This post is part of a series looking at Australia’s anti-discrimination laws, and examining how well, or how poorly, they protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people against discrimination. The other posts in the series can be found here.
In particular, they assess Commonwealth, State and Territory legislation in terms of the following three issues:
- Protected Attributes
- Religious Exceptions, and
- Anti-Vilification Coverage.
Unfortunately, while South Australia has expanded the range of people legally protected against discrimination, the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 remains grossly inadequate because of the breadth of religious exceptions it offers, and its failure to establish LGBTI vilification offences.
Section 29 of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 protects lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex South Australians from discrimination.
Sub-section (2a) defines discrimination “on the ground of gender identity” to include (among other things):
- “if the person treats another unfavourably because the other is or has been a person of a particular gender identity or because of the other’s past sex;
- if the person treats another unfavourably on the basis of a characteristic that appertains generally to persons of a particular gender identity, or on the basis of a presumed characteristic that is generally imputed to persons of a particular gender identity… and
- if the person requires a person of a particular gender identity to assume characteristics of a sex with which the person does not identify.”
Importantly, unlike some jurisdictions, South Australia protects all trans people against discrimination (and not just people with binary gender identities).
The protections against discrimination “on the ground of sexual orientation” contained in sub-section (3) are similarly broad, and would cover all lesbian, gay and bisexual South Australians.
The Relationships Register Act 2016 has expanded this coverage even further by introducing a new protected attribute of ‘intersex status’, with the addition of sub-section 29(4)[i].
With this change, South Australia has become only the fourth jurisdiction in Australia – after the Commonwealth, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory – to explicitly protect intersex people against discrimination. Although it should be noted that in the March 2017 Darlington Statement, intersex activists called for this terminology to be replaced by a protected attribute of ‘sex characteristics’.
Summary: The South Australian Equal Opportunity Act 1984 protects lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people against discrimination – with the 2017 inclusion of ‘intersex status’ making it only the fourth Australian jurisdiction, out of nine, to cover the entire LGBTI community.
Unfortunately, while the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 will soon be close to best practice on protected attributes, in terms of religious exceptions it is anything but.
Section 50 sets out an incredibly broad range of circumstances in which religious organisations are legally entitled to discriminate against LGBTI South Australians:
(1) This Part does not render unlawful discrimination in relation to-
(a) the ordination or appointment of priests, ministers of religion or members of a religious order; or
(b) the training or education of persons seeking ordination or appointment as priests, ministers of religion or members of a religious order; or
(ba) the administration of a body established for religious purposes in accordance with the precepts of that religion; or
(c) any other practice of a body established for religious purposes that conforms with the precepts of that religion or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of the adherents of that religion.”
While paragraphs (a) and (b) are at least directly related to religious appointments – and therefore somewhat defensible because of their connection to freedom of religion – paragraph (ba) and especially paragraph (c) effectively encourage discrimination by religious organisations in healthcare and other community services.
It is also unclear whether this general exception allows religious schools to discriminate against LGBTI students. That is because there is a separate section which provides exceptions for religious schools regarding students (section 37), and it does not allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
However, unlike the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 which protects LGBT students, there is nothing in the general religious exception in section 50 of South Australia’s Equal Opportunity Act 1984 which states that it does not apply to religious schools.
This means that it is still possible the general religious exception in section 50 allows discrimination despite what section 37 says – a risk even the SA Equal Opportunity Commission expressed concern about in their submission to the South Australian Law Reform Institute’s review of Exceptions under the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (p73). Indeed, the Law Reform Institute recommended:
“that section 50(1)(c) should be removed to make it clear that it does not apply to discrimination with respect to potential or current students of religious educational institutions” (pp83-84).
The situation is also complicated with respect to teachers in religious schools, with sub-section 34(3) setting out a separate, specific exception in that area:
“(3) This Division does not apply to discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status in relation to employment or engagement for the purposes of an educational institution if-
(a) the educational institution is administered in accordance with the precepts of a particular religion and the discrimination is founded on the precepts of that religion; and
(b) the educational authority administering the institution has a written policy stating its position in relation to the matter; and
(c) a copy of the policy is given to a person who is to be interviewed for or offered employment with the authority or a teacher who is to be offered engagement as a contractor by the authority; and
(d) a copy of the policy is provided on request, free of charge-
(i) to employees and contractors and prospective employees and contractors of the authority to whom it relates or may relate; and
(ii) to students, prospective students and parents and guardians of students and prospective students of the institution; and
(iii) to other members of the public.”
Some may see this as a relatively positive approach, because at the very least it allows everyone to be informed about the policies any particular school adopts. And, admittedly, it is preferable to the carte blanche approach adopted in other states (and especially in New South Wales).
However, there are three important qualifications to this ‘benign’ assessment:
- It still allows discrimination against teachers and other employees in religious schools. This discrimination – which has no connection whatsoever to the ability of LGBTI teachers and other staff to do their jobs – remains unacceptable, irrespective of the procedural steps a school must first negotiate,
- It is (I believe) unique in Australia in that it specifically states that religious schools can discriminate on the basis of intersex status (despite there being no supporting evidence of doctrines, tenets or beliefs which discriminate against people born with intersex variations), and
- The general religious exception in sub-section 50(c) may still apply, for the same reason that it may allow religious schools to discriminate against LGBT students – meaning it is possible that religious schools can ‘pick and choose’ the basis on which they discriminate against teachers and employees (and therefore potentially avoid these procedural hurdles altogether).
There is one final religious exception which allows discrimination against LGBTI South Australians – sub-section 35(2b) allows ‘associations’ to exclude and otherwise adversely treat people on the basis of their intersex status, gender identity or sexual orientation “if the association is administered in accordance with the precepts of a particular religion and the discrimination is founded on the precepts of that religion.”
Summary: The religious exceptions contained in the South Australian Equal Opportunity Act 1984 allow discrimination against LGBTI people in a wide range of circumstances, including healthcare, community services, associations and in education (although there is some uncertainty about how far the exceptions apply in that area).
This section will be the shortest of this post – because there is none. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex South Australians have no protection against anti-LGBTI vilification under the Equal Opportunity Act 1984[ii].
This is despite the fact that an entire stand-alone act exists with respect to racial vilification (the Racial Vilification Act 1996). Given homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and intersexphobia are just as damaging, and just as harmful, as racism, the lack of equivalent protections against anti-LGBTI vilification is, in my opinion, shameful.
There are a few additional issues in the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 that it would be remiss not to at least mention.
On the negative side, there is a very broad ‘inherent requirement’ exception in relation to employment. Sub-section 34(2) provides that:
“This Division does not apply to discrimination on the ground of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status in relation to employment or engagement for which it is a genuine occupational requirement that a person be of a particular sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.”
It is difficult to think of many jobs in which it is an inherent requirement that someone be of a particular sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status. It would be interesting to see on what possible basis the drafters attempted to justify this sub-section.
Similarly, sub-section 34(4) allows discrimination in employment against transgender people generally, and non-binary gender diverse people in particular, on the basis of their appearance, stating that:
“This Division does not apply to discrimination on the ground of gender identity in relation to employment or engagement if the discrimination is for the purposes of enforcing standards of appearance and dress reasonably required for the employment or engagement.”
Once again, it is hard to see how such discrimination can possibly be justified, and I would argue that both sub-sections (34(2) and (4)) should be repealed.
On the other hand, there are two exceptions that allow positive discrimination in favour of LGBTI people.
The first, in sub-section 35(2a), permits LGBT-specific associations to be created (for “persons of a particular gender identity”, for “persons of a particular sexual orientation (other than heterosexuality), or for “persons of intersex status”, noting that heterosexuality remains privileged within Australian society).
The second, in section 47, authorises actions designed to overcome discrimination against minority groups:
“Measures intended to achieve equality
This Part does not render unlawful an act done for the purpose of carrying out a scheme or undertaking intended to ensure that persons of a particular sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status, have equal opportunities with, respectively, all other persons, in circumstances to which this Part applies.”
Nevertheless, while these final two provisions are welcome, they do not negate the harmful aspects of the Act, including its overly-generous religious exceptions, and the complete lack of anti-vilification coverage for LGBTI South Australians.
It remains to be seen whether the Liberal Government, under Premier Steven Marshall, will take any action to improve the South Australian Equal Opportunity Act 1984.
If you have enjoyed reading this article, please consider subscribing to receive future posts, via the right-hand scroll bar on the desktop version of this blog or near the bottom of the page on mobile. You can also follow me on twitter @alawriedejesus
[i] “(4) For the purposes of this Act, a person discriminates on the ground of intersex status-
(a) if the person treats another unfavourably because of the other’s intersex status or past intersex status; or
(b) if the person treats another unfavourably because the other does not comply, or is not able to comply, with a particular requirement and-
(i) the nature of the requirement is such that a substantially higher proportion of persons who are not of intersex status complies, or is able to comply, with the requirement than of those of intersex status; and
(ii) the requirement is not reasonable in the circumstances of the case; or
(c) if the person treats another unfavourably on the basis of a characteristic that appertains generally to persons of intersex status, or presumed intersex status, or on the basis of a presumed characteristic that is generally imputed to persons of intersex status; or
(d) if the person treats another unfavourably because of an attribute of or a circumstance affecting a relative or associate of the other, being an attribute or circumstances described in the preceding paragraphs.”
[ii] Although South Australia is not alone in this regard – there are also no LGBTI vilification protections in Commonwealth law, and in Victoria, Western Australia and the Northern Territory.