Births, Deaths and Marriages (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 6.

Mr KNOLL: If I could seek some clarification. I refer to the second set of amendments in my name, amendments Nos 2 through to 9.

The CHAIR: We are going to look first at schedule 3 and your amendment No. 1, which you would like to move. This is your new amendment, schedule 3.

Mr KNOLL: Do I need to do the third round first or do I deal with the second set?

The CHAIR: We are telling you that it is schedule 3, the new one, and you would like to move your amendment No. 1?

Mr KNOLL: Yes.

The CHAIR: Correct. You are moving it?

Mr KNOLL: Yes, and this is to give effect to remove new section 29J. I move:

Amendment No. 1 [Knoll-3]—

Page 4, lines 17 to 39—Delete all words [29J]

Page 5, lines 1 to 9—Delete all words [29J]

This is essentially, as I spoke about in my second reading contribution, around the issue of those under 18 having access to this process.

The CHAIR: Is there any discussion on schedule 3, amendment No. 1?

Ms HILDYARD: This is just for clarification. I just want to check that what the member for Schubert is doing now is to move his amendment that removes all of the wording in 29J? So, we are dealing with 29J. I imagine a couple of other people might have questions.

The CHAIR: Do you have this piece of paper?

Ms HILDYARD: Yes, I do now.

The CHAIR: Does everybody have a copy of schedule 3, because that is what we are dealing with? If you do not have a copy of schedule 3, please come and get one. It is amending clause 6. We are all looking at schedule 3, amendment No. 1 in the name of the member for Schubert which amends clause 6, page 4 lines 17 to 39 and page 5 lines 1 to 9 to delete all words (29J). Does everyone understand where we are? The member for Colton.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I have a question to the assistant minister. Everyone in this house in the committee stage has a right to do this, but I am a bit confused. It seems to me that, by voting for this, it could be—and this is what I want confirmation of—taking away what has been an existing provision for an extended period of time.

Ms HILDYARD: Thank you to the member for Colton, my good friend, for his question. This morning in closing the debate in relation to this bill, I spoke about why this bill is so important. This bill is incredibly important because it actually focuses on removing longstanding discrimination against our LGBTIQ brothers and sisters in our South Australian community.

I spoke about how proud I was to stand with my colleagues to take a step forward to remove that discrimination. When we contemplated all of the legislation that arises out of the South Australian Law Reform Institute's work, out of its recommendations, we developed legislation that takes us forward, that removes discrimination, that makes our South Australian community more inclusive, more equal, more fair, more respectful of our LGBTIQ community members. Nothing about the work we have done is about taking us backwards. This amendment would, absolutely, take us backwards. This amendment takes out a right that has existed in the Sexual Reassignment Act 1988, so for almost 30 years we have provided this right to LGBTIQ South Australians.

Because we are repealing the Sexual Reassignment Act in order to put these new provisions into this Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill, in removing those provisions both from the Sexual Reassignment Act and this new bill we would be absolutely taking an unprecedented step backwards, not the step forward that we are trying to take together here for equality. To do so, would be absolutely unconscionable in terms of the agenda we have as South Australians to include all South Australians in all aspects of community life.

Mr KNOLL: To respond with an upward inflection, the first thing I would say is that under sexual reassignment, obviously invasive procedures need to be undertaken. By changing the definition, as we have in this bill, to include gender identity, in my view we have fundamentally changed how this process works. So, I think there does need to be new contemplation about how we deal with it.

I would much prefer for this to be 16 because my argument, in previous second reading speeches and this afternoon, has been that, according to the research I have dealt with, in the majority of children who experience gender dysphoria, the dysphoria rights itself through the act of puberty. What I am simply saying here is that we should give children the chance to have that opportunity before they make a permanent change.

We do not allow children to drink alcohol until they are 18, to vote until they are 18 or to do a whole host of things. This is a very serious thing that we are asking children to do, and I contend that there needs to be a level of emotional maturity and, also, the time, as the research says, to let these issues right themselves, if they can, and, if they do not, certainly they should be open to that much easier process.

I would be much happier if the definition was merely the changing of sex because I think that is a long-term process that would take quite a number of years, anyway. We have widened the definition now to include gender identity, so I think there needs to be a lot more caution now that we have broadened it in that way. Again, I repeat that the chief mischief that we are all here trying to fix is making the process easier for adults so that they do not have to go in front of a magistrate, but I remain deeply concerned about children making this decision, in my mind potentially prematurely. So, I urge members to support this amendment.

Mr PEDERICK: I support the amendment by the member for Schubert because, obviously, the proponents of the bill worked out that they needed to fix the issue around whether it was the age of 18 or 16 for children, so they have moved that into this bill. I concur that, when you change gender identity, it is completely different from reassignment., so I concur with the member for Schubert.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 19

Noes 26

Majority 7

Mr KNOLL: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Knoll–2]—

Page 5, line 1 [clause 6, inserted section 29J(5)(c)]—Delete 'is receiving or has received' and substitute:

has undertaken a sufficient amount of

Amendment No. 2 essentially builds on amendment No. 1, which passed earlier. Again, I think 'is receiving or has received' was appropriate in the Sexual Reassignment Act, but now that we have again widened the definition of changing sex using an invasive procedure, either hormone therapy or surgery, now to include counselling, I believe that it is appropriate to change the wording from 'is receiving or has received' to 'has undertaken a sufficient amount of'. How that is administered would be up to the doctor to undertake, whether a sufficient amount of treatment has been undertaken.

Again, given that sexual reassignment is now being widened to include gender identity, I think that this is appropriate to make sure that full weight is given to the severity and the seriousness of the difficult changes people will seek to undertake when this is enacted. By way of further clarification, I was potentially looking at 'have completed' to replace 'is receiving or has received'. I think that potentially works for surgery and clinical treatment, but it does not work for hormone therapy, where people continue to take hormone blockers. I would not want that to get in the way of somebody being able to rightly access a change of gender or sex under this bill. That is why there is a different set of words that encompasses all three forms of clinical treatment and tries to make the best balance between those three different methods.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 43

Noes 3

Majority 40

Amendment thus carried.

Mr KNOLL: The remaining amendments are consequential. Accordingly, I move:

Amendment No 3 [Knoll–2]—

Page 5, line 13 [clause 6, inserted section 29K(a)]—Delete 'is receiving or has received' and substitute:

has undertaken a sufficient amount of

Amendment No 4 [Knoll–2]—

Page 5, lines 24 and 25 [clause 6, inserted section 29K(b)(ii)(B)]—Delete 'is receiving or has received' and substitute:

has undertaken a sufficient amount of

Amendment No 5 [Knoll–2]—

Page 5, line 31 [clause 6, inserted section 29L]—Delete 'is receiving or has received' and substitute:

has undertaken a sufficient amount of

Amendment No 6 [Knoll–2]—

Page 7, line 12 [clause 6, inserted section 29O(2)(b)]—Delete 'is receiving or has received' and substitute:

has undertaken a sufficient amount of

Amendment No 7 [Knoll–2]—

Page 7, line 36 [clause 6, inserted section 29P(3)(b)]—Delete 'is receiving or has received' and substitute:

has undertaken a sufficient amount of

Amendment No 8 [Knoll–2]—

Page 8, line 8 [clause 6, inserted section 29P(5)(c)]—Delete 'is receiving or has received' and substitute:

has undertaken a sufficient amount of

Amendment No 9 [Knoll–2]—

Page 8, line 17 [clause 6, inserted section 29Q]—Delete 'is receiving or has received' and substitute:

has undertaken a sufficient amount of

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

Ms HILDYARD (Reynell) (16:50): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

As I said when I closed the second reading debate, thank you to all my colleagues who have contributed to this debate. I particularly offer my thanks to the deputy leader for her very constructive questions that have certainly helped us through this debate. I did speak at length when I closed the second reading debate, so I will not speak at length again other than to acknowledge my colleagues and also all the members of the LGBTIQ community who have been such supporters of this bill, so constructive in their input and so dedicated to the cause of equality for their fellow South Australians.

There is one person I did not mention before. Shayne Glasgow, who is the President of Pride of the South in my own community, has been a relentless advocate in our southern community and also more broadly in South Australia. Thank you very much to Shayne and again thank you to all the community advocates who have participated so strongly in this debate and all the supporters of this bill.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:52): I rise to speak on the third reading of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill 2016. I indicate that my concerns remain on the continuation of new section 29N, which is the penalty clause that makes it a criminal offence to use an old birth certificate to deceive.

I raised two matters. The first was whether we continue to need it, given that it is carried over from the existing 1988 legislation and we now have comprehensive equal opportunity law, if this is designed to in some way be punitive towards applicants who wish to register a change of gender. Secondly, we have very clear provisions in our Criminal Law Consolidation Act and other criminal statutory provision to deal with the illegal use of a document for the purposes of committing an offence.

That may not be just deception. It may relate to a fraud or even a larceny. It does concern me that this remains because it is very punitive. It relates to any person causing mischief against someone who has changed their gender or someone who is causing mischief who is actually applying to change their gender through this new process. This is old-world legislation. It should be removed.

I again ask the assistant minister to revisit the situation between the houses. I am disappointed that neither in committee nor in her response to the third reading, or even on the third reading, has she made any reference to this. I ask her again, 'If you want to come into the 21^st century, get this right and get rid of it.'

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (16:55): Very briefly, in my second reading speech I indicated that the removal of new section 29J from the bill was a threshold issue, but I feel that we have had the debate, we have had the committee, and the parliament has made its decision. I do not want to be the one who puts seeking perfection, as I see it, in the way of very good work, and I am happy to vote for this bill in the third reading.

Bill read a third time and passed.