Births, Deaths and Marriages (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 August 2016.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:08): I rise to speak on the Births, Deaths and Marriages (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill 2016, and indicate that the opposition has not formed a party position on this bill. In reference to what is colloquially often known as the members having a 'conscience vote', of course, on our side of the house every vote is a conscience vote. Frequently, we meet to form a joint party position on something and that, we hope, adds to the healthy debate and swift passage of legislation but, in this instance, we felt that would be unhelpful as, clearly, there would be an expression of a number of our members to decide, at different levels, their support.

My position is that I will support the bill. I indicate that it is a bill which the Premier introduced on 4 August and subsequently has walked away from, essentially. He has appointed the member for Reynell as his assistant minister to handle the conduct of some bills through the parliament, and we have changed our standing orders to allow that to occur. This is no reflection on the member for Reynell at all because I think that she has, in the management of this bill and another I have dealt with, promptly convened appropriate briefings, made officers available, and although I am waiting on a bit of information, largely she has provided prompt responses.

What is disappointing, though, is that the Premier swans in, makes the announcement, does the second reading and then disappears—gets the publicity for the day on matters in relation to this, and then does not follow that through. I think that demonstrates that it is all about the image of the Premier, rather than following through on matters on which he claims to have a genuine interest in and concern for reforming. In any event, the member for Reynell has had the passage of this.

The SA Law Reform Institute conducted a review in September 2015, which resulted in our gender identity inequity bill, previously dealt with. In February this year, the institute released the first of its further reports concerning the registration and recognition of sex, gender and gender reassignment. Overlapping this, in April this year the Legislative Review Committee completed its review on the Sexual Reassignment Repeal Bill 2014. Both these bodies recommended that the Sexual Reassignment Act 1988 be repealed. I agree that clearly it needs to be repealed. A new act to provide for the simpler and less invasive process for people to formally record their change of sex or gender identity was needed.

However, the level at which evidence was required that an applicant had undergone treatment, counselling and the like, was quite different. It is fair to say that the government has chosen to follow the recommendations of the Legislative Review Committee, and that of itself has brought some public criticism. I think it is fair to say, its being a committee that was presented this year, that members of our party from both houses of parliament were represented on that body, and it was a unanimous report in its recommendations. So, I do not have any difficulty in supporting the bill.

The issue of registration for a 16 year old and over has attracted some controversy. I have thought long and hard about this. I do not see it as a reason why we should not progress the bill. It does not sit comfortably with me, I would have to say. I do not see the urgency for the need to deal with registering a different gender for children who, at birth, have an unclear gender identity because we have not had that problem.

In all the time I have been in the parliament I have never had anyone come to me—a medical professional, or the AMA, or anyone—to say that there is a problem with the identification of a child at birth. There might be some question mark, and there might then need to be tests done to identify that, but no child to my knowledge has been born in South Australia and we have not been able to have some medical assessment to identify what the sex of the child is at birth. To my knowledge, there is no child registered at birth, or subsequently, whose birth certificate says 'gender unknown'.

What we are really talking about here, though, is people who elect or desire to change their sex for the purposes of being recognised at a time after their birth. I think it is fair to say that some parents allow their children (under the age of 18 ) in these circumstances to dress and present in a manner which presents to the world as the opposite sex. I think that is a matter which is reasonable for parents to work with their child on. For that reason, I am not averse to the concept that there be the capacity for the registration of a change of gender under the age of 18 years but, as I say, it is not something I sit overly comfortably with.

Frankly, we have all sorts of restrictions on what people can do under the age of 18 years and it seems bizarre to me that they will be able to go and get married, they need a Magistrates Court order, they cannot fight in a war and they cannot vote, yet they can register their change of sex. I find this a little confusing and I think there is room for some tidying up of that.

But it is not a clear and present danger, namely, an area which requires immediate attention, in my view, as a priority. There would be some people out there who want to have this issue settled, and I think it is fair to say that our current Sexual Reassignment Act 1988 is out of date and, generally, it is agreed that it is an act which needs to be repealed. We have had some very good people inquire into this, including the Hon. Andrew McLachlan, from another place, and the member for Heysen; and, of course, I value their advice and contribution to the committee on this. So, for my part, I will be accepting the bill.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (17:17): I rise to give some clarification as to the position I have reached at the stage we are with this bill. I have taken the time before the introduction of this bill to read the Legislative Review Committee's report into changes in this area and I would agree that a lot of what has been dealt with here is consistent with that. Also, there is a South Australian Law Reform Institute report that dealt with the same issues and, by and large, came to the same conclusion, with some technical changes.

The chief mischief that I think this bill seeks to address and deal with—again, building on the comments for the member for Bragg—is the harshness, or the difficulty, which people who have reassigned their sex have to go through in order to have that recognised. I can understand, very much, that somebody who has gone through a very difficult and traumatic process, would seek an understanding of the submissions made, especially to the Legislative Review Committee's report.

These people have been through a great deal of stress and hardship, and that final act of humiliation, almost, of having to ask a judge to agree with you about what you believe in your heart is demeaning, and I completely understand that. That is the chief mischief that I think this bill is seeking to address and something that I am extremely comfortable with and would like to support. As a Liberal who believes in a bit of deregulation, we can throw that argument in there as well.

This bill also seeks to do a whole heap of other things, and the whole heap of other things is where I start to have to question support for various parts of this bill. This is something we have had to deal with in two previous pieces of legislation around parenting presumptions and also around the gender identity changes that were made in terms of definitions in the previous act that was passed. What we are seeking to do here, I think, is fundamentally change what our birth certificate is. Currently, to the best of our knowledge, a birth certificate is statement of biological fact. It does, at its best, state the biological fact of, obviously, when you were born and those particulars, but also who your biological parents are and the biological particulars of the child.

I agree that it is not always a perfect document and that there are times when we do not know who the biological father is. There are times now when we have allowed non-biological parents to be on the birth certificate, but now we are seeking to fundamentally change the birth certificate from a statement of biological fact to a statement of identity and of being, and I think they are two completely different things. I am struggling to understand why necessarily the birth certificate is the best place for this and I think that it does, in my view, fundamentally change what a birth certificate is designed to do. It is, obviously, a document, and an important document, but a document that helps to define who people are.

On that point, at this stage I am leaning on the side of not wanting to change this statement of biological fact, especially when, as the member for Bragg also stated, there is no imminent mischief. From what we understand from the registrar, in South Australia there has not been a case where a viable birth has not been able to be identified as being from either gender. That is not to say that there are not cases around the world, but it has not happened in South Australia.

There have been examples where there has been a stillbirth very early on in the pregnancy where that has been difficult to determine, but where there has been a baby that is born and is alive, or even a full-term baby that is stillborn, that issue has not been there. This understanding of non-binary births is not a mischief that we need to fix. It is one that we need to think more deeply about and it is a part of this bill that I am not, at this stage, inclined to support.

This bill also seeks to provide for a process for same-sex marriage. There is a process by which a homosexual couple will be able to manipulate this process in order to get around the current definition of marriage in order to become married. Gay marriage is not something we deal with in this place because I think there is a reasonable opinion that there are some constitutional difficulties if we allow a process in South Australia for gay marriage and, if that is inconsistent with federal law, federal law takes precedence.

I am not entirely sure that what this bill seeks to do, in terms of providing a process for homosexual marriage, is actually constitutional and, again, I think there is a debate that is being had at a federal level and there is a process by which that decision could arrive at a conclusion. I will not go into the plebiscite debate; that has been well-canvassed outside of this place. Having said that, I do not believe that this part of the bill is necessary and, in fact, it has some constitutional difficulty.

The bill also seeks to enact provisions which prevent the change of sex from eliminating a person's entitlement under a will or trust, unless the will or trust provides otherwise. I think that is entirely sensible and an important part of this bill that I would be more than happy to support. It provides for provisions for secrecy where someone changes their gender so that previous genders are not present on the birth certificate but are kept on a background record that is only obtainable in certain circumstances. I think that is entirely appropriate and, again, something we have dealt with in previous bits of legislation.

This bill wraps up a couple of very noble things that are much more difficult for us to deal with. I want to deal now with understanding the changes that we are seeking to make to the process by which someone can change their sex or change their gender. In terms of reducing the process and the red tape that someone over the age of 16 has to go through in order to change their sex, I think that is entirely appropriate and I am willing and wanting to support those measures.

We are now changing what it means to reassign your sex to reassigning your gender. Given that, according to the briefings that we have had, there is now a more fluid understanding of what gender is as opposed to sex, changing a sex on a birth certificate is certainly worthwhile. However, I think changing a gender on a birth certificate moves away from statements of biology to a more fluid concept that I do not necessarily think needs to be changed on a birth certificate. I also have some real reluctance around what happens for sexual reassignment for children under the age of 16. According to research out of the US from the American College of Pediatricians:

According to the DSM-V, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.

That says to me that we need to be extremely cautious about irreversible changes for people who are under the age of 16. I understand that this bill creates a separate, more onerous process for those under the age of 16, but I do not feel entirely comfortable with where this process is at present. As the member for Bragg said, there are a number of areas in law where those under the age of 18 are restricted from the things they can do because parliaments all around the world have held to the principle that children need protection whilst they are growing up before they reach a certain point in their lives when they are able to fully make decisions. This, I think, is one of them.

Whether it be being able to consent to having sex, whether it be driving a car, serving in the military, voting, or even leaving school, there are so many areas in which we treat minors differently because we understand they are not fully able to make the most informed decisions for themselves. Given that the research by the American College of Pediatricians shows that the vast majority of children who experience gender dysphoria grow out of it, I would suggest that we need to exercise extreme caution when opening up sexual reassignment or gender identity changes for those under the age of 16.

I want to thank members of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet who were there for the briefing we were provided. According to the federal law at this stage, children under 16 need to apply to a family court in order to undertake irreversible procedures like hormone therapy or surgery. I have not done research into how often it is used, but having said that, it seems that there is a reasonable number of safeguards in place in order to ensure that this is only used in the more extreme cases. The presumption is that we should wait until children have grown up, and if the gender dysphoria they have is resolved through the advent of going through puberty, that leads to a better outcome.

The last thing I want to say on this is that this is a conscience vote for both sides of the house. Where the party discipline breaks down, I think it makes it much more difficult to ask the parliament to make an informed decision. I am not speaking on behalf of the Labor Party because their process may be different, but certainly from a Liberal perspective, when we are dealing with private members bills and government business, we form a party position.

Various shadow ministers provide papers to the party. This allows the party to be informed, and to make an informed judgment. We can also rely on the various strengths of the different members of our party who have expertise in different areas in order to make the best and most informed decision. As a bill progresses and amendments are brought forward, those changes are communicated to the party room and we can continue to be informed as to the latest status of a bill.

What happens in a conscience vote, and I think this is extremely regrettable, is that everybody is in charge of looking after their own opinion, and that is appropriate. But that can mean that some are coming into this place not fully abreast of what is going on, not able to rely upon a party vote in order to help guide them but needing to look into their own conscience. Again, I think that is entirely appropriate, but that means that where a bill is more complex, or where potentially some parts of a bill are worthy of support but other parts potentially are not, it gets quite difficult for this place to be able to deal with it.

What I am leading to is the fact that I think that there are some things that are very worthy to support in this bill, and I would be more than happy to support them, but there are a whole heap of things that are quite complex and quite difficult. Given that this bill has only been out there for a short period of time and there are issues that we would like to flesh out further, I am not at this stage inclined to support the second reading of this bill. If we were to go clause by clause, we would be asking the parliament to deal with very complex issues for which we have had little time and little preparation to be able to answer.

As the member for Bragg said, there is no immediate mischief. If there is an opportunity for the bill to be streamlined to deal with the things that I think need to be solved in relation to changes to the way changing of sex is done, we can all get around that and ensure that those who alter their sex are not discriminated against when it comes to wills and trusts. I think we would all be happy to support those things.

With those comments, I want to say that my mind is still very much open and I would like to be able to find a way to deal with the issues as they exist without our heading down a path of unintended consequences without having fully understood the risks we are taking. I think this bill has some way to go. With that, I will be voting against the second reading stage of this bill, but I look forward to continuing this debate as it happens over coming months.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton) (17:32): I will not hold the house for very long. It might come as no surprise to anyone in this chamber that I support this bill. I support it on the basis that there is great diversity within our community, that it is based on equity, that it is based on fairness, and it is about ensuring that we offer to those people who identify differently than being just—and I do not mean 'just' in that way—a man or a woman to be able to be properly recognised under the regulations and the law of the land.

To me, it makes a great deal of sense and I will be supporting this particular bill. It is a conscience vote, and I am not going to have a go at anyone. People are entitled to their opinions, and to a certain extent I say that you are entitled to your opinions providing that they are not racist in nature or the like and that you are not going to ram your view down my throat. I will respect that you have that view. I am not being disrespectful, but I just want to touch on a couple of matters raised by the member for Schubert.

We are told all the time that the Liberal Party on every matter has a conscience vote, so I do not really understand in his delivery the complexities associated with a conscience vote, although I do remember a little bit earlier listening to the member for Bragg, who said, 'Occasionally we do get together and consolidate a position within the party.' I accept that, but the reality is that the member for Schubert is talking about the complexities of a conscience vote. I do not believe they exist. You vote the way you feel and what you believe in.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: I'm not a whip, and I have no aspirations to be a whip. This is a decision that we make based on our particular conscience. When we go clause by clause, as was said by the member for Schubert, I would like to think that at the very least we would take this and get the consensus of the house to go to a second reading speech so that at least we can debate the clauses which the member for Schubert has so much difficulty supporting.

To me that would make a lot of sense because I think we have an obligation to at least get to that stage where we can have a proper debate on the clauses that are put forward that will allow those people, who may be suffering from a lack of understanding or a belief of unintended consequence, the ability to be able to debate those particular clauses and perhaps get a better idea of what they really mean and what the consequences might be.

I say that the consequences are that we will provide an opportunity for people who identify differently than a man or a woman to be able to be properly protected and recognised under the law, as we all are in this particular chamber. I do not see that it creates any problem at all, and I think that it reflects what is a proper, progressive and inclusive society for us to be putting this in place. I do not want to go through the key features of the bill because that has been done in the second reading. I have made the effort to understand them, and I think that I will just be wasting the chamber's time by going on and on about them.

However, what I want to focus on is that when we come here into this chamber, we have a certain responsibility and, again, without being disrespectful to my colleagues on the other side, it seems to me that on numerous occasions when it suits the people opposite to suggest that they are pro-choice and that they are liberal in their views, when it comes to certain issues that we know are impacting upon people within our community they want to proffer a view that is opposite to the ability to have people choose and to be pro-choice on issues. I find that a particular contradiction.

The work being undertaken and the work that was done previously by the Legislative Review Committee, and certainly worked on significantly by the South Australian Law Reform Institute, has been very good work. It is work that ought be supported in relation to this particular bill. I think it is long overdue that we, as a parliament, agreed that there is diversity in our community, that that diversity requires an approach to equality that recognises that diversification and that we put in place the protections that we can under our constitution and under state law that we know are going to assist those people.

I have two beautiful boys—and I am more than happy to show you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a picture those boys later on. They are outstanding young men of whom I am very proud. But I think to myself—

An honourable member: Surprisingly handsome.

The Hon. P. CAICA: They get their looks from their mother, and for that they should be thankful.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do you need my protection, member for Colton?

The Hon. P. CAICA: No, I don't need your protection. I need to protect myself from responding to certain things. I think, 'What if my boy was born with such a situation that he did not identify as a boy?' Would I allow the situation to occur where he could not be recognised as what it is he identifies as? I love my children and I would do whatever I could to make sure that they are treated the same as everyone else and that they have available to them, within the laws of the land, those things that are going to support them and protect them.

Or do we go back to the days when they used to put electrodes on people's heads and say, 'This is a disability and we can cure this by electrocuting people,' and turning them into whatever with shock treatment. We have gone beyond that. We are a community now, one of the most advanced societies in the world, the greatest place in the world to live. I often say that the people of the western suburbs live in the best part of the best state in the best country in the best place in the world. For that, we need to ensure that our laws reflect diversity, that they reflect equality and that they address those things that are missing at the moment.

One of the things that is missing at the moment is a proper approach to these particular issues—in this case, this bill. I commend this bill to the house and I will be supporting it, as you would expect, and I expect others in the chamber to respect my views as I respect their views. I might not agree with them, but I will respect their right to have that view.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (17:39): I rise to speak to the Births, Deaths and Marriages (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill 2016. From the outset, it will probably not come as any surprise to anyone that I will not be supporting this bill. Looking at it, I do believe it is delving into spaces that we are not legally liable for as a state parliament. I certainly believe that it is a Trojan Horse for gay marriage. I say that because people under this bill do not even have to have gender reassignment to alter their idea of where they are in regard to gender.

The Hon. P. Caica interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Hammond, you are speaking to me. I am listening to you.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you for your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will always protect you, member for Hammond.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I refer to the definition of a reassignment procedure from the Sexual Reassignment Act 1988, which provides:

…reassignment procedure means a medical or surgical procedure (or a combination of such procedures) to alter the genitals and other sexual characteristics of a person, identified by birth certificate as male or female, so that the person will be identified as a person of a different sex and includes, in relation to a child, any such procedure (or combination of procedures) to correct or eliminate ambiguities in the child's sexual characteristics;

What we see in the bill before us is that there does not have to be a physical reassignment of anyone's genitals. You can have a consultation with a psychologist, a doctor, and that is counted as a clinical assessment. In my mind, that is what brings me to the fact that I believe that this is a Trojan Horse for gay marriage. You may have a gay couple, whether it is two ladies or two gentlemen, and to get around the federal Marriage Act one of them decides that if they are a man they will become a woman and if they are a woman with a lesbian partner they will become a man.

As the member for Schubert also outlined, I believe that could well and truly happen under this legislation. There is nothing ruling it out at all. I will be interested in the ensuing debate to see if there is anything to rule it out. I just cannot see it in the legislation. What does bother me with the bill is the fact that children can alter their gender, but what really concerns me is the fact that it gets to the case of 16 to 18 year olds being able to make that decision. I can see this causing a lot of issues and not just legally, and that is why I do not believe the law should be passed.

Apart from the legal ramifications, I think that in a home it could create so much angst between parents and a 16-year-old child who suddenly decides that they want to change their gender and the parents are not happy about it but they cannot do anything about it. Certainly, in Australia a child is someone under 18 years of age; that is well known. Parents are responsible for the care of their child until they become 18 years of age. Obviously, they are not in charge of court orders and things like that.

An interesting point is that males and females can consent to intercourse at the age of 17. However, it is an offence to interact sexually with someone under the age of 17, even if both individuals are under 17 and have consented. It is not legal to have sex at 16, but this bill, if it passes and becomes an act, will make it legal to identify a gender change on your birth certificate of all things. I really struggle with that. I do note that the age of 16 has been identified, as the law states, as the age at which children can make decisions about their own medical and dental treatment, but I believe this is a step far too far. An article from the University of Rochester Medical Center on 'Understanding the teen brain' states:

It doesn't matter how smart your teen is or how well he or she scored on [their university entrance exam]. Good judgement isn't something he or she can excel in, at least not yet. The rational part of a teen's brain isn't fully developed and won't be until he or she is 25 years old or so.

In fact, recent research has found that adult and teen brains work quite differently. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain's rational part. This is the part of the brain that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences. Teens process information with the amygdala. This is the emotional part.

In teens' brains, the connections between the emotional part of the brain and the decision-making center are still developing. That's why when teens are under overwhelming emotional input, they can't explain later what they were thinking. They weren't thinking as much as they were feeling.

In its article 'The changing brain and behaviour in teens', the National Institute of Mental Health states:

One interpretation of all these findings is that in teens, the parts of the brain involved in emotional responses are fully online, or even more active than in adults, while the parts of the brain involved in keeping emotional, impulsive responses in check are still reaching maturity. Such a changing balance might provide clues to a youthful appetite for novelty, and a tendency to act on impulse—without regard for risk.

While much is being learned about the teen brain, it is not yet possible to know to what extent a particular behaviour or ability is the result of a feature of brain structure—or a change in brain structure. Changes in the brain take place in the context of many other factors, among them, inborn traits, personal history, family, friends, community, and culture.

My concern with this bill is that on a whim someone can decide to alter their identity on their birth certificate of all things. Then it becomes illegal to publish or use any extract from the actual birth certificate. I have been told in the briefing that your initial birth certificate will be kept in storage somewhere—I guess, in the registry—but the actual certificate that the person will use will be the one that has been amended.

I believe that if people want to go through this process, there should be another way of recording the change. That would be a far better way because I think we need to respect and acknowledge how a child's birth is recorded at birth. As the deputy leader and the member for Schubert have said, it is to be noted that there has not been a single case where there was indeterminate sex at the birth of a child in South Australia. Certainly, in the 10½ years I have been in this place, I have had no-one come to me about this issue we are debating today.

What I will say is people come to their local MP, and it does not really matter what the MP's thoughts are about the world on many issues, from a neighbour's fence being put in the wrong place right through to cases of child abuse, which are terrible stories to hear, and everything in between. Every MP in this place will have those issues. I certainly understand that, with every issue that comes before me, there are at least two sides to a story and sometimes at least three sides, so you need to be reasonably wise in how you react to some of the issues that come in your front door, that come down the email line or that people bring into you.

In regard to passports, they can be issued to sex and gender diverse applicants. You can be male, you can be female or you can be X: indeterminate, intersex or unspecified. I note that, if you are applying for a passport in a sex different from that recorded on your birth certificate or your previous Australian passport, you need to fill out and complete a full passport application form and provide original documents as evidence of your identity, citizenship and preferred sex. If you are also changing your name at that time, you will need to present a change of name certificate issued by an Australian registry of births, deaths and marriages or a legalised foreign equivalent.

As I said, there are issues throughout this bill that I find confronting. I know there are members who will support this bill, but I look at the definition of 'clinical treatment' which states, 'clinical treatment need not involve invasive medical treatment (and may include or be constituted by counselling)'. That is certainly a part that I am really concerned with. It essentially is a massive change from the Sexual Reassignment Act 1988.

The bill goes through the change of sex or gender identity for applicants born in South Australia, and it contains provisions, as I mentioned earlier, about changing a child's sex or gender identity. You have to have material supporting the applications. There is special provision relating to access to the register, and I note the clauses around use of old birth certificate to deceive. Basically, it makes your original birth certificate an illegal document. There are other clauses around South Australian residents who are born outside the country and on the issue of identity acknowledgement certificates.

The South Australian Law Reform Institute and the Legislative Review Committee have had a look at this, and I note that, as the act now stands with births, deaths and marriages, it provides a statutory basis for the registration of births in South Australia. The Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages must be notified of all births in South Australia, and the notification must include an indication of the child's sex as either male or female. This must take place within seven days and is usually undertaken by the hospital at which the child is born.

The birth must also be formally registered on the Births, Deaths and Marriages register, again in the prescribed form that requires an indication of the child's sex as either male or female. This must occur within 60 days, and the registrar has the discretion to register a birth even where these details are incomplete. There is an understanding that this discretion has only been exercised with respect to stillborn children. It has not been used to avoid recording the sex and/or gender of an intersex child.

The Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act does not prescribe a process for changing a person's sex on the register. However, the South Australian Sexual Reassignment Act 1998 contains a process for obtaining a recognition certificate that can then be presented to the registrar who must then make the required change to the register, but only within the categories of male and female.

It is interesting to note that in different jurisdictions throughout the world, in some places legislative change has taken place, but it certainly has not here in this country. That is why we are debating this bill now. The ACT has a process that is in place, Victoria has a process, and New South Wales has a process. Western Australia only has regulation around specific regulation of sexual reassignment procedures. The Northern Territory has a process, Tasmania has a process, and Queensland has a process. There are also some international jurisdictions that have a process. That does not mean we need to follow them.

I am a firm believer in people exercising their conscience, and I disagree with the member for Colton, who says we are always voting with our conscience on this side of the house. We do have party room positions. We are not absolutely locked in like the Labor Party and the comrades—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Not on this bill. There is a conscience vote now, but generally on other legislation coming through the place the Labor Party must conform.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PEDERICK: But we have the right to disagree on other general legislation. It is absolutely correct that this is a conscience matter, as I understand it, for the Labor Party and, obviously, for our party.

I follow the debate with interest. I think people really have to have a good think, and the member for Schubert outlined what it is that we are trying to fix here. What mischief is there? I do not think, certainly in the case of worrying about a child's sex at birth, that there is any mischief to change. I believe there is a whole range of issues about people just being able to go to a counsellor and decide that they are going to change their gender without any physical change. I am sure I will get some correspondence, and that is fine, but people need to respect that we all have different views in this place. I will certainly be interested in how the debate goes through this place and, potentially, the other place.

I do have some major concerns, as I indicated right at the start of my contribution, that this is a Trojan Horse for gay marriage, which we do not even legislate on at a state level. We have the plebiscite that was promised by the Turnbull Liberal government as an election issue, and they are going down that path, but I have major concerns with 16 and 17-year-old children making these decisions of gender reassessment on how they feel about themselves, and I have a major concern that people can flip-flop. For five years they might decide they are a man and the next five they might decide they are a woman. From what I can see in the legislation, there is no reason why they cannot do that, so I do have some major reservations going forward.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.R. Kenyon.