Statutes Amendment (Gender Identity and Equity) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 24 February 2016.)

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (16:01): It is my pleasure to speak in support of this bill. I think this is a very sensible proposition that has been put forward to the house. I would firstly like to congratulate the Law Reform Institute for the work that they have done on this, and there is also another series of reports to come before the government and the house. This is probably the least controversial of those amendments, and this is essentially focused on changing the language in a lot of our statutes that refer to one particular gender or the other and trying to amend them so that they are gender-neutral terms.

That is something that I think is eminently sensible. It is something that hopefully is not too controversial before the house. It is something that, at the very least, does not do any harm that I can see. It is not going to cause significant problems and is not going to change society in any meaningful way, but what it will do is make life easier for people who are in that particular situation. We do know that people who are, for instance, transgender find dealing with government bureaucracies from time to time enormously difficult, so having these legislative changes I think will be one step further to making their lives easier.

I know when I worked in federal government—I was chief of staff to the federal attorney-general—this was something that former senator Louise Pratt quite often raised with us: the need to amend the federal provisions regarding gender-specific terms, which is very important at a federal level as well where you cover things like passports and Medicare details, as well as Centrelink issues. To be honest, I think that is something the former Labor government probably needed to do more on than what we ended up doing. There was some action taken, but I do not think it was to the extent of what this house is doing for our state laws, so we should congratulate ourselves for taking this action that has not necessarily been taken right around the country or nationally.

From my perspective, I look at it in terms of personal liberties. There are a lot of people, particularly on the other side of this house, who talk about the need for government to get out of the way of people's lives and for people to have their own personal liberties protected.

It is certainly true that they support that when they talk about economic things, but sometimes when it comes to these personal things about how you define yourself—whether it is how you define yourself in terms of your gender, who you love or a whole range of other things—they want the government to be more involved and more prescriptive. I think these are actually issues for people to determine themselves, and we as a government should be willing to let people make their own decisions and have our government systems adapt to that.

I have listened to some of the debate that has happened in the house on this subject already. There have been some good contributions, but there have been a few silly contributions as well. There has been a lot of discussion about the sections of this bill referring to pregnancy. I think there has been much more time devoted to discussing that section than is probably worth discussing. I do not think it is the most meaningful clause of this bill, but I am not naïve enough not to see that it is good banter to talk about in this house, on talkback radio or in other forums. Obviously the banter will happen, but I do not think people's concerns about that should prevent this bill from going forward.

The other thing I found quite strange is that there has been such a long discussion about change rooms. I do not see anything in this bill at all that refers to change rooms and I do not think that we have any legislation in South Australia governing change rooms or toilet facilities whatsoever. For that to somehow be a debate in terms of the definitions of this bill seems to be a complete red herring, but it probably helps people get to 20 minutes of discussing this bill and probably helps razz up some of their constituencies by talking about that. I do not think either of those issues is anything that should limit us passing this bill today.

There has also been a bit of discussion about the Safe Schools program which, as I understand it, is something that has been developed by a national youth organisation with funding from the commonwealth government, funded by the former Labor government, and also the Victorian government. My approach to that program is pretty simple: we need to do everything we can to prevent students being bullied at school, and this is a program designed to do exactly that. People might niggle with one or two words in the voluminous details of the publications that have been released, but we should not stop this program and we should not victimise this program as in any way doing harm, when it is actually out there to do good for these people who are being bullied in schools.

We know the statistics in terms of the suicide rates for young people from the LGBTIQ community, and the statistics are much worse in terms of mental health issues and suicide risk. To have this national debate going on as though there is something wrong with them as children in schools, which is the message that lots of people will be getting, I do not think helps in any way our efforts to combat that bullying in schools. I am very worried about the debate we have seen on that program in the last couple of weeks and I am hoping that some common sense will prevail and that we will actually get on to doing the good work of trying to prevent bullying in our schools, which is something that surely we can all agree on.

I support this bill. This bill is not going to change the world, but it will tidy up some areas of our laws that do need tidying up, and it will go a long way towards making the interactions of certain members of our community with our bureaucracy much easier.

Mr DULUK (Davenport) (16:09): I also rise to make a few comments in relation to the Statutes Amendment (Gender Identity and Equity) Bill 2016. I was not necessarily going to speak on this bill, but the member for Reynell convinced me of the merits of making a small contribution. I sort of agree with the majority of speakers who have been addressing the chamber on this bill. There is a lot of merit in the concept that the law should not discriminate and that everyone should be treated equally before the law.

The member for Kaurna, in his contribution, was referring to previous speakers talking about change rooms and the like. I am not sure if the member for Kaurna was at the briefing held recently, but I will put it to the house that there was no sandwich lunch provided which made it a lot more difficult for me to participate in because my blood sugar levels were a bit low. Some of the members did talk about the slippery slope and what this did mean for those people who, for whatever reason, would seek to exploit loopholes in these amendments and for whatever reason would want to use some of the changes in terminology to be a peeping tom and go into change rooms and claim gender identity as an issue.

To that extent, I think it is an important matter that was raised yesterday by the member for Hammond, and perhaps the member for Schubert, because in a lot of legislation that we do pass there are some unintended consequences, so I think that was a very worthwhile contribution. I think, as we were seeing with some of the other legislation we have debated last week here around parenting presumptions and the like, there is, of course, unintended consequences in much of the legislation that we pass.

As to the bill itself, like I said, I am comfortable with the majority of amendments across the board. Of course, there is possibly, on this side of the house, some members who might have an issue when it comes to gender balance for nominations appointed to boards. I would argue, as most on this side of the house would argue, that gender and how you define yourself, whether it be male, female, intersex or any other terminology, has absolutely nothing to do with your ability to serve on a board.

Indeed, serving on a government board, just like serving this house, should be on merit, and I know that absolutely every single member of this house has got here on merit, notwithstanding quotas on the other side of the house where safe seats have to go to old, white union members—but I digress.

Merit should always be the basis for appointments to boards in that respect. I would love to see discussion around that in terms of merit being one of the most overarching principles that we should have in any of our legislation.

Some members yesterday—and I am sure across the debate and in the committee stage—were also talking about the amendments to the Correctional Services Act 1982 where someone who is subject to that act might use gender as a reason not to be searched, but I am sure common sense will prevail when it comes to the application of that bit of law to ensure that all is undertaken in a practical way.

It is funny how the world has changed over the last 100 years or so. One of my constituents has recently given me a book on Tom Price who was, of course, Labor's first premier in this state. I was just reading the opening of the biography on Tom Price talking about the penal system that was in Liverpool in the 1850s and 1860s. Dare I say that there was no choice for who was giving you the search in the 1860s within the British penal system.

My office has already received a fair amount of correspondence around the issue of the amendments that seek to remove the word 'woman' when it relates to pregnancy. As the Premier indicated, it is an amendment which probably is not required. I think we all know, regardless of how one identifies, that it is ultimately women who are the ones who are involved with childbirth, and as the member for Schubert alluded to yesterday, he certainly would not ever be able to deal with childbirth.

In yesterday's debate, I was disappointed with the personal nature which some members went into. I thought, by and large, it was a very civil and mature debate, but I felt that the member for Colton did get slightly carried away with some of the words that he used with regard to those on this side of the debate. The member for Colton got very liberal in his language. He spoke about the need for liberties and civil rights, and how those on my side of the house quite often talk about economic responsibility and the rights and responsibilities of the individual—and rightly so.

The member for Colton then continued to chastise those members on my side of the house who, on a conscience matter, do not necessarily support all amendments and all parts of this bill. It dawned on me that while those who come from the left—and I think the member for Colton will not take any offence when I say he is a good old-fashioned lefty—talk about individuals having the right to choose, the Labor Party (and especially those in the hard left), never allow the right to choose.

I was reminded about that this week when I popped down to the Adelaide University for O'Week. I was reminded of the member for Kaurna, who of course was heavily involved in student politics back in his day. The Adelaide University Liberal Club, in their O'Week stall, had a wonderful little sticker which I have put on the back of my deputy whip folder, which says 'I Love VSU'. I know the member for Morialta in his heyday was a strong supporter of VSU and the right to choose.

When we debate in this house, it never ceases to amaze me how we cherrypick when we want to be libertarians, we cherrypick when we want to be conservatives, and we cherrypick when the debate suits us.

Mr Picton: That's right, you do cherrypick!

Mr DULUK: I don't cherrypick; I just merely sometimes represent different views of my constituency. I never, ever cherrypick. But, in the member for Colton's contribution yesterday, he was having a go at people on this side of the house who would choose differently—

Mr Gardner: And on his own side.

Mr DULUK: Well, the irony was that the very wise whip of this house, who spoke immediately after the member for Colton, probably did not agree with any of his contribution. The member for Colton had a go at people's right to choose. He did talk about how the law should not discriminate, and I certainly hold and share his views there—but when it comes to union membership, we certainly see that there is no right to choose on that side of the house.

One thing I do like about this piece of legislation is that it is actually removing discrimination in wording and legislation. Many of us in this house enjoy politics, so just before I went to sleep last night I was watching a replay of yesterday's question time in the Senate, looking for some inspiration. There was a very good question from Senator Lindgren, who is the new Indigenous senator for the LNP in Queensland. Senator Lindgren asked a question to minister Cash on the role of inappropriate language used by the CFMEU on worksites. For the sake of this house, I will not use the language that Senator Cash used in the Senate, because—

Mr Gardner: In her quotes!

Mr DULUK: In her quotes—because the President of the Senate ruled that to be unparliamentary; therefore, I assume the Deputy Speaker would also use that language. But, to say the least—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Aren't I one of those 'good old-fashioned lefties' too?

Mr DULUK: I am not prepared to test the ruling of the Deputy Speaker because—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, don't.

Mr DULUK: —you are all wise, Deputy Speaker. This was in relation to evidence tendered to the trade union royal commission. The language used by the CFMEU officials, when it comes to gender-inappropriate language, was absolutely incredible. I do commend those on this side of the house, and I also commend the member for Reynell for introducing this legislation and having the carriage of this legislation. Truly, if the Labor Party was serious about this bill and removing gender discrimination then it would not take a single dollar from the CFMEU, a union that pretty much has a blokey attitude, as the education minister agrees, a very blokey attitude. I saw you nodding your head.

Members interjecting:

Mr DULUK: You do not believe there is a blokey attitude in the CFMEU?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You are speaking to me, member for Davenport.

Mr DULUK: Sorry, Deputy Speaker. The blokey and sexist attitude of the militant wing of the CFMEU, which is one of the largest donors to the Labor Party. So, on the one hand, we have legislation—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now we know why you stayed up late.

Mr DULUK: It is a crazy life. On the one hand, we have legislation in this house which is looking to remove gender inequality, gender discrimination, and on the other hand, from the same party that moves this legislation and has this agenda, we have one of the biggest financial donors to the Labor Party which will never ever change its culture. It is a militant union. Historically, it has not supported workers of other nationalities on the basis that it takes so-called local jobs. If you look at the history of the CFMEU there is no doubt about that, and I think the history of the CFMEU (it started as the BLF)—

Members interjecting:

Mr DULUK: It is the price you get for asking me to speak, I suppose—is coming along—

Members interjecting:

Mr DULUK: I merely bring to the attention of the house the inconsistency within the Labor Party on—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think we need to get back to the substance of the debate, which is about gender inequity.

Mr DULUK: I think we are talking about gender inequity.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We have been really patient. I do not want a history on other things. Let us get right back to the point.

Mr DULUK: Thank you, Deputy Speaker, for bringing me back to the point. I suppose this bill is about doing what we can do to remove discrimination on the basis of gender in our jurisdiction. It is one thing to bring in legislation, it is another thing to make sure the legislation receives (in public) the endorsement and the intent of that legislation. Perhaps the best thing we can do in supporting this legislation, in removing discrimination from our statutes, is to ensure that in our workplaces we do not have this type of discrimination.

I would definitely call the building site a workplace for many Australians. It would be wonderful to see, at the national conference—because I do watch the Labor Party national conference when it is beamed live on ABC24 on a Saturday—the member for Reynell get up there and champion what she is championing, because I know she is a very passionate—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr DULUK: —person on this issue, and also highlight some of the limitations of people in her own party. I commend the member for Reynell for bringing this bill to the house. I am going to enjoy the rest of the contributions from other members and I look forward to the committee stage.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Minister for Education and Child Development, Minister for Higher Education and Skills) (16:23): Deputy Speaker, I wish to make it clear that although I am sitting on the front bench today I am not the lead for this bill and, therefore, by speaking I am not closing the second reading debate. I do, however, welcome the opportunity to speak on the bill. I have sat through most of the second reading contributions to date, not all, and they have varied enormously. Some have strayed rather remarkably from the topic of the bill. Some have been very on point.

Mr Gardner: That's a reflection on the Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Without wishing to reflect on the Speaker, and I apologise if that was the implication.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, it is alright, I will look after myself.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Some have been very heartfelt and very thoughtful. Some have been quite revealing, I think, about the anxieties that people have about language and its power. My view on this bill is that, essentially, there are two rationales for it. On the one hand, it is, essentially, a question of tidying up the language in our legislation. Although I consider myself in many ways a fairly conservative person linguistically and grammatically, language does modernise. We do change the way in which we use it and legislation ought to try to keep pace with that, our official language ought to try to keep pace with that, and we are, by no means, alone in seeking to do that.

In looking up what other languages and cultures are up to I noted that the French have officially removed the word 'mademoiselle' from their documents in order to not require women to signal their marital status in any official documentation. To still a greater degree the Germans are having a bit of a lively debate about whether they should remove the genders that are used in their language—they have three: he, she, it for want of a better term—when they refer to all of the nouns in their language.

I do not think it will happen but it is an interesting debate to occur and it is for a reason, and that is that, as we advance in our understanding of how other people are affected by words, we recognise that over-gendering language, over-emphasising where not necessary, whether something relates to a man or a woman, is not only disrespectful to the gender that is not included but also at times can have perverse outcomes.

On the whole I think that what this bill is trying to do is a straightforward tidy up where the idea of distinguishing between a man and a woman is not necessary and does not contribute anything. We are better off using the word 'person' or 'someone' or whatever the correct grammatical term is for the replacement. But there is another element to this and that is that in some cases the language that is used is used in a way that wounds people or excludes them.

In thinking about that I was contemplating the great event in our household over the last few weeks which is that our first born has started high school. So anyone who knows me knows that that has been a source of great fixation amongst our household leading up to preparing for that and starting. In the first week the English class started reading Animal Farm, which I was delighted at, again being fairly conservative in terms of language and grammar and also in literature.

I was delighted that they started there and I urged that, once Animal Farm was finished, which it was within the first week because my first born is a quick reader and enjoys reading, the next book be 1984. I think that both those books have much to say about the power of language, particularly the latter but also the former. What you see in Animal Farm is the use of language to categorise and in categorising to ascribe value.

So, the four legs good, the two legs bad which of course ends up being very ironic and which is a way of distinguishing between animals in order to say who is good and who is bad, who has value and who does not. Of course, what is at the heart of the argument about language in 1984 is this question of state intervention (totalitarian intervention in that case), of controlling how and what people think through the use of language.

The reason my mind turned to both those books is that in some instances there is language we are using that does cause harm and hurt to people, and it does absolutely no harm to anyone to alter that language. So to go from saying 'woman' to 'person' we can harm no-one because self-evidently women are people, but for people who are identifying as male and who are therefore excluded when women are spoken of that does cause them harm and distress.

For that reason and despite the use of some levity around some of the proposals that are in this bill, when matters pertain to pregnancy, child carrying and also to termination of pregnancy I can think of no objection to referring to people; and I know that there are individuals to whom clinging to using a gender term causes pain too. Much like the medical profession, I believe in this house and in this parliament we have an obligation first to do no harm and where we see harm to address it.

I would like to note some of the contributions that have made this bill possible, and above all, of course, is the outstanding Professor Williams who has been mentioned by other contributors. Professor Williams has led a review of our legislation in a very thoughtful and considered way. He has more to say, and he has more to say on subjects that will be more contentious than this. I look forward to the institute's further reports and considerations of where discrimination in practice, rather than just in language, still sits within our legislation, but I thank him for the very sensible approach he has taken to this one and I see no cause for mockery in any of the clauses.

I would like to very briefly turn to what I believe some of the people in this chamber have been responding to, which I do not believe is actually in this bill, but it has conjured up a concern for them. It appears to have conjured up a concern that if people become aware of a possibility then they will be drawn to making a choice themselves. It is sort of a contamination by information.

I had the same challenge when people raised concerns recently about the Safe Schools Coalition, where there is a sense in some of the correspondence I have received that if children know that it is possible to be gay, that will somehow in itself cause them to be gay; that if children know that being transgendered is something that can occur, that that knowledge in itself will change their own pathway.

I do not believe that that is true. I believe that information and knowledge respectfully given can only advance us as a tolerant society. What I do know is true is that when you are different, and whatever is conjured up by that word 'different'—for some of us women, we are different because we are in professions that are dominated by men. Occasionally, rarely, fortunately, I am different because I am a Port supporter and not a Crows supporter. I am often different because I am vegetarian by choice. So I have few claims to difference. I live in a world of enormous privilege, but occasionally I have that experience. For some people their experience of difference is far more profound, and the discrimination against them, the labelling of them, is far more serious than any I could experience as a vegetarian or a Port supporter, both of which I am extremely proud of.

Mr Pederick: There is nothing wrong with being a Port supporter.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: There is nothing wrong with being either a Port supporter or a vegetarian. But some people are in a category that people are challenged by, that they are fearful of in some ways, largely, I think, through ignorance. For those people, the language that we use and the discriminations that we have are deeply and profoundly hurtful.

So children at school who know from a certain age (usually from an early age) that they are same-sex attracted know that they are entering a world that is not welcoming of that, and they know that every piece of language that is used ignores the fact that that is a possibility, and every piece of language that is used—for example, where 'gay' is used as a term of denigration—is hurtful to them. It is not just a fleeting pain, it is not a fleeting irritation such as I feel when anyone ever criticises the Port Adelaide team; it is profound and it is deep. It can cause depression, self-harm and thoughts of suicide.

For me, anyone who criticises work that is done to address that head on—whether it be in this chamber through legislation, whether it be through tidying up our language, whether it be through pulling down prejudice, whether it be through programs in schools that address bullying based on ignorance—needs to consider carefully the impact of their choices.

As many people in this chamber will know, my brother is proudly, happily, a gay man in a very happy relationship in New South Wales, but it was not always so happy and easy for him. It was, in fact, a very painful experience for him to be at school in the 1980s and 1990s because we did not have those conversations, because we did not tell children that it is not okay to make people feel bad for being different.

This piece of legislation does not do all of that. This piece of legislation is essentially a tidy up, but it is a step towards not continuing to denigrate, to differentiate unnecessarily, to give a lower value to the 'other'—whoever that may be: the transgendered 'person' or 'woman'; a person who is homosexual. I ask people to consider carefully that while we have had some fun in this chamber, and it has been an entertaining debate at times, that passing this bill is a sign of tolerance, understanding, and maturity, so that we are able to see that people, at the end of the day, are people.

Ms COOK (Fisher) (16:35): I am really glad to have a chance to make a brief contribution to this very important bill. At the start, I would like to acknowledge the work of the Law Reform Institute and Professor Williams. There is some fantastic work being done in here and, while I actually think this is a very simple piece of legislation, in spite of its complexities, there are a few things I want to point out. I will share a brief story with you as told by a friend of mine.

This bill does not affect people unless the people are specifically affected by the legislation, and I think that language change is very important for these people in our society who battle constantly against people who refuse to acknowledge their identify, and how they themselves feel about their identity. It is a sign of a mature society when we can actually have open and frank discussions about things like this and do it in a way that is going to prevent the mistreatment and the bullying that can happen by people who refuse to understand and acknowledge that language.

As was mentioned by people yesterday, I also have many constituents who would identify as conservative and as being opposed to many of the concepts or notions that are within this legislation. But those people, I know, are not going to be negatively impacted by any of the changes within this bill. They will go on with their lives without being scared, or worried, or bullied, or intimidated by other people who perhaps do not take time to understand them.

Those people will just continue with their lives, whereas the people who are deeply affected by this language, such as those who identify as intersex or transgender—people who have for their whole life struggled with this identify—will continue to be affected if we do not put this bill through in its form to change the language that we use when referring to people who identify differently than some of us. I think we do affect them negatively and impact them negatively, so I always judge the work that I am doing here, representing people in my community, by how this affects them, in what way, and whether or not it is a positive thing. That is what I am judging this by, and I do believe it is positive.

Over the last 24 hours, I have heard some ridiculous conversations here and on radio, and they are shameful conversations making fun of the language used in identifying a person versus using 'woman' in a sentence when talking about a woman giving birth. What is the difficulty with changing the wording to a 'person' giving birth? I am a woman; I have had children; I am not bothered by being called a 'person' having children, but if I had some gender identity differences, it would bother me. It would bother me deeply to be called a 'woman'. It would deeply affect me to be called a woman if that is not how I identify. Again, we use that measure of how it affects people.

I think we have to be very careful not to make light of this subject, because it does deeply affect people. I just want to make quick mention of the discussion around Safe Schools that was brought up yesterday and continues today, because I have had conversations at about 10 governing councils in the last two or three weeks about the Safe Schools program with many teachers, with many parents and with many students, because there has been some organised campaign being rolled out where you receive the same email from the same people over and over again.

There is a very small number of people involved in it, but these families at schools and teachers do not know of any of this indoctrination that is being spoken of; they do not know anything about this role-play that is being spoken of. All they know is that, in my electorate, around seven or eight young people are being cared for by their schools in an inclusive way, providing them with appropriate bathroom facilities to use, and the teachers and the families just continue as if it is part of their normal life, because that is what it is: it is actually just part of your normal life.

This is what our society is. This is no different from a young person who is overweight or a person with a disability—another minority group—being harassed and pestered because we tolerate awful language like 'cripple' or 'fatty' or whatever it is you want to use. It is no different. It is about taking those words out of our language and referring to those people appropriately. I want to finish off by sharing with you a story that a very dear friend of mine shared last night and I hope this helps you to understand a little bit where a person comes from. This young man—he is still young; he is younger than me!—is a professional. He is a leader in his profession, and he shared this:

As disgraceful homophobic government MPs apply pressure to axe the Safe Schools LGBTI education program, I've decided to share the shocking realities of what it's like being gay in high school. (Not many people know the extent of the bullying I received when I was a teenager.) So here's the truth: it occurred almost daily. I went to school each morning, terrified about what could happen to me. I was bullied physically, verbally and emotionally. Spat on, punched, screamed at. My school work was smashed and destroyed.

I withdrew from sports classes because the bullying was so severe. (As a result, I never learnt how to swim!) I was forced to withdraw from Maths and Chemistry subjects in VCE because I was tormented so badly; which meant that I couldn't apply for certain University degrees when I graduated. When I went to the teachers for help, I was told they couldn't watch and protect me all the time. I felt completely alone. To protect myself at lunch-times, I even hid in the library and bathrooms! I was depressed, withdrawn, and suicidal. I couldn't imagine continuing my life like this.

Every day was absolutely terrifying. I suffered from nightmares every single night, which occurred so routinely that I even thought this was normal. (I was surprised when I found out that this didn't happen to everyone!) Fortunately the nightmares disappeared almost instantly when I 'came out'. It was a tough time for me growing up gay. Yes, I survived. And I realise this occurred 20 years ago. I'm not asking for sympathy; I've shared my personal story to promote UNDERSTANDING.

Life goes on, but the emotional scars remain. For example, even as an adult, if I seem 'sensitive' at times, it's actually a protective reflex from being attacked all those years ago. (Some things trigger innate fear in me, although I've learned to be less reactive. And I still find it hard to trust people.) So, in summary, I believe that if the 'Safe Schools' program prevents even ONE child from experiencing a daily hell like this, then it is definitely worth it! All kids deserve to feel safe at school. They need to know that they matter, and that life gets better.

I say, do not hide behind the excuse that a small number of people in your community may not agree with this bill, because it is for the greater good, and if it stops one person being hurt, then it is worth every bit of paper it is written on. Thank you for listening and I hope this bill passes through the house speedily.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Gardner.