The State of Homophobia, Biphobia & Transphobia Survey Results, Part 5: Discrimination in Employment

This post is the fifth in a series of six, reporting the results of The State of Homophobia, Biphobia & Transphobia survey I conducted at the start of 2017[i].

 

In all, 1,672 lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) Australians provided valid responses to that survey.

 

In this article, I will be focusing on their answers to four questions, asking whether they have ever experienced discrimination in employment, whether any of this discrimination occurred in the past 12 months, whether this discrimination related to employment by religious organisations and to provide an example of the discrimination that they experienced.

 

The responses to these questions confirm that too many LGBTIQ Australians have to worry about discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status in the workplace on top of the usual career and financial worries.

 

The question about whether any of this discrimination occurred in relation to employment by a religious organisation is important because of the existence of special rights to discriminate for these employers in most states and territories, leaving LGBTI employees in these circumstances without any legal redress.

 

I also encourage you to read the examples provided in response to question four, which reveal some of the many different types of employment-related discrimination that LGBTIQ people have encountered.

 

The State of Homophobia, Biphobia & Transphobia-11

 

Question 1: Have you ever experienced discrimination because of your sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status in relation to employment (including as an employee, contract worker or job applicant)?

 

Question 2: Has one or more instances of this employment-related discrimination occurred in the past 12 months?

 

&

 

Question 3: Did any of this discrimination occur in relation to employment, or an application for employment, with a religious organisation?

 

Of the 1,622 people who answered the first question, 491 – or 30% – said they had experienced employment-related discrimination at some point in their lives.

 

Disturbingly, 235 survey respondents[ii] reported experiencing anti-LGBTIQ discrimination in employment in the past 12 months alone. That is 14.5% of the total, or 1 in every 7 people who completed the survey.

 

The proportion that reported employment-related discrimination by religious organisations was 6.1%[iii]. This is thankfully much lower than the proportion that had reported discrimination by religious schools (in Survey Results, Part 4) – although that is likely a reflection of the expansive reach of religious schools, and comparatively smaller employment footprint of religious bodies.

 

Nevertheless, most of those 6% probably had no recourse to anti-discrimination protections given the excessive, and unjustified, exceptions provided to religious organisations in most Australian jurisdictions.

 

LGBTIQ Status

 

There were some significant differences in reported employment-related discrimination between lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer survey respondents:

 

Lesbian

 

  • 31.6%[iv] reported employment-related discrimination at some point
  • 15.3%[v] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
  • 7.8%[vi] experienced employment-related discrimination by a religious organisation

 

Gay

 

  • 34.3%[vii] reported employment-related discrimination at some point
  • 13%[viii] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
  • 5.9%[ix] experienced employment-related discrimination by a religious organisation

 

Bisexual

 

  • 20.3%[x] reported employment-related discrimination at some point
  • 11.1%[xi] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
  • 4.3%[xii] experienced employment-related discrimination by a religious organisation

 

Transgender

 

  • 44.4%[xiii] reported employment-related discrimination at some point
  • 29.2%[xiv] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
  • 6.8%[xv] experienced employment-related discrimination by a religious organisation

 

Intersex

 

  • 73.3%[xvi] reported employment-related discrimination at some point
  • 40%[xvii] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
  • 20%[xviii] experienced employment-related discrimination by a religious organisation

 

Queer

 

  • 30.3%[xix] reported employment-related discrimination at some point
  • 16.9%[xx] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
  • 6%[xxi] experienced employment-related discrimination by a religious organisation

 

LGBTIQ Category Experienced anti-LGBTIQ discrimination in employment (%)?
Ever Last 12 months By religious organisation
Lesbian 31.6 15.3 7.8
Gay 34.3 13 5.9
Bisexual 20.3 11.1 4.3
Transgender 44.4 29.2 6.8
Intersex 73.3 40 20
Queer 30.3 16.9 6

 

The highest rates for all three were from intersex respondents, although the small sample size for that group (n=15) means those figures should be treated with some caution.

 

Of the other groups, there was a large degree of consistency, with two main exceptions:

 

  • Bisexual respondents reported significantly lower rates of employment-related discrimination in all three areas (ever, last 12 months and by religious organisations), and
  • Transgender respondents reported significantly higher rates of lifetime employment-related discrimination, and particularly in the last 12 months (although, interestingly, not in terms of discrimination by religious organisations).

 

Taking a closer look at the trans cohort, and in particular respondents who identified as both trans and another LGBQ category, the figures[xxii] were as follows:

 

Trans and lesbian: 37.2%[xxiii] ever, and 25.6% in the last 12 months

 

Trans and gay: 47.4%[xxiv] ever, and 28% in the last 12 months

 

Trans and bisexual: 36.1%[xxv] ever, and 24.6% in the last 12 months, and

 

Trans and queer: 42.2%[xxvi] ever, and 25.9% in the last 12 months.

 

While there was little variation in terms of discrimination over the past 12 months (at a disturbingly high 1-in-4 across all groups), trans and queer, and especially trans and gay respondents were more likely to report lifetime discrimination in employment than the other two groups.

 

Overall, then, while lesbian, gay and queer people reported close-to-(the LGBTIQ)-average levels of employment-related discrimination across the board, bisexual respondents reported lower rates.

 

On the other hand, intersex and transgender respondents were particularly affected by discrimination in employment, with people who were both trans and gay and (to a lesser extent) trans and queer more likely to report lifetime discrimination.

 

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People

 

The rates of discrimination for Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander LGBTIQ people were higher for all three questions than for their non-Indigenous counterparts, although thankfully in relation to discrimination in the past 12 months and by religious organisations these rates were only slightly elevated:

 

  • 37.9%[xxvii] reported employment-related discrimination at some point (compared to 30% of non-Indigenous people)
  • 15.5%[xxviii] experienced at least one instance in the past 12 months (compared to 14.5% of non-Indigenous people) and
  • 6.9%[xxix] experienced employment-related discrimination by a religious organisation (compared to 6.1% of non-Indigenous people).

 

Experienced anti-LGBTIQ discrimination in employment (%)?
Ever Last 12 months By religious organisation
Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander 37.9 15.5 6.9
Non-Indigenous 30 14.5 6.1

 

Age

 

These results are potentially the most interesting of this post:

 

Aged 24 and under

 

  • 20.9%[xxx] reported employment-related discrimination at some point
  • 13.8%[xxxi] experienced at least one instance in the past 12 months
  • 3.8%[xxxii] experienced employment-related discrimination by a religious organisation

 

25 to 44

 

  • 36.9%[xxxiii] reported employment-related discrimination at some point
  • 16.2%[xxxiv] experienced at least one instance in the past 12 months
  • 7%[xxxv] experienced employment-related discrimination by a religious organisation

 

45 to 64

 

  • 48.5%[xxxvi] reported employment-related discrimination at some point
  • 16.1%[xxxvii] experienced at least one instance in the past 12 months
  • 11.3%[xxxviii] experienced employment-related discrimination by a religious organisation

 

65 and over

 

  • 41.9%[xxxix] reported employment-related discrimination at some point
  • None experienced any instance in the past 12 months
  • 16.1%[xl] reported discrimination at a religious school or college

 

Age cohort Experienced anti-LGBTIQ discrimination in employment (%)?
Ever Last 12 months By religious organisation
24 and under 20.9 13.8 3.8
25 to 44 36.9 16.2 7
45 to 64 48.5 16.1 11.3
65 and over 41.9 0 16.1

 

Young people obviously have less employment history, and therefore the lower rates of reported lifetime discrimination are perhaps unsurprising. However, the fact that almost 1-in-7 suffered employment-related discrimination during the past 12 months alone, when a significant share would not even be in the workforce at all, is shocking.

 

Lifetime rates of discrimination then increase for the next two age groups, peaking at almost 1-in-2 for LGBTIQ people aged 45 to 64. In effect, just as many people in this cohort have experienced discrimination in employment as those who have escaped its impact – another remarkable statistic.

 

Perhaps just as depressing is the fact that for both people aged 25 to 44, and 45 to 64, the rates of recent anti-LGBTIQ prejudice in employment were roughly the same – at a time when they should be more ‘secure’ in their careers, almost 1-in-6 experienced employment related discrimination in the last year alone.

 

State or Territory of Residence

 

The final demographic category according to which I have analysed the survey results is the state or territory of residence:

 

New South Wales

 

  • 28.7%[xli] reported employment-related discrimination at some point
  • 13.4%[xlii] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
  • 5.7%[xliii] experienced employment-related discrimination by a religious organisation

 

Victoria

 

  • 33%[xliv] reported employment-related discrimination at some point
  • 14.2%[xlv] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
  • 6.6%[xlvi] experienced employment-related discrimination by a religious organisation

 

Queensland

 

  • 36.6%[xlvii] reported employment-related discrimination at some point
  • 17.5%[xlviii] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
  • 6.9%[xlix] experienced employment-related discrimination by a religious organisation

 

Western Australia

 

  • 32.7%[l] reported employment-related discrimination at some point
  • 17.3%[li] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
  • 5.3%[lii] experienced employment-related discrimination by a religious organisation

 

South Australia

 

  • 26.3%[liii] reported employment-related discrimination at some point
  • 15.8%[liv] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
  • 7.5%[lv] experienced employment-related discrimination by a religious organisation

 

Tasmania

 

  • 20.4%[lvi] reported employment-related discrimination at some point
  • 9.3%[lvii] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
  • 3.7%[lviii] experienced employment-related discrimination by a religious organisation

 

Australian Capital Territory

 

  • 19.6%[lix] reported employment-related discrimination at some point
  • 14.3%[lx] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
  • 3.6%[lxi] experienced employment-related discrimination by a religious organisation

 

Northern Territory

 

  • 35%[lxii] reported employment-related discrimination at some point
  • 10%[lxiii] experienced at least one instance in the last 12 months
  • 15%[lxiv] experienced employment-related discrimination by a religious organisation

 

State or territory Experienced anti-LGBTIQ discrimination in employment (%)?
Ever Last 12 months By religious organisation
NSW 28.7 13.4 5.7
Victoria 33 14.2 6.6
Queensland 36.6 17.5 6.9
WA 32.7 17.3 5.3
SA 26.3 15.8 7.5
Tasmania 20.4 9.3 3.7
ACT 19.6 14.3 3.6
NT 35 10 15

 

These results were largely consistent across state and territory boundaries (thus lending weight to the overall figures, discussed earlier).

 

Tasmania and the ACT reported low lifetime rates of employment-related discrimination, with Queensland recording the highest rates (alongside the Northern Territory, although note the latter’s small sample size, n=20).

 

Queensland and Western Australia reported higher levels of anti-LGBTIQ prejudice in the workplace during the last year – more than 1-in-6 employees reporting recent discrimination. Tasmania (and the Northern Territory) reported the lowest rates – but that nevertheless reflected the fact 1-in-10 LGBTIQ people were discriminated against in 2016 alone.

 

**********

 

Question 4: If you feel comfortable, please provide an example of the discrimination you experienced in relation to employment [Optional]:

 

This question allowed respondents to provide examples of the anti-LGBTIQ discrimination they had experienced and, just as with previous survey results, these comments are often confronting to read.

 

A lightly-edited[lxv] version of the answers to this question – providing examples of homophobic, biphobic, transphobic and intersexphobic discrimination in relation to employment – can be found at the following link:

 

question 4 examples of discrimination in employment

 

These answers demonstrate a range of different ways in which LGBTIQ people were mistreated in comparison to cisgender heterosexual employees, including:

 

  • Being refused employment

 

“I was told “we don’t hire faggy trans here, or anywhere in this town. If you come back in this shop, we’ll shoot you.””

 

“I was hired as CEO for a charity. After three interviews, a psych test and a video presentation, I was told I was the leading candidate by a mile. We negotiated start date and salary. As part of the process, I disclosed I was married to a man. That disclosure happened at 305pm on a Monday. At 740am Tuesday, I received an email advising me that the offer was withdrawn. They, of course, did not say it was because I was gay. I, apparently, did not demonstrate sufficient interest in the job.”

 

“Denied a job based on cultural reasons – sexuality not part of our culture therefore cannot teach about said culture. Offer of employment rescinded.”

 

“Got a job interview but as soon as they saw that I was a dyke I didn’t even get a chance to speak to them they acted awkward and uncomfortable and said I wouldn’t suit the job.”

 

  • Being fired from employment

 

“when they found i was homosexual i was sacked from my position as bar attendant in a league club”

 

“Refused employment because of my transgender status, the supervisor found a reason for dismissal on day one and asked what dose oestrogen I was on as my voice is deep and upsetting my patients”

 

  • Losing shifts, especially in casual or part-time employment

 

“My old maccas got a new restaurant manager who hated me because of it and stopped giving me shifts.”

 

“At my last job my employer found out I was a lesbian and coincidentally I stopped receiving any shifts.”

 

“I was in a casual position, the moment I began to transition however, I was shoved sideways and out the door. No more hours.”

 

  • Contracts not being renewed

 

My contract was not renewed because I am gay”

 

“I believe that when my homophobic boss found out I was gay, she discontinued my contract”

 

  • Being denied other employee entitlements

 

“I wasn’t allowed to nominate my partner to receive my superannuation in the event of my death.”

 

Some survey respondents indicated they were punished because of fears (real or perceived) that clients would react badly to their sexual orientation or gender identity:

 

“I have been turned down for some jobs where I would be dealing with the public in hospitality because I was a non passing trans woman.”

 

“I had a job interview with an organisation specialising in disability support in the Midland area (Western Australia), to work as a disability support officer. I had already done exactly the same work for about a year with two other similar organisations which both wanted me to take on more hours. Because those organisations were both a long drive from where I lived I wanted to change to a closer employer. At the end of the interview one of the two interviewers said they could not employ a transgender person because their clients would not accept me. Funny that, their clients must have been very different from the other clients who accepted me without question.”

 

“Clients have refused to hire me and have been open about it being related to my sexuality. My clients’ clients have been very vocal and made complaints about hiring me because of my work with young people and their sexuality/gender identity/expression”

 

For some, workplace homophobia, biphobia, transphobia or intersexphobia was explained by a need to ‘protect’ children:

 

I was sacked in 1987 because I was gay and working as a swimming teacher with children. Despite my full accreditation this was perceived to be inappropriate. I had no resources to take legal action as I was just 19, from a poor background and despite being the regional swimming champion the community had turned against me.”

 

“One employer was so uncomfortable with my sexuality that he would not allow his 3 daughters to have contact with me despite bringing them into the office frequently.”

 

“In 2012 my boss suggested that we have 2 Christmas dinners. One for people with kids, and a separate one with just me and the 2 bosses because “it’s not appropriate to allow a gay man near the kids of other staff members”. I worked at an adult store (sex shop), where I thought I’d be accepted by open minds. I was wrong.”

 

“I was doing work with teenagers at my church’s youth group, but when I refused to hide my sexuality I was told that I was being a bad influence on the kids and would let the devil into their lives and condemn them to damnation. I was no longer allowed to work with the teenagers.”

 

This last example points to a much larger issue – employment-related discrimination by religious organisations, as evidenced by the following responses:

 

“I was a charge nurse of an operating suite that had successfully turned around the fortunes of a religious based hospital: a new manager was appointed that decided to “root out’ all the homosexuals working in the organisation.”

 

“I have been asked to sign a document that guarantees my not wilfully “sinning” (listing homosexual acts as one of those sins) in order to be considered for employment at a religious school.”

 

“After completing my course with results and references from teachers and clinical placements which were far superior to other students, I received no interviews or call backs from employers from religious organisations. I did find work at a private company in my field and am doing well in my job. I feel like my talents and abilities were denied to the clients of these religious employers because of my gender identity and my employment options were severely limited.”

 

“I work as a nurse at a religious based hospital and I experience bullying/ homophobic remarks frequently at work”

 

“company bought out by exclusive brethren, all gays got sacked, was obvious, but they got away with it. “company restructure”…”

 

“I was employed by the Salvation Army. They told me not to have a photo of me and my partner on my desk even though all the Het people had their photos on their desks. I was then told they accept me being a Lesbian provided I’m not a practicing Lesbian. They put a private detective on me and harassed me out of my job.”

 

“I was required to resign my job in 2006 when I came out as gay because my employer was religious. The job had only tangential connection to his religion. I chose not to fight the discrimination – I had lost the heart to work there any more any way. I was then unemployed for 8 months.”

 

“Before I moved into my own practice, I was working in a Baptist school on a maternity leave position. The position then became a permanent role. My manager wanted me to apply and she put my name forward. They pretty much told her that they did not want me in the role because of my “sexuality”…”

 

“Many years ago I won a job in a religious school, was offered the job and then the offer was withdrawn with the explanation that I would not fit the culture.”

 

The public service was not exempt from examples of anti-LGBTIQ discrimination (although some were more historical than others):

 

Being told my sexuality would count against me in an interview for a public sector position.”

 

“In 2012 I was appointed as [senior position] in the [redacted] government. It was a high level and high profile appointment. The Deputy Secretary of the Department who appointed me, wrongly informed the Secretary (i.e. CEO) of the Department that I was gay, in the period when I was coming on board in the role. His response? He told the Dep Sec “I hope he’s not going to flaunt it”. This from one of the highest paid public servants in the entire public service in [redacted] – and the very person who was supposed to safeguard the rights of me and all his other employees. Unbelievable!”

 

“In the early 1990s, I was working in the Commonwealth Public Service in Sydney. I applied for a job at a higher level and was accepted for interview. I was told that although I had come first in the selection process, the job was going to be given to the second-rated candidate because as he was a “family man” he deserved the promotion (and increase in income) more than I did.”

 

“Face significant formal (policy) and informal (cultural attitudes) discrimination in the workplace as an ADF member. Whilst this is improving, it is wrong to say that I am not discriminated against – e.g. placed in the wrong accommodation area, having to adhere to binary uniform codes, etc.”

 

As suggested by the statistics earlier, transgender respondents provided a range of examples of workplace discrimination:

 

“Very difficult to apply for job when all experience and jobs were held under previous identity”

 

“I was told that because I wasn’t using my legal name in my application, I couldn’t be input into their system, and hence did not receive an interview.”

 

“After losing my job, at every interview I’ve been told I ‘got the job’, and once they receive my legal documents and tax file number they never get back to me. At one interview, they told me that my gender identity was a ‘mental illness’ and they needed a doctor’s note before I could work.”

 

“HR seemed to take me seriously at first but whenever I would make a small mistake she would blame it on my transition saying that I was a different and less capable person (primarily she blamed hormone therapy). Most of the time she would talk about me to other people and I needed to quit that job for my own mental health.”

 

“Employers felt uncomfortable with my gender identity and asked me not to wear a binder at work. I’ve started presenting as only female at work now. It’s killing me”

 

“Despite the fact I had a name tag that said Adam and had introduced myself as trans, I was constantly called she. I complained to a manager and it happened again, in a group chat to all employees and managers I yet again said in the kindest way that I do wish to be respected and not misgendered and later that night and from then on was still misgendered.”

 

“Refusal to change name in email system. Misgendering during heated discussions (seemingly deliberate). Office doesn’t have gender-neutral toilets, asked to use toilets of assigned gender. Could go on…”

 

“When I finally told my work I was Transitioning I was made to feel an outcast and I finally left the position”

 

“My work requires i wear a male uniform regardless of my gender identity. I didn’t get a choice of what gender uniform. Only got to choose the size”

 

Disturbingly, some survey respondents reported complaining about the anti-LGBTIQ conduct they experienced, but then no (or insufficient) action being taken:

 

“I have also been the subject of religious based hate speech in a non religious school in the lunch room and that was let slide despite my protestations.”

 

“Gay and AIDS jokes being made, and then on one occasion when i complained to the manager, the manager made me stay home whilst she investigated the complaint, which made me feel as if I was being punished and not the offender.”

 

A few respondents noted the difficulty of proving homophobic discrimination:

 

“It’s really hard to explain, you know when people are making decisions about you without actually saying out loud it’s homophobia. It can be very obscure & hard to prove, but its there alright.”

 

“I can’t prove it but have a strong suspicion my position was made redundant because my boss found out I was gay”

 

This final comment explicitly describes discrimination by religious organisations, the fact that it remains completely lawful in most circumstances, and the impact that this has:

 

“This is an area that I get upset about, especially working for a religious organisation. The invisibility and intolerance by some people is hard to bear, especially knowing that religious organisations are exempt from the Anti-Discrimination Act. Living with the fear that if management realise you are gay and sack you for being gay – this is TOTALLY LEGAL. This is totally unjust and disgraceful that anti-discrimination law actually endorses and permits discrimination. I recently had a new manager who, though looking cool, held some very conservative views. I didn’t dare sound him out on gay issues, because I would have been lectured that I was an abomination for being gay (as other people have told me). This leads me to not reveal my true identity at work and to live in some fear of discrimination (knowing the law does not protect me)”

 

**********

 

Conclusion

 

The results of these four questions have confirmed that homophobic, biphobic, transphobic and intersexphobic discrimination in employment is relatively widespread, and has a significant impact on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer Australians.

 

This includes 3 in every 10 respondents people reporting lifetime experience of such discrimination, with 1 in 7 reporting at least one instance of anti-LGBTIQ discrimination in employment in the last 12 months alone.

 

Some groups within the community reported even higher lifetime rates than this already high average, with intersex and trans people, Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander LGBTIQ people and people aged 45 to 64 particularly affected.

 

While the rates of discrimination by religious organisations were comparatively low, this is likely explained by the lower numbers of people employed in this sector (especially compared to the far higher proportion of students in religious schools).

 

The personal examples of employment-related discrimination shared in response to question 4 demonstrate the many different forms such prejudice can take, with a particular focus on transphobia, and discrimination by religious organisations (noting that such mistreatment is entirely lawful in most jurisdictions due to religious exceptions to anti-discrimination laws).

 

As noted at the beginning of this post, this has been the fifth in my series of six articles reporting the results of my The State of Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia survey. The remaining article, which will focus on discrimination in health and other areas, will be published within the next week.

 

If you would like to receive updates of these results, please sign up to this blog: on mobile, at the bottom of this page, or on desktop at the top right-hand corner of the screen.

 

**********

 

If this post has raised any issues for you, you can contact:

 

  • QLife, Australia’s national telephone and web counselling and referral service for LGBTI people.

Freecall: 1800 184 527, Webchat: qlife.org.au (3pm to midnight every day)

 

Footnotes:

[i] The previous posts can be found here:

Part 1: Verbal Harassment and Abuse

Part 2: Physical Abuse or Violence

Part 3: Where Discriminatory Comments Occur and Their Impact 

Part 4: Discrimination in Education

[ii] 490 people responded to question 2: 235 yes/255 no.

[iii] 490 people responded to question 3: 99 yes/391 no.

[iv] 320 people responded to question 1: 101 yes/219 no.

[v] 49 respondents.

[vi] 35 respondents.

[vii] 629 people responded to question 1: 216 yes/413 no.

[viii] 82 respondents.

[ix] 37 respondents.

[x] 513 people responded to question 1: 104 yes/409 no.

[xi] 57 respondents.

[xii] 22 respondents.

[xiii] 367 people responded to question 1: 163 yes/204 no.

[xiv] 107 respondents.

[xv] 62 respondents.

[xvi] 15 people responded to question 1: 11 yes/4 no. Note that, given the small sample size, these percentages should be treated with some caution.

[xvii] 6 respondents.

[xviii] 3 respondents.

[xix] 485 people responded to question 1: 147 yes/338 no.

[xx] 82 respondents.

[xxi] 29 respondents.

[xxii] I have excluded the figures for discrimination by religious employers, which ranged from 1.8% for trans and gay, to 8.1% for trans and queer, with trans and lesbian, and trans and bisexual, sitting in the middle.

[xxiii] 43 respondents total, with 16 yes to question 1 and 11 yes to question 2.

[xxiv] 57 respondents total, with 27 yes to question 1 and 16 yes to question 2.

[xxv] 122 respondents total, with 44 yes to question1 and 30 yes to question 2.

[xxvi] 185 respondents total, with 78 yes to question 1 and 48 yes to question 2.

[xxvii] 58 people responded to question 1: 22 yes/36 no.

[xxviii] 9 respondents.

[xxix] 4 respondents.

[xxx] 871 people responded to question 1: 182 yes/689 no.

[xxxi] 120 respondents.

[xxxii] 33 respondents.

[xxxiii] 431 people responded to question 1: 159 yes/272 no.

[xxxiv] 70 respondents.

[xxxv] 30 respondents.

[xxxvi] 274 people responded to question 1: 133 yes/141 no.

[xxxvii] 44 respondents.

[xxxviii] 31 respondents.

[xxxix] 31 people responded to question 1: 13 yes/18 no. Note that, given the small sample size, these percentages should be treated with some caution.

[xl] 5 respondents.

[xli] 530 people responded to question 1: 152 yes/378 no.

[xlii] 71 respondents.

[xliii] 30 respondents.

[xliv] 379 people responded to question 1: 125 yes/254 no.

[xlv] 54 respondents.

[xlvi] 25 respondents.

[xlvii] 246 people responded to question 1: 90 yes/156 no.

[xlviii] 43 respondents.

[xlix] 17 respondents.

[l] 150 people responded to question 1: 49 yes/101 no.

[li] 26 respondents.

[lii] 8 respondents.

[liii] 133 people responded to question 1: 35 yes/98 no.

[liv] 21 respondents.

[lv] 10 respondents.

[lvi] 108 people responded to question 1: 22 yes/86 no.

[lvii] 10 respondents.

[lviii] 4 respondents.

[lix] 56 people responded to question 1: 11 yes/45 no.

[lx] 8 respondents.

[lxi] 2 respondents.

[lxii] 20 people responded to question 1: 7 yes/13 no. Note that, given the small sample size, these percentages should be treated with some caution.

[lxiii] 2 respondents.

[lxiv] 3 respondents.

[lxv] In this context, lightly-edited includes:

-Removing identifying information

-Removing potentially defamatory comments and

-Removing offensive remarks.

I have also corrected some spelling/grammatical mistakes for ease of reading.

Advertisements

Submission to National LGBTI Ageing and Aged Care Strategy Review

The Commonwealth Department of Health is currently undertaking a review of the National LGBTI Ageing and Aged Care Strategy, with detailed public submissions due by Friday 12 May 2017. Full details here.

 

My submission focuses on the issue of LGBTI anti-discrimination protections, and answers two of the main questions in the submission template:

 

5.3 In terms of the LGBTI Strategy, where do you think the government and aged care sector need to improve?

 

In this submission, I would like to raise one specific area where, despite some progress having been made, there remains a significant, and urgent, need for further action – and that is the anti-discrimination protections that are provided under the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984.

 

One of the (many) positive features of the historic Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013 was the ‘carve-out’ to ensure that Commonwealth-funded aged care services operated by religious organisations could not discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people accessing those services.

 

As noted in section 37:

Religious bodies

(1) Nothing in Division 1 or 2 affects…

(d) any other act or practice of a body established for religious purposes, being an act or practice that conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of that religion or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion.

(2) Paragraph (1)(d) does not apply to an act or practice of a body established for religious purposes if:

(a) the act or practice is connected with the provision, by the body, of Commonwealth-funded aged care; and

(b) the act or practice is not connected with the employment of persons to provide that aged care.”

 

This exception from the over-arching ‘religious exceptions’ provided under the Act was a major achievement in and of itself, removing discrimination from a vulnerable group within a vulnerable group (older LGBTI people within the overall LGBTI community).

 

More importantly, the aged care carve-out in the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984 underpins many other achievements of the National LGBTI Ageing and Aged Care Strategy in improving the circumstances of older LGBTI people who live in facilities operated by religious organisations.

 

However, from my perspective, this important reform remains incomplete – because, while it is essential that all Commonwealth-funded aged care services are not permitted to discriminate against LGBTI people accessing their services, I do not believe such services will ever be completely inclusive while they retain the ‘right’ to discriminate against LGBTI people who are employed there.

 

This can be illustrated by considering this issue – the ongoing ability of Commonwealth-funded aged care services operated by religious organisations to fire, or refuse to hire, LGBTI employees – in the context of two of the Principles, and associated Goals, of the existing Strategy.

 

  1. Access and Equity

 

The 3rd Principle contained in the National LGBTI Ageing and Aged Care Strategy is “Access and Equity – All areas of aged care understand the importance of, and deliver, LGBTI-inclusive services”. This is reflected in the 3rd Goal: “Ageing and aged care services will be supported to deliver LGBTI-inclusive services.”

 

Of course, significant work can be, and in many cases has been, done to ensure that the services provided directly to LGBTI older people are as inclusive as possible. But, my fundamental question is: how genuinely inclusive can a service be, taken as a whole, where a member of staff can still be disciplined, or even terminated, for merely disclosing their sexual orientation or gender identity?

 

Is it ‘inclusive’ when a member of staff can be punished for engaging with a LGBTI service user by expressing empathy with them, exchanging personal stories about their respective same-sex partners in the ordinary course of conversation?

 

Is it ‘inclusive’ when an employee can be fired for simply talking with an older LGBTI resident, asking questions about that person’s background and in the process disclosing their own trans gender identity?

 

The answer must be an unequivocal no. The threat of discrimination against LGBTI employees in Commonwealth-funded aged care services operated by religious organisations casts a long shadow over the ability for any such facility to be genuinely inclusive.

 

The only way a fully inclusive aged care service can be provided is by ensuring all LGBTI employees are able to be themselves, and express themselves, in their workplace, without the risk of punishment for who they are or who they love.

 

  1. Quality

 

The 4th Principle featured in the National LGBTI Ageing and Aged Care Strategy is “Quality – Care and support services provide quality services that meet the needs of older LGBTI people, their families and carers and are assessed accordingly”.

 

This principle is then reflected in the 4th Goal: “LGBTI-inclusive ageing and aged care services will be delivered by a skilled and competent paid and volunteer workforce.”

 

There is, however, an inherent contradiction in setting quality as a principle and goal while at the same time legally allowing some Commonwealth-funded aged care facilities to fire, or refuse to hire, staff simply because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

 

Such an exception means there will inevitably be some situations where the best person for a particular position is not employed due to factors that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with their ability. This substantively undermines the ‘quality’ that such a service provides to its residents (both LGBTI and non-LGBTI alike).

 

In short, aged care services should be delivered by the most ‘skilled and competent paid and volunteer workforce’, not the most ‘skilled and competent cisgender heterosexual paid and volunteer workforce.’

 

The inconsistency that lies at the heart of the Strategy is further revealed by considering one of the dot points under the Principle of ‘Quality’ on page 11 of the existing National LGBTI Ageing and Aged Care Strategy:

 

“All aged care staff, from administration to management, understand the life experiences and needs of LGBTI people and are equipped with the necessary tools to provide LGBTI-inclusive practice.”

 

Prima facie, this statement is commendable – that all people providing aged care services ‘understand the life experiences and needs of LGBTI people’.

 

But, looked at in another way, it is absurd to declare all staff should ‘understand the life experiences and needs of LGBTI people’ when we continue to permit some Commonwealth-funded aged care services to discriminate against staff who themselves have life experience as a member of the LGBTI community (and who would therefore already have many of ‘the necessary tools to provide LGBTI-inclusive practice’).

 

Overall, then, I believe that ‘quality’ is a worthy goal to aspire to, and, just as importantly, that it should be delivered by the best workforce possible, irrespective of their sexual orientation or gender identity. This means removing the ‘right’ of some Commonwealth-funded aged care services to discriminate against employees on the basis of fundamentally irrelevant factors.

 

6.2 What issues or specific actions do you believe should be included in the LGBTI Aged Care Action Plan that will be developed under the Diversity Framework?

 

As noted in my earlier answer to question 5.3, I believe that a key problem that must be addressed is the ongoing ability of some Commonwealth-funded aged care services to discriminate against LGBTI employees. This undermines the ability of these organisations to provide a service that is fully inclusive of LGBTI people, as well as limiting the quality of their workforce.

 

This problem should be addressed by the Commonwealth Government, by amending section 37 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 to ensure that Commonwealth-funded aged care services cannot discriminate against LGBTI employees (and contract workers), in addition to the existing protections for LGBTI people accessing those services.

 

Such an amendment should be welcomed by organisations across the aged care sector, including those run by religious organisations, because it would help ensure these services are provided by the best possible workforce, and not the best possible cisgender heterosexual workforce.

 

170508 Aged Care Image

The National LGBTI Ageing and Aged Care Strategy is currently under review.

The Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill is Unacceptable

This time last week, our major focus was, understandably, on ensuring Bill Shorten and the Australian Labor Party listened to the concerns of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) community and agreed to block Malcolm Turnbull’s unnecessary, wasteful and divisive plebiscite.

With that particular mission (almost) accomplished – although the plebiscite’s enabling legislation won’t be ‘dead, buried and cremated’ until it is finally voted down by the Senate in November – it is time to turn our attention to another battle, and that is the issue of religious exceptions.

Last Monday night (10 October 2016), the Government, via Attorney-General George Brandis, released an exposure draft of the legislation it would put before parliament in the event the plebiscite is held, and if that vote was successful.

Since that time, a number of people have expressed their serious concerns about the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill, and especially about the broad ‘rights to discriminate’ contained within. Now that I have had the opportunity to examine this Bill in detail, I am afraid I must join their condemnatory chorus.

Nearly everything about this Bill, from its title down, is unacceptable. It is far more focussed on ensuring that religious organisations, and even individuals, can refuse to serve LGBTI people, than it is about ensuring LGBTI couples are treated equally, and above all fairly, under the law. And, for the reasons that I will outline below, I sincerely believe it should be rejected in its current form.

**********

First, let’s start with that title, and specifically the phrase ‘same-sex marriage’, which is also used in the Bill’s long title (“A Bill for an Act to provide for same-sex marriage, and for related purposes”).

For the umpteenth time, and for the benefit of slow learners like Prime Minister Turnbull and Senator Brandis, ensuring that all LGBTI Australians can marry is not ‘same-sex marriage’, but ‘marriage equality’.

The former phrase is narrow and excludes non-binary trans people, as well as many intersex individuals. Only the latter phrase captures all couples, irrespective of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status.

Fortunately, the substance of the Bill actually does include all people – the primary clause would amend the homophobic definition of the Marriage Act enacted by John Howard’s Liberal-National Government in 2004 to read “marriage means the union of 2 people to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.”

If that is the case, then why has the Government used the inaccurate phrase ‘same-sex marriage’ in the Bill’s title?

Perhaps it is simply politics, and the ongoing inability of the Coalition’s right-wing to acknowledge that this is, fundamentally, an issue of equality (although not referring to it as marriage equality even after the majority of the population voted for it – which is the precondition for this Bill – would seem to me incredibly petty).

On the other hand, maybe Turnbull and Brandis are right to shy away from describing this legislation as ‘marriage equality’ – because, in the vast majority of its provisions, it is nothing of the sort. Indeed, most of the Bill’s clauses are actually concerned with ensuring couples other than ‘a man and a woman’ are able to be refused service in a wide range of circumstances.

Which means that a far more accurate title for this legislation might be the ‘Marriage Amendment (Allowing any 2 adults to marry, but then allowing them to be denied service if they are LGBTI) Bill’. But, as well as being a mouthful, that might be a little too much ‘truth in advertising’ for this particular Government.

**********

Turning to the more substantive faults of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill, and the first concerns the rights of ministers of religion to refuse to conduct LGBTI weddings.

Now, let me begin by saying that I actually agree that ministers of religion should legally have the ability to accept, or reject, any couple who wishes to be married by them through a religious ceremony (even if I personally believe that such discrimination is abhorrent).

Indeed, that ‘right’ is already provided to ministers of religion under section 47 of the Marriage Act 1961: “Ministers of religion not bound to solemnise marriage etc. Nothing in this Part: (a) imposes an obligation on an authorised celebrant, being a minister of religion, to solemnise any marriage…”

Which means that no amendments are required to the Act to allow ministers of religion to refuse to officiate LGBTI weddings (and none have been proposed by previous marriage equality Bills from Labor, the Greens and even last-year’s cross-party Bill from MPs including Liberal Warren Entsch). So why then does the Bill repeal section 47 and replace it with the following:

Ministers of religion may refuse to solemnise marriages

Refusing to solemnise a marriage that is not the union of a man and a woman

(3) A minister of religion may refuse to solemnise a marriage despite any law (including this Part) if:

(a) the refusal is because the marriage is not the union of a man and a woman; and

(b) any of the following applies:

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

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

(iii) the minister’s conscientious or religious beliefs do not allow the minister to solemnise the marriage.”

Ministers of religion will still have exactly the same right to refuse to perform any wedding, including newly-recognised LGBTI weddings[i], that they have now. Arguably, it would provide a greater ability for religious organisations to impose their official doctrine on ministers of religion within their faith – although, as we have seen recently, imposing such views is already commonplace.

But the overall power will remain basically the same. So, why introduce these new provisions, spelling out in detail the ability to decline non- ‘man/woman’ marriages, at all?

It is difficult to see any other motivation than plain old homophobia and transphobia.

And that becomes apparent when comparing it against another issue that is also contrary to some religious views – divorce and remarriage[ii]. The Catholic Church in particular espouses an official view against both, and its ministers would therefore reserve the right to decline to officiate second (or third, fourth or even fifth) weddings.

Under both the existing, and the proposed new, sections 47 a minister of religion has the ability to reject couples in these circumstances – without it being spelled out. Just as the wording of the existing section 47 would allow them to reject LGBTI couples, were it to be retained following the introduction of marriage equality, without it necessarily being spelled out.

Which means there is absolutely no valid reason to insert new provisions that single out LGBTI couples (or non- ‘man/woman’ couples) for special, and detrimental, treatment, as part of a redrafted section 47.

Therefore, while the continuing ability of ministers of religion to decline to officiate weddings is not particularly problematic (from a legal point of view anyway), the unnecessary insertion of clauses which specify the right to discriminate against LGBTI couples – but not any other couples – definitely is.

The proposed new section 47 is homophobic and transphobic. It is unacceptable, and it must be rejected.

**********

Sadly, it only gets worse from here. The second substantive fault of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill is the creation of an entirely new ‘right’ to discriminate against LGBTI couples.

Currently, only ministers of religion have an explicit ‘opt-out’ clause. No equivalent provision or power exists for civil celebrants[iii] – which is entirely reasonable, given they are essentially ‘small businesses’, providing a service that the government has authorised them to, and explicitly not acting on behalf of any religion or religious organisation.

However, the Government is proposing, through this Bill, to allow even these ‘secular’ civil celebrants to reject LGBTI couples simply because of who they are (again, this is something that has not been included in most previous Bills, other than that from Senator David Leyonhjelm[iv]). Proposed new section 47A reads:

Marriage celebrants may refuse to solemnise marriages

(1) A marriage celebrant (not being a minister of religion) may refuse to solemnise a marriage despite any law (including this Part) if:

(a) the refusal is because the marriage is not the union of a man and a woman; and

(b) the marriage celebrant’s conscientious or religious beliefs do not allow the marriage celebrant to solemnise the marriage.”

This is, to put it simply, outrageous.

There is absolutely no reason why someone who is engaged in small business should be able to discriminate in such a way, against people who are LGBTI, simply because of their ‘personal beliefs’. It is the equivalent of encouraging them to put up a sign saying ‘no gays (or lesbians, or bisexuals, or trans people, or intersex people) allowed.’

And exactly how outrageous, and offensive, is revealed by once again comparing it to the situation with divorce and remarriage.

Despite whatever personal beliefs a civil celebrant may hold, and even after the Government’s Bill was passed, they would still not be able to formally decline to officiate someone’s second (or subsequent) wedding. Indeed, it is likely such discrimination would be unlawful under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, which includes ‘marital or relationship status’ as a protected attribute in section 6[v].

In contrast, if the new section 47A was included in any amendments to the Marriage Act, these same celebrants would be able to reject LGBTI couples on the basis that they were not ‘a man and a woman’[vi], and for no other reason.

In effect, Malcolm Turnbull and his Government are saying that the religious beliefs of civil celebrants can be used to justify discrimination – but only if those religious beliefs are anti-LGBTI (and not, for example, if they are opposed to divorce).

Once again, I am forced to conclude that the proposed new section 47A is homophobic and transphobic. It is unacceptable, and it must be rejected.

**********

But it’s not just civil celebrants who will be allowed to put up unwelcome, on multiple levels, signs saying ‘no gays (or lesbians, or bisexuals, or trans people, or intersex people) allowed’. Religious bodies or organisations will also be able to do so as part of proposed new section 47B, which reads:

Religious bodies and organisations may refuse to make facilities available or provide goods or services

(1) A religious body or a religious organisation may, despite any law (including this Part), refuse to make a facility available, or to provide goods or services, for the purposes of the solemnisation of a marriage, or for purposes reasonably incidental to the solemnisation of a marriage, if:

(a) the refusal is because the marriage is not the union of a man and a woman; and

(b) the refusal:

(i) conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of the religion of the religious body or religious organisation; or

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

If this provision were solely concerned with providing clarity that religious bodies were not obliged to conduct any weddings that they did not condone in their places of worship, like churches, then it may have almost been reasonable.

However, section 47B goes far beyond what would be required to achieve that limited goal. Instead, it provides a wide-ranging ‘right to discriminate’ against LGBTI couples, one that is problematic in at least three key ways:

  • It applies to more than just facilities, but also to the provision of ‘goods and services’, which, given the extent of influence of religious bodies and organisations in Australia, is incredibly broad
  • Sub-section (2)[vii] makes it clear that this right extends to religious bodies or organisations that are engaged in providing commercial services, for profit, and
  • The phrase “for purposes reasonably incidental to the solemnisation of a marriage” is vague, and left undefined, and could potentially capture a range of facilities, goods or services that are not directly connected to either a wedding ceremony or reception.

This section is also cause for concern in that it establishes a precedent whereby discrimination against LGBTI couples is encouraged. One consequence is that, while the current Bill does not allow florists, wedding cake-bakers, photographers or reception venues to refuse service (unless of course they themselves are run by a religious organisation), their voices demanding such exceptions in future will only get louder.

But again the major problem with this section is that it is singling out LGBTI couples – or anyone who doesn’t fit within the definition of ‘a man and a woman’[viii] – for special, and detrimental, treatment. And literally nobody else.

As with civil celebrants, it is only homophobic and transphobic religious belief that is preferenced here – other sincerely-held religious beliefs, for example, against divorce and remarriage, do not attract any such right. Which means that, yet again, the Liberal-National Government is expressing its support for religious freedom, but only as long as the beliefs concerned are anti-LGBTI.

The only possible conclusion is that proposed new section 47B is homophobic and transphobic, which makes it unacceptable. It must be rejected.

**********

The fourth and final substantive fault in the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill is the addition of a note to section 81, which deals with the rights of Defence Force chaplains to refuse to solemnise weddings.

The new note reads: “Example: A chaplain may refuse to solemnise a marriage that is not the union of a man and a woman where the refusal conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of the chaplain’s church or faith group.”

I am strongly opposed to allowing these chaplains to discriminate against LGBTI couples in this way. Which might be surprising to some, especially given my view, expressed above, that ministers of religion should legally have this right.

Surprising, that is, until you consider that Defence Force chaplains are public servants, paid for out of everyone’s taxes – LGBTI and non-LGBTI, and religious and non-religious, alike[ix]. Indeed, the Defence Jobs Australia website indicates that chaplains are paid over $94,200 following completion of basic training.

The same website also claims that chaplains must “administer spiritual support to all members, regardless of their religion.”

Therefore, allowing discrimination by Defence Force chaplains fails in principle on two counts:

  • As public servants they should not be able to discriminate against members of the public simply because of their personal beliefs (otherwise we are allowing the Australian equivalent of Kim Davis), and
  • In providing spiritual support to Defence Force personnel, they are expected to do so for all people, not just those who are cisgender and/or heterosexual.

Which means that, if Defence Force chaplains are to continue to be authorised to officiate any weddings, then that must include the weddings of LGBTI people.

To do otherwise is, once again, homophobic and transphobic. It is unacceptable, and it must be rejected.

**********

There follows a few provisions that are actually positive in nature – removing the existing prohibition on the recognition of foreign marriages between two men, or two women[x] – before one final provision that establishes, clearly, that the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill is more concerned with promoting homophobia and transphobia than in addressing LGBTI inequality.

That is an amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act provision[xi] that currently provides an exception for conduct which is “in direct compliance with” the Marriage Act – because, for example, a civil celebrant is unable to lawfully marry an LGBTI couple.

The introduction of genuine marriage equality should lessen that discrimination, and potentially even obviate the need for such a provision to begin with.

Instead, this amendment expands the exception, by adding conduct that is “authorised by” the Marriage Act, thus ensuring that the exceptions to Australia’s federal LGBTI anti-discrimination framework, which are already too broad[xii], are broadened even further.

**********

SENATE SINODINOS DEBATE

Attorney-General George Brandis’ Bill is not aimed at achieving genuine marriage equality, and should perhaps be renamed the Marriage Amendment (Allowing any 2 adults to marry, but then allowing them to be denied service if they are LGBTI) Bill.

It is disappointing, although perhaps not entirely surprising, to observe that Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and his Liberal-National Government just don’t get it when it comes to marriage equality.

First, they sought to impose an unnecessary, wasteful and divisive plebiscite on LGBTI Australians in order for our relationships to simply be recognised as equal under secular law.

Then we discover that their planned ‘reward’ – if the plebiscite is held, and if we are ultimately successful in their $200 million+ national opinion poll – is actually a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation, that spends more time and effort in expanding the rights of religious bodies, and civil celebrants, to discriminate against us than in actually implementing marriage equality.

We all know, far too well, that the equal recognition of our relationships is long overdue in Australian law. Unfortunately, that equality, genuine equality, will not be achieved via passage of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill.

At its core, it is homophobic and transphobic, making it unacceptable. I believe that, just as we have campaigned for Parliament to reject the plebiscite, and adopt a better process, we must also demand that they reject this ill-conceived legislation, and replace it with a better Bill.

If you believe that marriage equality should be exactly that – equality – please sign & share this petition to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull: Equal Love Should Not Be Treated Unequally.

Footnotes:

[i] It would appear that this provision does not explicitly allow ministers of religion to discriminate against trans individuals or couples where the union is between two people who identify as a man and a woman – although the catch-all ‘right to discriminate’ in 47(1) “A minister of religion may refuse to solemnise a marriage despite anything in this part” would nevertheless still apply.

[ii] Please note that I am not expressing support for such beliefs (against divorce and remarriage). I am merely using this example because, given many people sincerely hold such views, their differential treatment under the Bill makes it clear that the legislation is not concerned with protecting religious freedom, but instead aims to legitimise homophobia and transphobia.

[iii] Curiously, both the Attorney-General’s Media Release announcing the Exposure Draft Bill, and sub-section 2 of the proposed new section 47A, imply that civil celebrants do have such a power. This may be based on a very generous interpretation of section 39F of the Marriage Act 1961 which notes that “A person who is registered as a marriage celebrant may solemnise marriages at any place in Australia” – and in particular that the word may is used here rather than must.

However, it is just as easily argued that the fact ministers of religion currently enjoy an explicit ‘right to discriminate’ under section 47, while there is no equivalent section for civil celebrants, means civil celebrants cannot simply reject couples for any reason whatsoever.

More importantly, without an explicit power, it is likely the actions of civil celebrants would be captured by the anti-discrimination protections of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 – currently, with respect to sex and relationship status, and, if marriage equality is passed, with respect to sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status (unless a new right to discriminate is inserted).

[iv] For more, please see: Senator Leyonhjelm’s Marriage Equality Bill undermines the principle of LGBTI anti-discrimination. Should we still support it?

[v] With the definition of ‘marital or relationship status’ in section 4 of the Sex Discrimination Act explicitly including “(d) divorced”.

[vi] Interestingly, my interpretation of this provision means that, unlike ministers of religion, civil celebrants would not be able to reject trans individuals or couples who identify as a man and a woman, particularly because there is no other stand-alone right to refuse.

[vii] Which reads “Subsection (1) applies to facilities made available, and goods and services provided, whether for payment or not.”

[viii] Interestingly, this section would not allow religious bodies or organisations to refuse to provide facilities, goods or services to weddings involving one or two trans people where the couple identified as a man and a woman, although it is possible religious exceptions contained in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 would make such discrimination lawful.

[ix] Of course, I would argue that the High Court should find this arrangement – the use of taxpayer funds to hire people to perform an explicitly religious function – to be unconstitutional under section 116, but that is an argument for another day (and probably for a more adventurous High Court too).

[x] Sections 88B(4) and 88EA.

[xi] Subsection 40(2A)

[xii] For more, please see: What’s Wrong With the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984?