Submission to the Australian Law Reform Commission Review of the Family Law System

Australian Law Reform Commission

via familylaw@alrc.gov.au

 

Tuesday 13 November 2018

 

To whom it may concern

 

Submission in response to the Review of the Family Law System Discussion Paper

 

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

 

While there are a number of important issues raised in the Discussion Paper, I will restrict my comments to one issue in particular: the welfare jurisdiction, and specifically its impact on people born with variations in sex characteristics.

 

This issue is discussed in Chapter 9 of the Discussion Paper, and specifically addressed in Question 9-1:

 

In relation to the welfare jurisdiction:

  • Should authorisation by a court, tribunal, or other regulatory body be required for procedures such as sterilisation of children with disability or intersex medical procedures? What body would be most appropriate to undertake this function?
  • In what circumstances should it be possible for this body to authorise sterilisation procedures or intersex medical procedures before a child is legally able to personally make these decisions?
  • What additional legislative, procedural or other safeguards, if any, should be put in place to ensure that the human rights of children are protected in these cases?

 

I will seek to answer these question as both an advocate for the overall lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) community, and specifically as an ally for intersex people, including as a supporter of Intersex Human Rights Australia (IHRA).

 

In this capacity – as an intersex ally – I have affirmed the March 2017 Darlington Statement of intersex advocates and organisations from Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand.

 

That Statement provides a clear set of principles which guide the response to the current Discussion Paper. This includes:

 

Article 5: Our rights to bodily integrity, physical autonomy and self determination.

 

Article 7: We call for the immediate prohibition as a criminal act of deferrable medical interventions, including surgical and hormonal interventions, that alter the sex characteristics of infants and children without personal consent. We call for freely-given and fully informed consent by individuals, with individuals and families having mandatory independent access to funded counselling and peer support.

 

Article 16: Current forms of oversight of medical interventions affecting people born with variations of sex characteristics have proven to be inadequate.

a. We note a lack of transparency about diverse standards of care and practices across Australia and New Zealand for all age groups.

b. We note that the Family Court system in Australia has failed to adequately consider the human rights and autonomy of children born with variations of sex characteristics, and the repercussions of medical interventions on individuals and their families. The role of the Family Court is itself unclear. Distinctions between ‘therapeutic’ and ‘non-therapeutic’ interventions have failed our population.

 

Article 22: We call for the provision of alternative, independent, effective human rights-based oversight mechanism(s) to determine individual cases involving persons born with intersex variations who are unable to consent to treatment, bringing together human rights experts, clinicians and intersex-led community organisations. The pros and cons for and against medical treatment must be properly ventilated and considered, including the lifetime health, legal, ethical, sexual and human rights implications.

 

Article 23: Multi-disciplinary teams must operate in line with transparent, human rights-based standards of care for the treatment of intersex people and bodies. Multi-disciplinary teams in hospitals must include human rights specialists, child advocates, and independent intersex community representatives [emphasis in original].

 

I also endorse the 7 May 2018 submission by Intersex Human Rights Australia to the Review of the Family Law System – Issues Paper.

 

This includes supporting their analysis of the serious problems caused by the jurisprudence of the Family Court to date in this area (on pages 33 to 42), specifically:

 

  • Welfare of a Child A (1993)
  • Re: Carla (Medical procedure) (2016)
  • Re: Lesley (Special Medical Procedure) (2008), and
  • Re: Kaitlin (2017).

 

The horrific circumstances of the Re: Carla case in particular demonstrate the acute failure of the Family Court to adequately protect the human rights of children born with intersex variations. Instead, the Family Court appears more likely to be complicit in, and sign off on, these same human rights violations.

 

It is hard not to agree with IHRA’s conclusion that: ‘this 2016 Family Court of Australia case is deeply disturbing, exemplifying the way that the human rights of intersex children are violated with inadequate evidence for social and cosmetic purposes’ (page 39).

 

I further endorse the summary findings of the IHRA submission (on page 42) including that:

 

  • The Family Court system has not understood the intersex population, nor the nature of procedures in cases that it has been asked to adjudicate. Most cases are not subject to even this limited form of oversight.
  • The Family Court has failed to properly utilise its procedures in order to ensure that the best interests of intersex children have been thoroughly investigated and understood within the medical context, and within the human rights context, and
  • The ‘best interests of the child’ has been interpreted through a narrow lens, manipulated to facilitate experimental treatments that, contrary to Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, conflict with the child’s human dignity and right to physical integrity. This has been facilitated through appeals to gender stereotypes and social norms with insufficient attention to the long-term health and well-being interests of the child.

 

And I support the recommendations made by IHRA on pages 43 and 44, including that:

 

Recommendation 4. Any non-deferrable interventions which alter the sex characteristics of infants and children proposed to be performed before a child is able to consent on their own behalf should be identified as medical treatment outside the scope of parental consent and requiring authorisation of an independent body (hereafter referred to as the ‘decision-making forum’). A decision-making forum must bring together human rights experts, clinicians, and intersex-led community organisations.

 

Recommendation 5. Whether consent is provided by the intersex minor or a decision-making forum, the pros and cons of medical treatment must be properly ventilated and considered, including the lifelong health, legal, ethical, sexual and human rights implications. Consent or authorisation for treatment must be premised on provision of all the available medical evidence on necessity, timing, and evaluation of outcome of medical interventions. Where this is no clinical consensus, this must be disclosed.

 

Recommendation 10. The current threshold criteria to determine whether or not a procedure is within the scope of parental authority is whether it is therapeutic or non-therapeutic. This criterion has failed to distinguish between interventions that are strictly clinically necessary and those that are not; between interventions based on culturally-specific social norms and gender stereotypes and those that are not. This criterion should be abandoned as a threshold test of whether a medical procedure requires oversight or authorisation from a decision-making forum, and

 

Recommendation 11. Children born with variations of sex characteristics must be treated by multi-disciplinary teams. Multi-disciplinary teams must operate in line with transparent, human rights-based standards of care for the treatment of intersex people and bodies. Multi-disciplinary teams in hospitals must include human rights specialists, child advocates, and independent intersex community representatives.

 

Based on all of the above factors, and returning to Question 9-1 in the Discussion Paper, my approach to these issues is therefore:

 

  • All deferrable medical interventions, including surgical and hormonal interventions, that alter the sex characteristics of infants and children with variations in sex characteristics without personal consent should be prohibited as criminal acts.
  • Where medical interventions on infants and children with variations in sex characteristics are considered non-deferrable, this must be subject to genuine independent oversight.
  • Based on the advice of Intersex Human Rights Australia, the experiences of far too many people born with intersex variations, and the jurisprudence cited earlier, adequate oversight is not being provided currently. The Family Court has failed, in its welfare jurisdiction, to protect the welfare of intersex infants and children.
  • Given this, the Family Court should no longer perform this function. Instead, a new independent authority should be created to oversee issues related to non-deferrable medical interventions on infants and children with variations in sex characteristics.
  • This new independent authority should primarily be guided by human rights considerations, including the human rights of the child concerned – rather than the current approach which both prioritises and privileges a medicalised approach to these questions.
  • Consequently, this new independent authority should receive evidence and information from human rights and children’s rights experts, from intersex-led community organisations and peers, alongside clinical and psychosocial experts. Only by hearing from all of these sources can the issues be properly ventilated.
  • This new independent authority should be national, both so that it can help ensure greater consistency, but also to assist with the transparency of and accountability for its decision-making.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this submission to this important inquiry. Please do not hesitate to contact me, at the details provided, should you require additional information.

 

Sincerely,

Alastair Lawrie

1200px-Intersex_flag.svg

Advertisements

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

The following is my personal submission to the Law Reform Commission of WA’s Review of Western Australian legislation in relation to the recognition of a person’s sex, change of sex or intersex status. For more information on this inquiry, click here.

**********

Law Reform Commission of Western Australia

Level 23, David Malcolm Justice Centre

28 Barrack St

Perth WA 6000

lrcwa@justice.wa.gov.au

 

Friday 19 October 2018

 

To whom it may concern

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

No.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Not applicable.

 

Other comments on the proposed model

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Other issues

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sincerely

Alastair Lawrie

 

Submission to AHRC Consultation re Medical Interventions on People Born with Variations of Sex Characteristics

This is my personal submission in response to the Australian Human Rights Commission’s July 2018 Consultation Paper ‘Protecting the Human Rights of People Born with Variations in Sex Characteristics in the context of Medical Interventions’.

This issue – involuntary medical interventions, including surgical and hormonal interventions, that alter the sex characteristics of intersex infants and children – is also the sixth post in a series looking at the unfinished business of LGBTI equality in Australia.

**********

Australian Human Rights Commission

c/- sogii@humanrights.gov.au

Sunday 30 September 2018

 

Submission in response to the Protecting the Human Rights of People Born with Variations in Sex Characteristics in the context of Medical Interventions Consultation Paper

 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission as part of this important consultation process.

 

I do so not as a person with variations in sex characteristics, but as a member of the broader LGBTI community and as an ally of the intersex community.

 

This includes explicitly supporting the goals of intersex people as expressed in the Darlington Statement: Joint consensus statement from the intersex community retreat in Darlington, March 2017.[i]

 

This submission is informed by that document, as well as The Yogyakarta Principles plus 10: Additional principles and state obligations on the application of international human rights law in relation to sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics to complement the Yogyakarta Principles.[ii]

 

As someone who is not an intersex person, I do not propose to answer the specific questions set out in the consultation paper. On these, I defer to the lived experience of people with variations in sex characteristics, as well as the expertise of organisations like Intersex Human Rights Australia and AIS Support Group Australia.

 

Instead, I will comment on the overall human rights challenges faced by the intersex community, and the main actions required to address these issues.

 

The biggest challenge is the ongoing practice of deferrable medical interventions, including surgical and hormonal interventions, that alter the sex characteristics of infants and children without personal consent.

 

Indeed, I would classify these acts as one of the two worst human rights abuses currently affecting the Australian LGBTI community (the other being the continuing mistreatment of LGBTI refugees, including their indefinite detention and proposed resettlement in countries that criminalise homosexuality).

 

Consequently, it is very welcome that the Australian Human Rights Commission is providing renewed attention to these human rights abuses through this consultation process.

 

However, this is only necessary because of the five years of inaction, by Commonwealth, state and territory governments, following the release of the seminal October 2013 Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs: Involuntary or Coerced Sterilisation of Intersex People in Australia.[iii]

 

Among other recommendations, that Committee recommended that:

 

‘all medical treatment of intersex people take place under guidelines that ensure treatment is managed by multidisciplinary teams within a human rights framework. The guidelines should favour deferral of normalising treatment until the person can give fully informed consent, and seek to minimise surgical intervention on infants undertaken for primarily psychosocial reasons’ (Recommendation 3).

 

It is shameful that even this modest recommendation has not been implemented by Australian governments. In the absence of such intervention, the human rights violations of intersex infants have continued unabated. By some estimates, hundreds of these surgeries occur each year.[iv]

 

The time for a primarily guidelines-based approach is now over. What is needed is an explicit legislative prohibition on the performance of unnecessary and involuntary medical interventions (including both surgical and hormonal interventions).

 

This has been recommended by the UN Committee on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women, which has stated that Australia should:

 

‘Adopt clear legislative provisions explicitly prohibiting the performance of unnecessary surgical or other medical treatment on intersex children before they reach the legal age of consent’.[v]

 

A similar call features in the Darlington Statement:

 

‘7. We call for the immediate prohibition as a criminal act of deferrable medical interventions, including surgical and hormonal interventions, that alter the sex characteristics of infants and children without personal consent. We call for freely-given and fully informed consent by individuals…’ (emphasis in original).

 

Importantly, these prohibitions must include sanctions for people who are found to breach these laws, including medical professionals.

 

Recommendation 1. Australian governments must introduce legislation to prohibit deferrable medical interventions, including surgical and hormonal interventions, that alter the sex characteristics of infants and children without personal consent, including penalties for breaching such laws.

 

It is important to recognise that this prohibition will not end all medical interventions on intersex children, including those that are considered both necessary and not deferrable. However, determining what falls within this definition is likely to be highly contested.

 

In order to ensure children who have the capacity to provide consent are appropriately informed and therefore in the best position to make such decisions, they must have access not just to medical opinions (which have traditionally favoured interventions) but also to independent counselling and support.

 

This was recommended by the UN Committee on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (that Australia should ‘provide families with intersex children with adequate counselling and support’), as well as in the Darlington Statement (that ‘individuals and families hav[e] mandatory independent access to funded counselling and peer support’).

 

Those last two words – ‘peer support’ – are perhaps the most important. Individuals, and especially intersex children who have the capacity to provide consent, should have access to the advice, information and support of intersex people and intersex-led community organisations.

 

Recommendation 2. Individuals who are asked to provide consent to necessary, non-deferrable medical interventions must have access to counselling and peer support, including from intersex people and intersex-led community organisations.

 

The advice, information and support of intersex people and organisations is also vital to assist parents and guardians who are asked to provide consent for necessary and non-deferrable medical interventions on behalf of children who are not in a position to provide their own consent.

 

In particular, this advice is essential to help prevent them from providing consent on the basis of social or cultural reasons. These rationales can involve a number of elements, including gender stereotypes and social norms.

 

On this point, it should be acknowledged that parents and guardians of intersex infants are likely to be subject to significant pressure from others that their children to conform to societal expectations (that they, and their bodies, are easily classifiable by others as either male or female).

 

This pressure can be, and has been, exploited by clinicians offering medical ‘solutions’ to what is not actually a problem in the first place, but rather simply the natural diversity of sex characteristics.

 

There is no valid social or cultural reason to modify the sex characteristics of children born with these variations, and certainly no social or cultural justification to override those children’s rights to bodily autonomy and physical integrity.

 

As part of their overall prohibition on modifications to the sex characteristics of minors in 2015, Malta explicitly prohibited such modifications due to social and cultural rationales. Given ongoing social and cultural pressures on the parents and guardians of intersex children here, Australian governments should introduce a similar prohibition.

 

Recommendation 3. Australian governments must explicitly prohibit the ability of parents and guardians to provide consent to modifications to the sex characteristics of children born with variations of sex characteristics on the basis of social or cultural rationales.

 

Even with the overall prohibition on deferrable medical interventions, the specific prohibition on parental consent based on social or cultural rationales, and the provision of peer support from intersex people and organisations, there will likely continue to be some medically necessary, non-deferrable, ‘therapeutic’ procedures performed on intersex infants and children into the future.

 

As I am not an expert in this area, I am not in a position to offer an opinion of what might constitute definitions of medical necessity or therapeutic (and alternatively, non-therapeutic) treatments. As a result, I defer to the expertise of organisations like Intersex Human Rights Australia and AIS Support Group Australia on these issues.

 

However, I do wish to make a comment on the process that should be adopted to ensure these procedures are indeed necessary, non-deferrable and therapeutic. I strongly support the creation of a new independent oversight body to review these decisions.

 

This body should not, indeed must not, be comprised solely of clinicians – particularly because it is clinicians who have been, and continue to be, the perpetrators of human rights violations on intersex infants and children. Instead, the body should include human rights experts, child advocates, and intersex-led community organisations as well as clinicians.

 

The role of the independent body would be to ventilate and consider the pros and cons of proposed medical interventions. This must include consideration of the lifelong health, legal, ethical, sexual and human rights implications of such procedures.

 

Consent or authorisation for treatment must be premised on provision of all available medical evidence on necessity, timing and evaluation of outcomes of medical interventions, including noting where there is either no evidence, or no clinical consensus, on outcomes.

 

Recommendation 4. That a new independent oversight body be created to review necessary, non-deferrable, therapeutic medical interventions on children born with variations of sex characteristics, comprising clinicians, human rights experts, child advocates and intersex-led community organisations.

 

The recommendations in this submission envisage a significant increase in the functions and responsibilities of intersex-led community organisations.

 

This includes being able to provide advice, information and support to intersex children, and their families, to inform their decision-making about medical interventions, as well as contributing to the new independent oversight body reviewing the pros and cons of medical interventions (alongside other groups).

 

It should be noted however that intersex-led community organisations, including Intersex Human Rights Australia and AIS Support Group Australia, are primarily run on a volunteer basis, with limited resources, financial or otherwise.

 

Therefore, in order to support them to perform these expanded roles efficiently and effectively, governments at both Commonwealth and state and territory level should provide ongoing funding to intersex community groups.

 

Personally, I believe this funding should go beyond the functions nominated in this submission, to incorporate broader peer support to all intersex people, including older intersex people adversely affected by human rights violations earlier in life.

 

Given the significant human rights challenges still faced by members of the intersex community, this funding should also support systemic policy advocacy by intersex-led community organisations (instead of funding to umbrella LGBTI organisations that may not have the same level of expertise or give the same level of priority to these issues).

 

Recommendation 5. That Commonwealth, state and territory governments provide ongoing funding to intersex-led community organisations, for the purposes of:

  • Peer support of individuals and families to inform decision-making about medical interventions
  • Serving on the new independent oversight body that reviews medical interventions
  • Broader peer support for all members of the intersex community, and
  • Systemic advocacy for all people with variations of sex characteristics.

 

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

Sincerely,

Alastair Lawrie

 

**********

 

Footnotes:

[i] From the Intersex Human Rights Australia website: https://ihra.org.au/darlington-statement/

[ii] As adopted on 10 November 2017, via: https://yogyakartaprinciples.org/principles-en/yp10/

[iii] Available here: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Involuntary_Sterilisation/Sec_Report/index

[iv] Intersex Human Rights Australia, ‘Submission to the Australian Law Reform Commission on the Review of the Family Law System – Issues Paper’, 7 May 2018.

[v] Committee on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women, ‘Concluding Observations on the Eighth Periodic Report of Australia’, 20 July 2018.

 

1200px-Intersex_flag.svg

5 Years of Commonwealth LGBTI Anti-Discrimination Laws. 5 Suggestions for Reform.

[NB This article is the third in a series looking at the ‘unfinished business’ of LGBTI equality in Australia]

 

Five years ago today, Commonwealth Parliament passed the historic Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013.

 

Almost four decades after the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, and nearly three decades after the passage of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) Australians finally received protection against discrimination under Commonwealth law.

 

While the SDA amendments were ground-breaking at the time, no piece of legislation is ever perfect. Five years into its operation, here are five areas in which I believe this Act can and should be improved.

 

  1. Update ‘intersex status’ to ‘sex characteristics’

 

With the passage of the 2013 amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act, Australia became one of the first jurisdictions in the world to explicitly protect people with intersex variations against discrimination.

 

This is because it added ‘intersex status’ as a stand-alone protected attribute, which was defined under section 4 as:

 

‘means the status of having physical, hormonal or genetic features that are:

(a) neither wholly female nor wholly male; or

(b) a combination of female and male; or

(c) neither female nor male.’

 

However, since then intersex advocates have expressed concerns about this wording, including that it may not adequately protect all intersex people (for example, potentially conflating or confusing issues of biology and identity).

 

For these reasons, in the landmark March 2017 Darlington Statement, OII Australia (now Intersex Human Rights Australia) and other intersex representatives ‘call[ed] for effective legislative protection from discrimination and harmful practices on grounds of sex characteristics’ [emphasis added].

 

Sex characteristics was then defined in the Yogyakarta Plus 10 Principles ‘as each person’s physical features relating to sex, including genitalia and other sexual and reproductive anatomy, chromosomes, hormones, and secondary physical features emerging from puberty.’

 

Australia helped lead the world in including ‘intersex status’ in the Sex Discrimination Act. Five years later we should take action again by updating this attribute to refer to ‘sex characteristics’ instead.

 

  1. Protect LGBT students against discrimination

 

A positive feature of the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013 was the aged care ‘carve-out’ from the otherwise overly-generous (see below) exceptions provided to religious organisations.

 

Sub-section 37(2) of the amended Sex Discrimination Act provides that the general exception ‘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.’

 

In effect, religious-operated aged care facilities that receive public funding are not permitted to discriminate against LGBT people accessing those services (although unfortunately they can still discriminate against LGBT employees).

 

Five years since this clause was passed, and there is exactly zero evidence that it has had any negative impact on the supposed ‘religious freedom’ of these institutions – and plenty of evidence that it has helped to protect older lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people from unjustifiable discrimination.

 

Now, it is time to ensure that an equivalent provision is introduced to protect people at the other end of the age spectrum from similar mistreatment: younger LGBT people who are students at government-funded religious schools and colleges.

 

These students are just as vulnerable as older LGBT people accessing aged care services, and just as with the ‘carve-out’ in sub-section 37(2), there is no reason why taxpayer money should be used to discriminate against them on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

 

It is time to amend the Sex Discrimination Act to remove the special privilege enjoyed by publicly-funded religious educational institutions to discriminate against LGBT students. This could be achieved by adding a similar carve-out in sub-section 37(2), and repealing sub-section 38(3), which also allows discrimination by religious schools against LGBT students.

 

  1. Limit overly-generous general religious exceptions

 

While I believe the exceptions allowing discrimination against LGBT students deserve special attention, it is also important to reform the broader religious exceptions contained in the Sex Discrimination Act.

 

Sub-section 37(1) currently provides that none of the Act’s LGBT discrimination protections apply to:

(a) ‘the ordination or appointment of priests, ministers of religion or members of any religious order;

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

(c) 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; or

(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.’

 

[Section 38 provides a similarly-worded exception in relation to education, with sub-section 38(1) allowing religious schools to discriminate against teachers and other employees, and sub-section 38(2) permitting discrimination against contract workers.]

 

These clauses, and especially s37(1)(d), provide religious organisations with carte blanche to discriminate against LGBT Australians on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Such discrimination often has very little to do with sincerely-held religious beliefs, but is instead simply homophobia, biphobia or transphobia dressed up in a cloak of religious-sounding language.

 

I believe this discrimination has no place in 21st century Australia – and suspect most ordinary Australians agree.

 

Fortunately, one Australian jurisdiction provides a much better precedent in this area, with legislation that still protects genuine religious freedom without endorsing broader anti-LGBT discrimination.

 

The Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 allows discrimination in certain circumstances in employment (section 51), admission as a student (section 51A) and participation in a religious observance (section 52), but only on the basis of religious belief or affiliation, and not because of sexual orientation or gender identity (or sex, pregnancy, relationship status or other attributes).

 

The Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act should be amended to adopt the much-preferable Tasmanian approach to religious exceptions, thereby dramatically narrowing the special privileges allowing them to engage in discrimination that would otherwise be unlawful.

 

  1. Introduce protections against anti-LGBTI vilification

 

Currently, only four Australian jurisdictions have anti-vilification laws which protect members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community: NSW, Queensland, Tasmania and the ACT. Of those, Queensland doesn’t cover intersex people, while NSW includes LGBTI people in the new criminal offence of ‘publicly threatening or inciting violence’ but only lesbians, gay men and trans people with binary gender identities can make civil complaints of vilification under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.

 

There are still no protections against anti-LGBTI vilification in Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia or the Northern Territory. And there is no LGBTI equivalent of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 under Commonwealth law either.

 

This is a situation that must change. Because homophobic, biphobic, transphobic and intersexphobic vilification is just as serious, and just as damaging, as racial vilification.

 

This was unequivocally demonstrated, and witnessed by the entire country, during last year’s same-sex marriage postal survey, with anti-LGBTI (and especially anti-trans) rhetoric in mainstream media and across society more generally. And while there were temporary, narrowly-defined prohibitions on vilification for the duration of that campaign (which have now expired), the hate-speech against our community that it stirred up continues unabated.

 

For all of these reasons, I believe it is beyond time for the Sex Discrimination Act to be amended to prohibit vilification on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics.

 

  1. Create an LGBTI Commissioner

 

From the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) website:

 

‘The Commission has a President and seven Commissioners:

  • President Emeritus Professor Rosalind Croucher AM
  • Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner Ms June Oscar AO
  • Age Discrimination Commissioner The Hon Dr Kay Patterson AO
  • Children’s Commissioner Ms Megan Mitchell
  • Disability Discrimination Commissioner Mr Alastair McEwin
  • Human Rights Commissioner Mr Edward Santow
  • Race Discrimination Commissioner Mr Chin Tan
  • Sex Discrimination Commissioner Ms Kate Jenkins.’

 

Notice who’s missing? Of the major groups protected against discrimination under legislation administered by the AHRC, only one does not have a stand-alone Commissioner of their own: the LGBTI community.

 

Responsibility for LGBTI issues has instead been allocated to the Human Rights Commissioner (both the current office-holder, and his predecessor, Tim Wilson) but it is merely one of a number of different, often competing priorities of their role – sometimes directly so, given their simultaneous responsibility for promoting religious freedom.

 

It is inevitable that, under this organisational structure, LGBTI issues will not be given the same level of attention as those of race, sex, disability and age. The best way to change this is to amend the Sex Discrimination Act to create a full-time Commissioner dedicated to addressing anti-LGBTI discrimination.

 

**********

 

The passage of the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013 was an important achievement in the long struggle for LGBTI equality in Australia, in my opinion just as significant as the recognition of same-sex de facto relationships in 2008, and the long overdue legalisation of same-sex marriage late last year.

 

But, just five years old, these historic reforms are already showing their inherent limitations. It’s time for Commonwealth parliament to take action to ensure that the Sex Discrimination Act is effective in addressing anti-LGBTI discrimination and vilification. The five reforms suggested above would be a good place to start.

 

julia

Former Prime Minister Julia Gillard passed the historic Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013 in the dying days of her leadership.

 

 

Unfairness in the Fair Work Act

This article is the first in a planned series looking at some of the outstanding issues that must be addressed in order to achieve genuine equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people in Australia.

 

These posts are not proposed in any order of priority, but will hopefully cover many of the barriers that remain, both big and small, as well as challenges that affect often-marginalised groups within the LGBTI community.

 

The first item of ‘unfinished business’ that I have chosen to write about is the discrimination that remains in the Commonwealth Fair Work Act 2009.

 

This unfairness includes two distinct issues, one relatively well-known (and which exists in other legislation, such as the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984), the other much less so.

 

Starting with the sometimes-overlooked problem first: did you know that the Fair Work Act 2009 does not protect trans, gender diverse and intersex people against workplace discrimination?

 

While this legislation prohibits adverse treatment on the basis of sexual orientation – thereby protecting lesbians, gay men and bisexuals (at least to some extent: see the discussion below) – it does not include equivalent protections for trans, gender diverse and intersex people.

 

For example, sub-section 351(1) provides that ‘An employer must not take adverse action against a person who is an employee, or prospective employee, of the employer because of the person’s race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, family or carer’s responsibilities, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin.’

 

Note that this list excludes both gender identity (which would cover trans and gender diverse people) and intersex status (the term used in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 to protect intersex people, although the intersex community has since advocated for this to be updated to ‘sex characteristics’; see the Darlington Statement).

 

The same list of attributes, with the same exclusions, is found in sub-section 772(1)(f) which protects employees against unlawful termination.

 

In short, the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) does not protect trans, gender diverse and intersex Australians from mistreatment or unfair dismissal based on who they are. This is either a gross oversight, or a deliberate choice to treat transphobic and intersexphobic workplace discrimination less seriously than other forms of mistreatment.

 

Nor are these the only sections of the Fair Work Act to omit trans, gender diverse and intersex people:

 

  • Section 153 provides that discriminatory terms must not be included in modern awards. The list of relevant attributes includes sexual orientation, but excludes gender identity and sex characteristics;
  • Section 195 includes a similar prohibition on discriminatory terms in enterprise agreements, and once again omits trans, gender diverse and intersex people; and
  • Sub-section 578(c) provides that the Fair Work Commission must perform its functions taking into account ‘the need to respect and value the diversity of the work force by helping to prevent and eliminate discrimination on the basis of race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, family or carer’s responsibilities, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin.’

 

There is literally no requirement in the Act for the Fair Work Commission to help prevent or eliminate transphobic and intersexphobic workplace discrimination.

 

There can be no justification for these omissions. Nor can there be any excuse for the Government, or Parliament more broadly, not to pass urgent amendments to ensure trans, gender diverse and intersex Australians are finally included in the Commonwealth Fair Work Act 2009.

 

Here are my letters to the Prime Minister, and the Minister for Jobs and Innovation, asking them to do exactly that:

 

**********

 

The Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP

Prime Minister of Australia

PO Box 6022

House of Representatives

Parliament House

Canberra ACT 2600

 

27 May 2018

 

Dear Prime Minister

 

Please include trans, gender diverse and intersex people in the Fair Work Act

 

On 15 November last year, in your press conference following the announcement of the 61.6% Yes vote in the same-sex marriage postal survey, you said that: ‘we are a fair nation. There is nothing more Australian than a fair go. There is nothing more Australian than equality and mutual respect.’

 

A little later in that same press conference you added: ‘we are a nation of a fair go and mutual respect and we treat people equally. We don’t discriminate against people because of their gender of their sexual orientation, their religion or race or the colour of their skin.’

 

Unfortunately, trans, gender diverse and intersex Australians are still a long way from receiving a ‘fair go’, and that includes being treated unfairly within the Commonwealth Fair Work Act 2009.

 

Section 351 of this legislation includes protections against adverse treatment on the basis of a wide range of attributes, including sexual orientation. However, it excludes both gender identity and sex characteristics (the latter being the term preferred by intersex advocates, as articulated in the Darlington Statement, replacing ‘intersex status’ as used in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984).

 

Similarly, section 772 of the Fair Work Act prohibits unfair dismissal on the same grounds as 351, once again leaving trans, gender diverse and intersex Australians without equivalent protection.

 

Meanwhile, sections 153 and 195 do not prohibit the use of discriminatory terms against trans, gender diverse and intersex people in modern awards and enterprise agreements, respectively.

 

Finally, while section 578 of the Fair Work Act mandates that, in performing its functions, the Fair Work Commission must take into account ‘the need to respect and value the diversity of the work force by helping to prevent and eliminate discrimination’, this does not cover either transphobic or intersexphobic discrimination.

 

I am writing to ask that you, and your Government, introduce amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 to rectify these gross oversights as a matter of priority.

 

Trans, gender diverse and intersex people deserve to be protected against workplace discrimination in exactly the same way as other employees, including lesbians, gay men and bisexuals.

 

If you fail to do so, you will be continuing to deny a ‘fair go’ to trans, gender diverse and intersex Australians, and your words of 15 November last year will ring hollow.

 

Sincerely,

Alastair Lawrie

 

 

**********

 

Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash

Minister for Jobs and Innovation

PO Box 6100

Senate

Parliament House

Canberra ACT 2600

via minister.cash@jobs.gov.au

 

27 May 2018

 

Dear Minister Cash

 

Please include trans, gender diverse and intersex people in the Fair Work Act

 

I am writing to you about the Commonwealth Fair Work Act 2009, which you administer, and specifically its failure to adequately protect trans, gender diverse and intersex employees against workplace discrimination.

 

Section 351 of this legislation includes protections against adverse treatment on the basis of a wide range of attributes, including sexual orientation. However, it excludes both gender identity and sex characteristics (the latter being the term preferred by intersex advocates, as articulated in the Darlington Statement, replacing ‘intersex status’ as used in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984).

 

Similarly, section 772 of the Fair Work Act prohibits unfair dismissal on the same grounds as 351, once again leaving trans, gender diverse and intersex Australians without equivalent protection.

 

Meanwhile, sections 153 and 195 do not prohibit the use of discriminatory terms against trans, gender diverse and intersex people in modern awards and enterprise agreements, respectively.

 

Finally, while section 578 of the Fair Work Act mandates that, in performing its functions, the Fair Work Commission must take into account ‘the need to respect and value the diversity of the work force by helping to prevent and eliminate discrimination’, this does not cover either transphobic or intersexphobic discrimination.

 

I am writing to ask that you, and the Liberal-National Government, introduce amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 to rectify these gross oversights as a matter of priority.

 

Trans, gender diverse and intersex people deserve to be protected against workplace discrimination in exactly the same way as other employees, including lesbians, gay men and bisexuals.

 

If you fail to do so, you will be failing to ensure trans, gender diverse and intersex Australians receive a ‘fair go’ in their jobs.

 

Sincerely,

Alastair Lawrie

 

**********

 

The second, much better-known, issue of unfairness in the Fair Work Act 2009 is its inclusion of extensive ‘religious exceptions’. These are loopholes that allow religious organisations to discriminate against employees on the basis of their sexual orientation (and would likely allow discrimination on the basis of gender identity were it to be included as a protected attribute in the Act in future).

 

The Fair Work Act entrenches these loopholes in two ways.

 

First, the prohibition on adverse treatment in section 351 (described above) does not apply to any action that is ‘not unlawful under any anti-discrimination law in force in the place where the action is taken’ (sub-section (2)(a)).

 

This means that the Fair Work Act reinforces the religious exceptions that already exist in the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984, and its state and territory equivalents (other than the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act 1998),[i] which permit anti-LGBT discrimination.

 

However, the Fair Work Act then includes its own ‘religious exceptions’ in sub-section 351(2)(c), allowing adverse treatment ‘if the action is taken against a staff member of an institution conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed – taken:

(i) in good faith; and

(ii) to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion or creed.’

 

In effect, the Act provides two different avenues for religious organisations to justify mistreating employees simply because of their sexual orientation.

 

The protection against unfair dismissal in section 772 also includes its own ‘religious exception’, while even the terms of modern awards (section 153) and enterprise agreements (section 195) are allowed to be explicitly discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation where it relates to employment by a religious institution.

 

There is, however, one important difference between the religious exceptions in this Act and those that are contained in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984: the Fair Work Act religious exceptions technically apply across all protected attributes.

 

This means that, theoretically at least, a religious organisation could claim its beliefs required it to discriminate on the basis of race, or even physical or mental disability – and that it would therefore be protected from any adverse consequences under the Act.

 

Of course, in practice we all know that religious exceptions are most likely to be used to justify discrimination against women (including unmarried and/or pregnant women) and LGBT people.

 

Unfortunately, the Ruddock Religious Freedom Review recently handed to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull (although not yet publicly released) is likely to recommend that these loopholes are expanded, rather than drastically reduced. That is a subject I am sure I will be writing about further in coming months.

 

Nevertheless, in the meantime we should continue to highlight the injustice of religious exceptions, including those found in the Fair Work Act and elsewhere, and campaign for their removal.

 

One such campaign, called ‘Change the Rules on Workplace Discrimination’, is currently being run by the Victorian Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby. I encourage you to sign their petition, here.

 

Ultimately, we need to collectively work towards a Fair Work Act that covers all parts of the LGBTI community – and that doesn’t feature extensive ‘religious exceptions’ allowing discrimination against us.

 

**********

 

Update 24 October 2018:

 

Earlier this year, the (then) Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation, the Hon Craig Laundy MP, replied to my letter. As you can see below, it is an extremely disappointing response.

 

He, and the Liberal-National Government, either don’t understand that the Fair Work Act excludes trans, gender diverse and intersex Australians (leaving them at a disadvantage compared to other groups, including lesbian, gay and bisexual people). Or they simply don’t care. I think we all know which is the likelier explanation.

 

This issue has taken on added importance in the context of the current debate around the Ruddock Review, and removing religious exceptions that allow discrimination against LGBT students and teachers.

 

That is because, even if those exceptions are repealed (from both the Sex Discrimination Act and the Fair Work Act), if the protected attributes of gender identity and sex characteristics/intersex status are not also added to the Fair Work Act, there will still be a two-tiered system for LGBTI teachers.

 

In short, lesbian, gay and bisexual teachers will be able to complain to both the Fair Work Ombudsman and the Australian Human Rights Commission, while trans, gender diverse and intersex teachers will only be able to complain to the latter.

 

Unfortunately, the otherwise positive Discrimination Free Schools Bill 2018 from the Australian Greens makes this fundamental mistake. We are also still waiting to see whether the now Morrison Government will introduce any reforms in this area at all, as well as what a Shorten Labor Opposition Bill (or amendments) might look like.

 

But, irrespective of whose Bill it is, and whatever other amendments it contains, if it doesn’t add gender identity and sex characteristics/intersex status to the Fair Work Act, it will be incomplete.

 

**********

 

16 July 2018

 

Dear Alastair

 

Thank you for your email of 27 May 2018 to Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash, Minister for Jobs and Innovation, about protection from discrimination against trans, gender diverse and intersex employees under the Fair Work Act 2009. As the issues raised fall within my portfolio responsibilities as Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation, your email was referred to me for reply.

 

The Australian Government believes that discrimination in the workplace is unacceptable and all employees have the right to be free from discrimination at work.

 

The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (the Sex Discrimination Act) is the principle legislation providing protection against discrimination or harassment on the basis of sex and/or gender. It also covers discrimination and harassment in the workplace. The Sex Discrimination Act explicitly covers discrimination on the basis of gender identity and intersex status.

 

The Human Rights Commission Act 1986 provides remedies for workers who have been discriminated against, harassed or dismissed on the basis of gender identity or intersex status, including in the workplace. The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is responsible for responding to complaints about harassment or discrimination on the basis of gender identity or intersex status.

 

Any person who has been discriminated against, harassed or dismissed on the basis of gender identity or sex characteristics should contact the AHRC for information and advice. The AHRC has the power to investigate and conciliate the complaints of discrimination and breaches of human rights. Information on what is required to make a complaint is available at www.humanrights.gov.au under the complaints tab on that page. There is also a National Information Service line on 1300 656 419.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Craig Laundy

(then) Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation

 

Unknown

Will Scott Morrison’s Government continue to exclude trans, gender diverse and intersex employees from the Fair Work Act?

Footnotes:

[i] For more information on the differences in these laws, see A quick guide to Australian LGBTI anti-discrimination laws.

Submission re Queensland Registering Life Events Discussion Paper

The following is my submission in response to the Queensland Government Registering Life Events: Recognising sex and gender diversity and same-sex families Discussion Paper. For more information on this review, go here.

 

BDM Act Review Team

PO Box 15188

City East, Brisbane QLD 4002

bdmlegislativereview@justice.qld.gov.au

 

Wednesday 18 April 2018

 

To the BDM Act Review Team

 

Submission re Registering Life Events Discussion Paper

 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission in response to the Registering Life Events: Recognising sex and gender diversity and same-sex families Discussion Paper.

 

I write this submission as a long-time advocate for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) community.

 

I also write this as a cisgender gay man, and am therefore guided by the views of those groups directly affected by the provisions of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 2003.

 

Specifically, with respect to questions 1 to 7 I endorse both the submission to the current review by Intersex Human Rights Australia (IHRA),[i] and the Sex and Gender Advisory Group’s letter to the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department Review of the Australian Government Guidelines on the Recognition of Sex and Gender.[ii]

 

Where there is any inconsistency between this submission and the views of these groups, I defer to them as experts in these areas.

 

Question 1. How should a person’s sex be recorded on the birth, adoption and death registers?

Question 2. Do you have any other comments on this issue?

 

I support the views expressed in Recommendation 3 of the Intersex Human Rights Australia submission that: Queensland should end legal classification of individuals by sex or gender, in line with the Darlington Statement and the Yogyakarta Principles plus 10.

 

I also agree with IHRA that this recommendation is unlikely to be achieved in the short-term and therefore support their recommendation 4, namely that: In the absence of an end to legal classification of individuals by sex or gender, Queensland should recognise ‘non-binary’, alternative (for example, self-affirmed) and multiple sex markers. Changes should be available [via] a simple administrative procedure, for example, via a statutory declaration.

 

I note that this terminology, and in particular the use of the term ‘non-binary’, was also supported by the Sex and Gender Advisory Group in its letter of 24 September 2015.

 

Question 3. Should any changes be considered to the BDMR Act and BDMR Regulation to improve the legal recognition of sex and gender diverse people in Queensland? If so, what should the changes be?

Question 4. Should any changes be made to the BDMR Act’s provisions regarding an application to note a reassignment of sex for children/young people under the age of 18? If so, what should the changes be?

 

Yes, significant changes must be made to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 2003 to improve the legal recognition of sex and gender diverse people in Queensland. This includes the removal of the major hurdles that currently prevent people from accessing accurate and appropriate identity documentation.

 

First, the requirement that trans and gender diverse people must have ‘sexual reassignment surgery’[iii] before being able to update their sex on the birth register must be removed. This requirement is inappropriate as not all transgender people want or are able to undertake such procedures (for a variety or reasons, including financial).

 

Second, the requirement that applications to note the reassignment of a person’s sex ‘must be accompanied by statutory declarations, by 2 doctors, verifying that the person the subject of the application has undergone sexual reassignment surgery’ [section 23(4)(b)] must also be removed. The medicalisation of identity recognition processes is also inappropriate – doctors should not be ‘gatekeepers’ of the identity of trans and gender diverse people.

 

The process for updating sex and gender details should be based on the experience and/or identity of the individual involved – not the opinion of medical ‘experts’ – and should be straight-forward, most likely affirmed through a simple statutory declaration.

 

The same principles should also apply with respect to minors, with no medical gatekeepers involved, and the only caveat being that they are able to demonstrate their capacity for consent. Obviously, this also means that where a minor is able to demonstrate such capacity, they should be permitted to amend their identity documentation in the absence of approval from parent(s) or guardian(s).

 

Finally, I endorse Recommendation 6 of the Intersex Human Rights Australia submission that: In the absence of legislation and regulation that implements prior BDM recommendations, the Queensland government should ensure that a separate, simple and accessible pathway is available for people born with variations of sex characteristics to correct details on birth certificates.

 

Question 5. Should the BDMR Act contain provisions to allow for the reassignment of a person’s sex for individuals who reside in Queensland but whose birth was registered elsewhere?

Question 6. Should BDMR Act allow for the issuing of a gender recognition certificate/identity acknowledgement certificate which can be used by a person as proof of their sex or gender?

Question 7. Do you have any other comments on this issue?

 

Yes, I support the inclusion of provisions to allow for the reassignment of a person’s sex for individuals who reside in Queensland but whose birth was registered elsewhere. This would seem to be an important practical measure for people who are unable to update these details in other jurisdictions, for a variety of possible reasons.

 

I am not in a position to comment on the process for such recognition – including the specific proposal for the issuing of a gender recognition certificate/identity acknowledgement certificate – and defer to the views of trans, gender diverse and intersex organisations on this question.

 

Question 8. Should the BDMR Act be amended to permit same-sex parents to choose how they are recorded on a birth or adoption registration?

 

Yes, although this should not be limited to ‘same-sex parents’ – all parents should be able to nominate how they are recorded. This would better reflect the diversity of modern families, not just in terms of sexual orientation and gender identity, but also in terms of methods of family creation.

 

Question 9. If so, what descriptors should be available and in what combinations?

 

At the very least, parents should have the option of nominating as ‘mother’, ‘father’ or ‘parent’, thereby allowing the combinations of mother/father, mother/mother, father/father, mother/parent, father/parent and parent/parent.

 

I am not in a position to comment on what other terms may be preferable (especially with respect to the potential use of ‘birth mother’ or ‘birth parent’) but encourage the BDM Act Review Team to consult directly with rainbow families on these issues.

 

Question 10. Do you have any other comments on this issue?

 

I note that the Discussion Paper states that ‘[t]he issue of whether or not a child’s birth or adoption registration should include more than two parents and the issuing of integrated birth certificates listing more than two parents will be canvassed in a subsequent discussion paper.’

 

I take this opportunity to pre-emptively express the view that, in contemporary Australia, there is already a wide range of family structures in existence – including where children are raised by three or four different parents – and that the law should be amended to reflect this reality.

 

Additional Comments

 

I also take this opportunity to express my support for the first two recommendations of the Intersex Human Rights Australia submission to the current review, namely that:

 

Recommendation 1. Queensland should protect children’s right to bodily integrity, in line with the Darlington Statement and the Yogyakarta Principles plus 10

and

Recommendation 2. The Queensland government should protect people from discrimination and violence on grounds of ‘sex characteristics’, in line with the attribute defined in the Yogyakarta Principles plus 10.

 

These are important issues and both represent serious shortcomings in Queensland law (as well as in other jurisdictions within Australia). The Queensland Government has in recent years adopted a progressive agenda on LGBTI issues overall – I strongly encourage it to add both of these items to that list.

 

Thank you for considering this submission as part of this important review. Please do not hesitate to contact me at the details below should you require additional information.

 

Sincerely

Alastair Lawrie

 

Palaszczuk

The Palaszczuk Labor Government has already enacted a strong LGBTI reform agenda – but there’s plenty left to do.

 

Footnotes:

[i] Morgan Carpenter, 4 April 2018: https://ihra.org.au/32033/submission-bdm-queensland/

[ii] Gavi Ansara, Sue Webeck, Morgan Carpenter, Peter Hyndal and Sally Goldner, 24 September 2015, as published on the National LGBTI Health Alliance website: https://lgbtihealth.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/FOR-DISTRIBUTION-AGD-Sex-and-Gender-Guidelines-Review-Advisory-Group-Endorsement-Letter.pdf

[iii] Defined in the Act as:

‘means a surgical procedure involving the alteration of a person’s reproductive organs carried out:

(a) to help the person to be considered a member of the opposite sex; or

(b) to correct or eliminate ambiguities about the sex of the person.’

What’s Wrong With the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984?

This post is part of a series examining anti-discrimination laws around the country, focusing on how well, or in many cases how poorly, they protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) Australians against discrimination and vilification. The other posts can be found at the page LGBTI Anti-Discrimination[i] while the text of the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (‘the Act’) can be found at the Federal Register of Legislation.[ii]

 

In this post I will be analysing the Act in terms of three main areas: protected attributes, religious exceptions and anti-vilification coverage. I will then briefly discuss any other key ways in which the protections offered by the Act could be improved or strengthened.

 

As we shall see, while the fact the Sex Discrimination Act includes all sections of the LGBTI community is to be welcomed, there are still some serious deficiencies that need to be remedied before it can be considered an effective anti-discrimination, and anti-vilification, framework.

 

**********

 

Protected Attributes

 

The Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984 is one of only four anti-discrimination laws in Australia that explicitly includes all of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals[iii], and transgender[iv] and intersex[v] people (with the other jurisdictions being Tasmania, the ACT and South Australia).

 

This high level of inclusivity is in large part a consequence of the fact the Commonwealth was the last jurisdiction in Australia to introduce any protections against anti-LGBTI discrimination.

 

The Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013 was only passed in June 2013, taking effect on August 1st of that year – more than three decades after the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 first covered homosexual discrimination (way back in 1982).

 

It is perhaps logical then that the most recently passed anti-discrimination law in the country would use the most contemporary terminology. Nevertheless, the achievements of the Act, and the breadth of the protected attributes that are covered, should still be celebrated.

 

In particular, the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013 was the first national anti-discrimination law in the world to explicitly include intersex status as a stand-alone protected attribute. Although, it should be noted that, in the March 2017 Darlington Statement, intersex activists called for this terminology to be replaced by the protected attribute ‘sex characteristics’.

 

The definitions of the other protected attributes introduced – sexual orientation and gender identity – are progressive in that they do not reinforce a sex or gender ‘binary’.

 

Sexual orientation in the Act refers to attraction to “the same sex” or “a different sex” (rather than the opposite sex), while the definition of gender identity does not require a transgender person to identify as male or female (and does not impose any medical or surgical requirements to receive protection either).

 

Overall, then, the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 is strong in terms of the protected attributes that it covers. Unfortunately, it is mostly downhill from here.

 

**********

 

Religious Exceptions

 

While the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 is close to the best of any jurisdiction when it comes to protected attributes, in terms of religious exceptions it repeats the same mistakes of most state and territory anti-discrimination legislation.

 

Under sub-section 37(1), the Act provides religious organisations with extremely broad special rights to discriminate against LGBT[vi] Australians:

“37 Religious bodies

(1) Nothing in Division 1 or 2 affects:

(a) the ordination or appointment of priests, ministers of religion or members of any religious order;

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

(c) 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; or

(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.”

 

If religious exceptions are supposed to protect ‘religious freedom’, then the first three paragraphs above, (a)-(c), at least have the benefit of being targeted at activities that are essentially religious in nature (the appointment of religious office-holders, and the holding of religious ceremonies).

 

However, paragraph (d) appears to endorse discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Australians across large swathes of public life, including in community, health and welfare services, provided the organisation that does the discriminating was established by a religious body.

 

This is overly generous, and completely unjustified – especially, although not solely, because the vast majority of these services receive public funding. After all, the sexual orientation or gender identity of a social worker or healthcare professional has absolutely zero bearing on their competence in their role.

 

The same provision also means that these services can turn away lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender clients – irrespective of their personal circumstances and need – which is perhaps even more offensive than discriminating against LGBT employees.

 

Just in case there was any doubt whether religious schools were covered by sub-section 37(1)(d)[vii], the Act then includes an entire section which allows these schools to discriminate against LGBT teachers[viii], contract workers[ix] and students[x].

 

It appears some religious schools believe the capacity of a person to teach mathematics or science or English is somehow affected by their sexual orientation or gender identity. And it seems that the teachers employed by these schools are expected to impart the values of exclusion and intolerance to their students – what better way for young people to learn to discriminate against LGBT people, all endorsed by the Sex Discrimination Act 1984.

 

There is however one area in which the Act refused to provide carte blanche to religious organisations to discriminate against LGBTI people, and that was through the inclusion of sub-section 37(2):

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

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

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

 

In other words, religious organisations that operate Commonwealth-funded aged care services cannot discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender people accessing those services (although they can continue to fire, or refuse to hire, LGBT employees).

 

This ‘carve-out’ was passed despite opposition from some sections of the then Tony Abbott-led Liberal-National Opposition, including Shadow Attorney-General George Brandis[xii], as well as some particularly vocal and extreme religious organisations, with the provisions taking effect on August 1st 2013.

 

In practice, there has been no controversy about the operation of this carve-out[xiii] – basically, it works to protect LGBT people accessing aged care services, irrespective of who operate those services, while having no adverse impact on religious freedom.

 

It is now time that this approach – limiting the ability of religious organisations to discriminate against LGBT people in one area of public life – was expanded to protect LGBT employees in those same aged care services, as well protecting employees and clients across education, community, health and welfare services[xiv].

 

After all, the worthy objects of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, including “to eliminate, so far as is possible, discrimination against persons on the ground of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy or breastfeeding in the areas of work, accommodation, education, the provision of goods, facilities and services, the disposal of land, the activities of clubs and the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs”[xv] cannot be met if, in the same text it allows LGBT Australians to be discriminated against by a large number of organisations, and across a wide range of services.

 

**********

 

Anti-Vilification Coverage

 

This section will be the shortest of this post because, well, there isn’t any – the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 contains no coverage against vilification for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians.

 

This stands in marked contrast to the situation for vilification based on race, which is prohibited by section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 – a section that has operated effectively for more than two decades (just ask Andrew Bolt), and which has withstood multiple recent attempts at its severe curtailment.

 

Given homophobic, biphobic, transphobic and intersexphobic vilification are just as serious, and just as detrimental, as racial vilification, there is no reason why LGBTI Australians should not have equivalent protections under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984[xvi].

 

This would also bring the Commonwealth into line with the four Australian jurisdictions[xvii] that already prohibit vilification against at least some parts of the LGBTI community.

 

**********

 

Other Issues

 

There are several other areas in which the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 does not currently provide adequate protections for the LGBTI community, including:

 

The failure to create an LGBTI Commissioner

Part V of the Act creates the position of Sex Discrimination Commissioner within the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC). Other areas of discrimination also benefit from the appointment of stand-alone full-time Commissioners, whose primary purpose is to combat such discrimination (including the Race, Age and Disability Commissioners).

 

However, no equivalent position, addressing LGBTI discrimination, was created with the passage of the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013.

 

This serious oversight meant that, for most of the last term of Parliament, LGBTI issues were handled on a part-time basis by the then ‘Freedom Commissioner’ (and now Liberal MP), Tim Wilson, whose primary role was to ‘defend’ traditional rights. Whenever those two areas of human rights were deemed to come into conflict, LGBTI issues seemed to come off second best[xviii].

 

If LGBTI discrimination is to be treated seriously by the Commonwealth Government, it must provide the same level of resources to address it within the AHRC – and that means introducing an LGBTI Commissioner as a matter of priority.

 

Superannuation protections exclude transgender and intersex people

Section 14 of the Act prohibits discrimination in employment, with sub-section 14(4) focusing on superannuation. However, while it prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, it excludes gender identity and intersex status from the list of relevant attributes[xix], apparently leaving transgender and intersex people without protection in this area.

 

Partnerships of five or less people can discriminate against LGBTI people

Section 17 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 prohibits discrimination in relation to ‘partnerships’, including who is invited to become a partner and the terms and conditions on which they are invited. However, these protections only apply to situations where there are six or more partners, meaning that LGBTI are not protected where there are five or less partners[xx].

 

Voluntary bodies have no restriction on their ability to discriminate

Section 39 of the Act provides a very broad ‘right’ for voluntary bodies to discriminate on a wide range of protected attributes, including sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status, including in determining who may be admitted as members, and the benefits that members receive. While acknowledging the importance of the ‘freedom to associate’, it seems strange that there is no requirement that the discrimination be related to the purpose of the voluntary body, but is instead essentially unrestricted.

 

Discrimination by marriage celebrants

As part of the recent passage of LGBTI marriage by Commonwealth Parliament, the Sex Discrimination Act was amended so that, in addition to the existing ability of ministers of religion and military chaplains to decline to perform wedding ceremonies, the new category of ‘religious marriage celebrants’ will also be free to discriminate against LGBTI couples seeking to marry[xxi]. This is despite the fact this includes existing civil celebrants who have nominated to so discriminate based on nothing more than their personal religious beliefs.

 

Protections in sport exclude transgender and intersex people aged 12 and over

Section 42 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 limits the coverage of anti-discrimination protection in relation to sport, in particular by allowing discrimination against transgender and intersex people in “any competitive sporting activity in which the strength, stamina or physique of competitors is relevant” where the participants are aged 12 or over. As with the voluntary bodies provision, this exception appears unnecessarily broad.

 

Requesting information that does not allow options other than male or female is not prohibited

Finally, section 43A provides that “[t]he making of a request for information is not unlawful… merely because the request does not allow for a person to identify as being neither male nor female” and that “[n]othing… makes it unlawful to make or keep records in a way that does not provide for a person to be identified as being neither male nor female.” If we are to truly recognise diversity in sex and gender, it should be reflected in requests for information.

 

**********

 

Summary

 

Based on the above discussion, the LGBTI anti-discrimination protections that were introduced via the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013 can be described as a good start (albeit one that was long overdue).

 

That it includes all sections of the LGBTI community is obviously welcome, and the ‘carve-out’ of aged care service provision from religious exceptions is important in and of itself, as well as demonstrating that those same exceptions are both unnecessary and unjustified.

 

On the other hand, the fact the Act permits discrimination by religious aged care services against LGBT employees, as well as religious organisations providing education, community, health and welfare services – against employees and clients – is its biggest downfall.

 

Other major problems include the complete absence of anti-vilification coverage for the LGBTI community (unlike section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975), and the failure to create an LGBTI Commissioner within the Australian Human Rights Commission.

 

All of which means there is plenty of work left to do until the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 provides a comprehensive and effective anti-discrimination, and anti-vilification, framework for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians.

 

Christian Porter

Will new Attorney-General Christian Porter (who has replaced Senator George Brandis in that position) improve, or undermine, the Sex Discrimination Act?

 

Footnotes

[i] See LGBTI Anti-Discrimination / #NoHomophobiaNoExceptions

[ii] See the Federal Register of Legislation

[iii] Discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation is prohibited by section 5A, with sexual orientation defined by the Act in section 4 as “sexual orientation means a person’s orientation towards:

(a) persons of the same sex; or

(b) persons of a different sex; or

(c) persons of the same sex and persons of a different sex.”

[iv] Discrimination on the ground of gender identity is prohibited by section 5B, with gender identity defined by the Act in section 4 as “gender identity means the gender-related identity, appearance or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of a person (whether by way of medical intervention or not), with or without regard to the person’s designated sex at birth.”

[v] Discrimination on the ground of intersex status is prohibited by section 5C, with intersex status defined by the Act in section 4 as “intersex status means the status of having physical, hormonal or genetic features that are:

(a) neither wholly female nor wholly male; or

(b) a combination of female and male; or

(c) neither female nor male.”

[vi] Prima facie, it also appears to allow discrimination against intersex people, although the lengthy consultation process that preceded the legislation’s passage demonstrated that religious organisations did not propose to use this exception for that purpose. The Explanatory Memorandum for the Act also indicates these exceptions should not be used with respect to this protected attribute.

[vii] There isn’t really any doubt – sub-section 37(1)(d) clearly applies to religious schools, which means that, just like the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, religious schools can actually choose from between two different exceptions to defend their discrimination against LGBT teachers and students.

[viii] Section 38 Educational institutions established for religious purpose

(1) Nothing in paragraph 14(1)(a) or (b) or 14(2)(c) renders it unlawful for a person to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person’s sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status or pregnancy in connection with employment as a member of the staff of an educational institution that is conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed, if the first-mentioned person so discriminates in good faith in order to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion or creed.

[ix] Section 38(2) Nothing in paragraph 16(b) renders it unlawful for a person to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person’s sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, martial or relationship status or pregnancy in connection with a position as a contract worker that involves the doing of work in an educational institution that is conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed, if the first-mentioned person so discriminates in good faith in order to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion or creed.

[x] Section 38(3) Nothing in section 21 renders it unlawful for a person to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status or pregnancy in connection with the provision of education or training by an educational institution that is conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed, if the first-mentioned person so discriminates in good faith in order to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion or creed.

[xi] This provision is reinforced by sub-section 23(3A) which states that religious organisations cannot discriminate against LGBT residents of Commonwealth-funded aged care facilities in terms of accommodation: “Paragraph 3(b) does not apply to accommodation provided by a religious body in connection with the provision, by the body of Commonwealth-funded aged care.”

[xii]See #QandA, Senator Brandis and LGBTI anti-discrimination reforms

[xiii] Given the wide range of scare campaigns run by the Australian Christian Lobby, and others, over recent years (calling for the abolition of the Safe Schools program, and their unsuccessful opposition to marriage equality) there is no doubt if there had been any practical problems with the aged care provisions they would have been splashed across the front page of The Australian by now.

[xiv] This would involve repealing sub-section 37(1)(d) entirely, as well as restricting related provisions (such as sub-section 23(3)(b) that allows religious bodies to discriminate in the provision of accommodation) so that they only apply with respect to the appointment and training of ministers of religion, and the holding of religious ceremonies.

[xv] Sub-section 3(b).

[xvi] For more on this issue – the contrast between section 18C of the RDA, and the lack of LGBTI anti-vilification protections federally – see Don’t Limit Racial Vilification Protections, Introduce Vilification Protections for LGBTI Australians Instead

[xvii] Queensland, NSW, the ACT and Tasmania.

[xviii] For more on this issue, see Why we need a full-time LGBTI Commissioner at the Australian Human Rights Commission

[xix] (4) Where a person exercises a discretion in relation to the payment of a superannuation benefit to or in respect of a member of a superannuation fund, it is unlawful for the person to discriminate, in the exercise of the discretion, against the member or another person on the ground, in either case, of the sex, sexual orientation or marital or relationship status of the member or that other person.

[xx] The same situation applies with respect to sex, marital or relationship status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy, breastfeeding or family responsibilities.

[xxi Section 40 includes the following:

“(2A)  A minister of religion (as defined in subsection 5(1) of the Marriage Act 1961) may refuse to solemnise a marriage despite anything in Division 1 or 2, as applying by reference to section 5A, 5B, 5C or 6, if any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 47(3)(a), (b) or (c) of the Marriage Act 1961 apply.

       (2AA)  A religious marriage celebrant (as defined in subsection 5(1) of the Marriage Act 1961) may refuse to solemnise a marriage despite anything in Division 1 or 2, as applying by reference to section 5A, 5B, 5C or 6, if:

                     (a)  the identification of the person as a religious marriage celebrant on the register of marriage celebrants has not been removed at the time the marriage is solemnised; and

                     (b)  the circumstances mentioned in subsection 47A(1) of the Marriage Act 1961apply.

       (2AB)  A chaplain in the Defence Force may refuse to solemnise a marriage despite anything in Division 1 or 2, as applying by reference to section 5A, 5B, 5C or 6, if any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 81(2)(a), (b) or (c) of the Marriage Act 1961apply.

Note:          Paragraph 37(1)(d) also provides that nothing in Division 1 or 2 affects any act or practice of a body established for religious purposes 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.”