator the Hon George Brandis’, Exposure Draft Bill seeking to repeal section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, in which I argued that, instead of abolishing racial vilification laws, similar protections against vilification on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status should be added to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (a copy of this submission can be found at the following link: https://alastairlawrie.net/2014/04/24/dont-limit-racial-vilification-protections-introduce-vilification-protections-for-lgbti-australians-instead/ ).

Thus, while I understand the focus of this section of the Discussion Paper is on ensuring that there exist only narrow restrictions on ‘freedom of expression’ (as summed up in the question “how individuals can be held accountable for the use of their freedom of expression outside of law” emphasis added), I submit there remains a proper, indeed necessary, role for legal restrictions on this freedom to protect against the “incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”.

I further submit that these protections should cover lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians against such incitements. I sincerely hope that, in your capacity as both Human Rights Commissioner and AHRC Commissioner with responsibility for sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status issues, you agree.

Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religious worship (page 6 of the Discussion Paper)

I also acknowledge the fundamental importance of the rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religious worship. I further agree with the Discussion Paper on page 6 where it states that “[t]he internal dimension of the right – the freedom to adopt or hold a belief – is absolute.”

However, just as importantly, I support the statement that “the external dimension – the freedom to manifest that belief in worship, observance, practice or teaching – may be limited by laws when deemed necessary to protect the public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others” (emphasis added). This is a vital caveat that allows Governments to protect other individuals and groups against both potential and real harm.

Unfortunately, I do not believe that Australian law currently strikes the right balance between respecting the right to freedom of religious worship, and the harms caused by breaches of the right to non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status.

Specifically, I am concerned that the broad exceptions and/or exemptions which are provided to religious organisations under Commonwealth, state and territory anti-discrimination laws, including those protections added by the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013, are far too generous, and essentially approve the prejudicial and discriminatory treatment of LGBT Australians by religious bodies in a large number of areas of public life[3].

For example, the combined impact of sub-section 37(1)(d) of the amended Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (which provides that “[n]othing in Division 1 or 2 affects… any other act or practice of a body established for religious purposes, being an act or practice that conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of that religion or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibility of adherants of that religion”) and section 38 of the same law (which applies to educational institutions established for religious purposes), means that, according to Commonwealth law:

  • Religious schools can freely discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students, including expelling those students simply for being who they are;
  • Religious schools can also freely discriminate against LGBT staff members, including by refusing to provide or terminating their employment, where sexual orientation and gender identity is completely irrelevant to the ability of that person to perform the duties of the role;
  • Religious health and community services can similarly discriminate, with impunity, against both LGBT employees and potential employees, as well as LGBT individuals and families accessing these services; and
  • Religious aged care services can discriminate against LGBT employees or potential employees.[4]

It is difficult to see how these exemptions, which allow LGBT people to be discriminated against simply as they seek to obtain an education, or access healthcare (which are themselves fundamental international human rights), and to be treated unfairly in employment in a large number of jobs across a wide range of areas, is not a gross breach of their human rights.

It is even more difficult to envisage how these exemptions fit with the statements on page 2 of the Discussion Paper that “[r]ights and freedoms… are about being treated fairly, treating others fairly…” (emphasis added) and that “[l]imits on rights have been established to ensure individuals do not harm others when exercising their own rights.” Religious exceptions and exemptions under Commonwealth, state and territory anti-discrimination laws allow serious harm to be caused to LGBT Australians, on a day-to-day basis and across multiple spheres of public life, and, I assert, should be significantly curbed.

To this end, I believe the religious exemptions which are included in sub-sections 37(1)(a),(b) and (c) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984[5], if supplemented by exemptions covering how religious ceremonies are conducted, would be both more justifiable in being better targeted to protecting freedom of religious worship itself, and less likely to result in harm to LGBT people through the breach of their right to non-discrimination across broad areas of public life. Therefore, these are the only religious exemptions which should be retained.

This, much narrower, approach to religious exemptions would, in my view, also be a more appropriate outcome of a system of human rights that seeks to both protect fundamental rights, and promote the responsibility not to infringe upon the fundamental rights of others. In this respect, I question why the Discussion Paper does not live up to its title – examining both Rights AND Responsibilities – but instead focuses primarily on the expansion of some rights, including the right to freedom of religious worship, even at the possible expense of others, such as the right to non-discrimination.

For example, the conclusion of the section on “Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religious worship” notes that: “Rights & Responsibilities will focus on:

  • the ways you exercise your right to freedom of religion
  • where restrictions on freedom of religious worship exist
  • whether you have felt restricted or prohibited from exercising your right to freedom of religion
  • what could be done to enable you to exercise your right to freedom of religion.”

This focus presupposes that the only changes with respect to this area of law should be expansions to the ‘freedom of religion’, rather than allowing for the possibility that people claiming to exercise this freedom are in fact unjustifiably and inappropriately infringing upon the rights of others. The Discussion Paper does not seem to even contemplate the possibility that more protections may be needed to shield LGBT Australians from discrimination, perpetrated by religious organisations, but which at this stage is legitimated by exemptions to Commonwealth anti-discrimination law.

I submit that removing these wide-ranging, and overly-generous, religious exemptions is one of the most important, and effective, reforms the Government could make to improve the rights of any group of Australians. I sincerely hope that, as AHRC Commissioner with responsibility for sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status issues, you agree that LGBT Australians should be free to live their lives without homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and intersexphobia. And to do so without exception. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this submission. Sincerely Alastair Lawrie

Human Rights Commissioner and Rights & Responsibilities 2014 author, Tim Wilson.

Human Rights Commissioner and Rights & Responsibilities 2014 author, Tim Wilson.

[1] Human Rights Committee, Toonen v Australia, Communication No. 488/1992, UN Doc CCPR/C/50/D/488/92 and Human Rights Committee, Young v Australia, Communication No. 941/2000, UN Doc CCPR/C/78/D/941/2000. [2] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 20(2). [3] Noting that the religious exemptions contained in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 do not apply to intersex status, only to sexual orientation and gender identity. [4] Noting that the religious exemptions contained in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 do not apply to LGBT people accessing aged care services. [5] “Nothing in Division 1 or 2 affects:

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