Published on: October 2024
Record: HANSARD-1323879322-146294
Equality Legislation Amendment (LGBTIQA+) Bill 2023
Second Reading Debate
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.
Mr ALISTER HENSKENS (Wahroonga) (13:11:20):
As the shadow Attorney General, I lead for the Opposition in debate on the Equality Legislation Amendment (LGBTIQA+) Bill 2023. I begin with a chronology. Something extraordinary occurred today regarding debate on the bill that I think needs to be brought to the attention of not only the House but also the public. By way of introduction, I say that the former Coalition Government, in its 12 years in government, introduced many reforms and made many decisions not to change things that were already laws in New South Wales when it came to government. I will speak about some of those matters on behalf of the Opposition, but at no time was the former Coalition Government intolerant of diversity in the community.
From the outset, I make clear that the Liberal Party and The Nationals do not stand for discrimination or hatred in the community. They recognise that people are different. The Liberal Party is a champion of the individual, but there is a great diversity of individuals in the community. There are individuals who feel strongly about their sexual identity, as well as individuals who feel strongly about women's privacy and safety, and other individuals who feel strongly about their freedom to practise or not practise their cultural norms, including their religion. Politics and government are about striking the right balance on the sometimes many conflicting, individual wants on various issues so that the community interest is maximised. Opinions will legitimately differ on those matters. When people listening to the debate hear some of the issues that are covered in the bill, I think they will agree that the issues raised by the bill give rise to many reasonable positions where legitimate views may differ.
Business Paper
Context is everything. I start with an explanation of the process by which we are debating the bill today because it is highly relevant to the Coalition's position on the bill and why the Coalition, like the Labor Party, will not be having a conscience vote on the bill. The equality bill was introduced by the member for Sydney on 22 August 2023 when the Minns Government suspended standing orders to give it priority over other private members' bills that were before it on the . Under that suspension of standing orders, the second reading speech for the bill occurred two days later, on 24 August 2023—about 14 months ago. At all times since, the member for Sydney has told the Coalition that the bill will be brought forward and debated in Parliament in a form that is likely to be very different from the 50-page bill that was introduced into Parliament 14 months ago and that the Coalition will have plenty of notice of the final form of the bill.
Effectively, the Coalition was told to put its pens down, as what was in the 50-page bill introduced in August last year would not be the form of the legislation and the member for Sydney would only advance or amend parts of the bill that were supported by the Minns Labor Government. On 29 November 2023 the member for Sydney moved a suspension of standing orders to stop the bill lapsing and to extend it until 15 March 2024. In January the Coalition was told by the member for Sydney that he was working with the Government and that the Coalition would be given plenty of time to consider changes to the bill. He said that might not happen before 15 March and there might be the need for further extensions of time to stop the bill lapsing. The clear message was, "Put your pens down. What you have is not what will be brought to Parliament. You would be wasting your time considering matters that may never come before the Parliament."
On 13 March 2024 the member for Sydney moved a suspension of standing orders to extend the lapsing date of the equality bill to 16 August 2024 and referring the bill to a committee for report. On 7 May 2024 the Opposition moved for an extension of its own Bail Act reforms, and then again on 15 May 2024 moved for an extension with regard to the Government's domestic violence reforms. Both were directed towards ensuring that electronic monitoring for people charged with serious domestic violence offences would be implemented as soon as possible following the death of Molly Ticehurst. The member for Sydney and the Minns Labor Government did not support expediting either the Opposition bill or, extraordinarily, the Government's own bill. The member for Sydney was scathing in his criticism of expediting protections for victims of domestic violence. He said that expedition showed "such disrespect to stakeholders in this space" and that it was "the greatest dereliction of duty" in his 12 years in Parliament. That was when he had had for a couple of weeks the Opposition policy and the legislation upon which the Labor legislation was based.
At 12.15 p.m. today the true amendments to the bill that the member seeks to bring forward were first put on the parliamentary website and were therefore available to the Opposition for the first time. The member did not supply that document between Saturday night, when a different document was provided, and 12.15 p.m. today. Extraordinarily, the Attorney General, on behalf of the Minns Labor Government, made his contribution to the second reading debate on a form of the bill that was not publicly available at the time he got up to speak, because he finished his speech prior to question time.
HansardHansard
In late July of this year, the member for Sydney informed the Opposition that the Government was still looking at the equality bill and that it could draft its own bill, amend his bill or decide that it was all too difficult. He said that he wanted a respectful debate and that there would be at least five business days for the Opposition to consider the changes before we debated the bill. I hasten to identify that respect is a two-way street. On 8 August 2024 the member for Sydney moved a suspension of standing orders to extend the lapsing date for his equality bill to 31 October 2024. As is recorded in , the Opposition said at that time that the quicker there is agreement and circulation of the amendments for public consultation, the better. shows that the member for Sydney agreed to that.
The Leader of the House noted that there were issues between the Government and the member for Sydney with regard to the bill. It became clear from some public statements that Labor seemed to be talking about some different amendments to the ones that had been supplied to the Opposition. Contrary to the assurances that there would be adequate time for consultation and consideration of the bill in its amended form, it was not until late on Saturday night—that is, only a few days ago—that the Opposition was given a document that the member for Sydney had asked the Parliamentary Counsel's Office to draft, described as document c2024‑115G. That is a notation that the Parliamentary Counsel puts on documents that have been created to record the version. The eight‑page document that we were supplied late on Saturday night contained 79 amendments to the 50-page equality bill originally introduced to Parliament by the member for Sydney in August of last year.
The fact that the member for Sydney and Labor seem to have issued a press release today that indicated a different number of schedules to the final bill suggests that amendments have been made or proposed that the Opposition has never been supplied. We kept checking the parliamentary website to see if there was a different amendment document and, as I have already said, it was not until 12.15 p.m. today that a new document first became available. As far as I am aware, a copy was never emailed to the Opposition. It made substantial changes to the already substantial changes that were given to the Opposition late on Saturday night. The member for Sydney thinks it is fair and reasonable that I should speak on behalf of the Opposition in debate on a substantially different proposed bill.
I will now take the time to read onto the parliamentary record the extent of the changes that have been made to the bill so that there is a full appreciation of the appalling process that is happening here. It is not just the height of disrespect for the Opposition and parliamentary process; it is the height of disrespect for the community. Given those statements that I read out from the member for Sydney in other debates in this House, it is the height of hypocrisy. I have been in this place for almost 10 years now—
Mr Adam Crouch:
It goes by fast.
Mr ALISTER HENSKENS:
Yes, it goes by very fast. The member for Terrigal and I came in here together and he knows. In almost 10 years I have never seen parliamentary process disrespected in this fashion by members not supplying amendments—particularly amendments on what the member for Sydney contends is very important legislation. When I was a barrister, I would not have been able to provide substantial amendments like that on no notice when I was about to start arguing a case. The courts would not allow it. The transparency of process is important, whether it is in our courts or in our parliaments. Indeed, I doubt that any workplace in the country would allow people to operate in that fashion and with such disrespect to their colleagues as the Minns Labor Government has, because it clearly had the amendments before they were supplied to the Opposition. The member for Sydney has performed in that fashion.
I make this very clear. The new document that was supplied to us and the public after 12.15 p.m. today has a number on it, and that new number is c2024-115V. That means that between Saturday night and today, there have been 15 further changes to the document that were never supplied to the Opposition. This is the fifteenth version. We only got what is apparently the fifteenth version when I was about to make a contribution on behalf of the Opposition, with no ability to properly address the changes that have been made.
Of course, something else is wrong about the process here, and it is not just about time. It is also about the fact that the Opposition was not given an opportunity to consult with the community and formulate a position with proper consideration. The other point is that when the original bill was introduced in August of last year, the second reading speech did not explain, word by word, all of the bill's provisions and why each of them was being proposed, as we usually hear in a second reading speech. With all of these further iterations of the bill and the amendments that seem to be coming almost by the minute, we have not had the benefit of the member for Sydney explaining to members and the public the reasons for the further changes—what is motivating them and why they are being made. There could not be a situation where a process had been more calculated to disarm proper transparency, scrutiny and debate about provisions.
A further matter that I have left out is that in accordance with ordinary parliamentary processes, the debate on the bill should have happened tomorrow, on Thursday, which is private members' bills day. Do members know when the Opposition was told that the matter would be debated today? It was told at 9.30 a.m. That was the first time anyone—the member for Sydney, the Labor Government or the Leader of the House—told the Opposition. It was the first time we were told that this debate would come on today. That is the process.
The member for Sydney has now left the Chamber, but he chose to personally attack me in the media today. I will not personally attack him. I always remember that our great former Premier Gladys Berejiklian used to say, "When people go low, I always go high." I will not make this a personal debate or a personal attack; I am interested in raising matters of process and the standards that the member for Sydney has previously stated as appropriate. This process has been terrible and should not have taken place.
I am now confronted with a speech that I worked late into the night to prepare on a bill that apparently will be different to the one that Opposition members were notified of late on Saturday night. I will talk about the amendments we were supplied with on Saturday night and then I will try to deal with the extensive further amendments that were put up for the first time at 12.15 p.m. today, less than an hour ago. I was certainly only made aware of those changes literally at the time the matter to be accorded priority had finished and this matter was called on for debate. Schedule 11 to the bill as amended, with the amendments we were notified of on Saturday night, seeks to repeal sections 15A and section 15 of the Summary Offences Act. The reasons for deleting those provisions were given in the second reading speech by the member for Sydney as follows:
There is an offence for knowingly living off the earnings of sex work, with adults living with a sex worker who do not have other sufficient lawful means of support specified. The offence could incriminate a sex worker's partner who becomes incapacitated, an adult child who lives at home while studying or a housemate on a low income. Exerting coercive conduct or undue influence to "cause or induce" someone to "commit an act of prostitution" or surrender any proceeds from it is an offence. The offence creates complications and risks for sex worker businesses in recruitment, sex workers talking about their work with friends and support services helping a person starting in sex work. The offence does not address sexual servitude, which is addressed in the Crimes Act.
Section 15A of the Summary Offences Act, which the member for Sydney notified us on Saturday evening he sought to repeal, has an offence for a person who causes or induces prostitution:
(1)A person must not, by coercive conduct or undue influence, cause or induce another person to commit an act of prostitution.
(2)A person must not, by coercive conduct or undue influence, cause or induce another person to surrender any proceeds of an act of prostitution.
The maximum penalty is imprisonment for 12 months or 50 penalty units. Coercion can be physical or psychological. It can be done by violence or threats of intimidation. Undue influence is a doctrine which started in the law of equity, which means that a person did an act under such circumstances as to show or give rise to findings that the person has not been allowed to exercise a free and deliberate choice about a matter. None of the arguments advanced by the member for Sydney in his second reading speech even approach any behaviour or circumstances that could justify the repeal of that section so as to justify persons coercing or using undue influence on another person to commit an act of prostitution or surrender the proceeds afterwards. In the second reading speech introducing the provision on 19 October 1995, the then Labor Attorney General, the Hon. Jeff Shaw, QC, said that section 15A:
… would include, for example, the offering of heroin to a heroin addict so that he or she engages in an act of prostitution. This provision is also capable of ensuring that the exploitation of young women in particular does not result from the recognition of brothels as legitimate commercial enterprises.
I say on behalf of the Opposition that there is never any justification for coercing or exerting undue influence on a woman to do something—like prostitution—against her will, and to profit from it. That is a disempowerment of a woman's agency to make decisions about what she does and does not do with her body. The section applies equally to men, women or trans people being coerced or unduly influenced. There is nothing in an LGBTQI+ equality bill that would suggest that provision should be repealed, as the member for Sydney informed the Opposition on Saturday night that he intended to do.
The examples given in the second reading speech by the member for Sydney about dependent adults, or that it could criminalise casual conversations with people wanting to start in the sex industry, are nothing like the kinds of behaviour that are covered by the law of coercion or undue influence. I challenge the Government or the member for Sydney to produce a single piece of reputable legal advice to suggest that these examples could amount to coercion or undue influence as the case law understands them. I cannot believe that the Premier of this State said that he supports the amendments of the member for Sydney and would support an amendment to allow the coercion women into prostitution by threats and intimidation without any criminal sanction, as we were notified on Saturday night was the intention of member for Sydney in the bill.
It is ironic that the Minns Government has cheered on the commencement of the operation of the former Coalition Government's coercive control legislation, which commenced on 1 July of this year, introduced by the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Coercive Control) Act 2022. That criminalising of intimate partner coercive control involved control by an intimate partner. Why is that of a different character to the Summary Offences Act provision? Why does the Minns Government want to support the legislation, which turns a blind eye to coercion of women into prostitution by people who are in a commercial relationship with the person?
The member for Sydney seems to be similarly confused because, in clause 2 of schedule 5 to the amended bill supplied to the Opposition on Saturday night, he wants to include in the definition of coercive behaviour "somebody who threatens to out a person's sexual orientation". Yet, with regard to the Summary Offences Act, he wants to take away any criminal sanction for somebody coercing a person into prostitution. Those are the sorts of matters that we have been confronted with in the document that was supplied on Saturday night, and we had not been told anything different before 12.15 p.m. today. And we only got notice at 9.30 a.m. this morning that the debate would be brought on a day early. The New South Wales Government's submission to the parliamentary inquiry on the proposed changes also agreed that the repeal of sections 15 and 15A would take away protection of sex workers from exploitation. Section 15 of the Summary Offences Act, which the member for Sydney also seeks to amend, is in the following terms:
15 Living on earnings of prostitution
(1)A person shall not knowingly live wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution of another person.
: Maximum penalty—10 penalty units or imprisonment for 12 months.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1), a person who is of or above the age of 18 years and who—
(a)lives with or is habitually in the company of, a reputed prostitute, and
(b)has no visible lawful means of support,
shall be taken knowingly to live wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution of another person unless he or she satisfies the court before which he or she is charged with an offence under that subsection that he or she has sufficient lawful means of support.
It is a kind of "unexplained wealth" provision, because the legislation recognises that it may be hard to prove coercion or that someone is actually coercing someone into prostitution. But if they have got unexplained wealth, they are obviously living off the proceeds of prostitution, which is taking advantage of very vulnerable people in the community who are engaged in prostitution. Subsection (3) states:
A person does not contravene subsection (1) by living wholly or in part on earnings derived from a brothel if the person owns, manages or is employed in the brothel.
Subsection (4) states:
For the purposes of subsection (3), premises may constitute a brothel even though used by only one prostitute for the purposes of prostitution.
Living wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution of another person is taking some or all of the earnings at or shortly after the act of prostitution. The people who criminally do this are colloquially known as pimps and usually coerce prostitutes by various means, which are difficult to prove, into being a prostitute. Living on the earnings of prostitution has nothing to do with a prostitute voluntarily sharing their earnings with a dependent adult child or a housemate, which were the examples given by the member for Sydney in his second reading speech. In introducing subsections (3) and (4) of section 15 into law, then Labor Attorney General the Hon. Jeff Shaw, QC, said in his second reading speech on 19 October 1995:
… living off the earnings of prostitution … requires a continuous association with the "industry" and habitual receipt of money from the earnings of prostitution.
None of the domestic relationships cited by the member for Sydney in his second reading speech constitutes a continuous association with the prostitution industry. There is not a business character to the domestic relationships that he uses in his examples to justify the amendment. There is no association with the industry because the receipt of money is by reason of a voluntary payment and has no commercial character in association with the industry of prostitution. The member's analogy is like saying that my children lived off the proceeds of Parliament when they were living at home and under the age of 18. It is ludicrous. The member for Sydney does not point to one case or decision in a court of this country consistent with his rather absurd interpretation of the section and what it means to live off the proceeds of prostitution.
The way to achieve the member's stated justification would have been to create an exception to the section to cover the instances that he is concerned about but to keep the criminal protection of vulnerable people from being commercially exploited. Instead of doing that, a complete repeal of the section was proposed in the amendments supplied to the Opposition on Saturday evening. It is not justified and should not be supported. Again, the provisions protect men, women and trans people equally. It is strange to see that protections of that kind would be taken out of a so-called LGBTIQA+ equality bill. To think that the Premier and the Minns Government are supporting the decriminalisation of exploitation of vulnerable men, women and trans people is difficult to fathom. Maybe that is why they do not want full transparency and the process has been so bad.
The next matter I go to is the question of birth certificates, which is in schedule 1 to the bill as amended by the 79 amendments supplied to us on Saturday evening. It deals with changes to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act and, in particular, to the sex recorded on the record of a person's birth. When in government, the Coalition did not repeal provisions protecting gender diversity or trans people and so on in the Anti-Discrimination Act and elsewhere. Indeed, we introduced provisions that recognise and protect such people.
For example, we introduced section 93Z into the Crimes Act, which created an offence of publicly threatening or inciting violence on the grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex or having HIV/AIDS status. We made it a criminal offence for a person, by a public act, to intentionally or recklessly threaten or incite violence towards another person or a group of persons on a number of grounds, which included sexual orientation and gender identity, with a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment and a fine of $11,000. Our position on these matters is not motivated by any lack of tolerance for diversity. It is because of the matters in the second reading speech that I will raise in debate on this omnibus bill.
The version of the bill that we were given on Saturday evening had 13 schedules and amended 12 pieces of legislation and one set of government rules. Our opposition to the changes proposed is motivated by a consequence of the many unanswered questions as to the implication of the rushed changes that are being put before Parliament. I raise a few matters. The existing part 5A of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Act provides for a process whereby a person born in New South Wales and is over the age of 18, or the parents or guardians of a child, may change the sex of a person on their birth record. They can do so after having a sex-affirming surgical procedure involving the alteration of a person's reproductive organs to help a person be considered a member of the opposite sex under sections 32A and 32B of the existing law, so long as the application is accompanied by a declaration by a registered medical practitioner, under section 32C.
The version of the bill that we were supplied with on Saturday night wants to change those provisions in a manner that the Coalition finds to be too low a threshold and by procedures that it does not find adequately protect minors and families. The possible implication of those shortcomings is significant. Sex is a biological descriptor based on reproductive, hormonal, anatomical and other objective criteria. Gender is an individual's subjective sense of what sex they are and is not necessarily visible to others. The outcome of this bill will be that the meaning of somebody's legal sex under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Act will change from an objective test to a subjective test like their gender, and the two are not the same.
Revenue NSW correctly states on its website that an Australian birth certificate issued by the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages is the only acceptable document for identity, and for people born overseas the identity document is a passport. As I have already explained, currently birth certificates in New South Wales identify a person's sex, which is an objective criteria, and passports indicate gender by a subjective criteria of gender. On the Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade website that is made clear. It states:
We record your preferred gender in the "Sex" field of your Australian passport. The gender options are:
M (male)
F (female)
X (non-binary/indeterminate/intersex/unspecified/other).
The Premier's public statements this week that a birth certificate and a passport should not be different as to sex appears to not understand the difference between the two, and that is that one is based on sex and the other is based on gender.
The Alex Greenwich bill, which is being supported by the Minns Government, proposes a new administrative process to change the sex on a birth certificate record of people born in New South Wales without requiring any medical or surgical intervention. In addition, contrary to some recent statements in the media, people can change their name under the existing part 5 of the births, deaths and marriages Act without any medical or surgical intervention. It is a completely false narrative to say that surgery is required for a name change if someone is trans. It can be done without surgery under section 5. The proposed bill introduces for the first time the possibility of registration of a sex descriptor other than male and female under the new section 32A definition that we were provided on Saturday night.
For a person aged 18 years or more and born in New South Wales, under proposed new section 32B supplied on Saturday night, the process requires an application in an approved form with a statutory declaration by the person stating that they identify as the nominated sex descriptor and live, or want to live, as another sex, with a statement in support by another adult who has known them for more than 12 months. For a person under the age of 18 and born in New South Wales, under proposed new section 32C supplied to us on Saturday night, the sex descriptor on their record may be changed by an order of the District Court after an application by the minor alone, supported by a qualified counsellor. No statutory declaration by the minor is required. The court may, but may not if the applicant convinces it otherwise, notify and seek the views of the parents or other persons with parentage responsibility for the child about the application to change their sex.
The qualifications required by a counsellor under proposed new section 32A are not stated in the legislation and will be determined by regulation. The parents or guardians, if they are all in agreement, may apply administratively to the registrar of births and deaths under proposed new section 32D to change the sex descriptor of the child. In that case, unlike an application by a minor under proposed new section 32C, supplied on Saturday night, a statutory declaration by the child is required under proposed new section 32D, supplied on Saturday night, when supported by the parents or guardian that the minor identify as being of the sex descriptor. If the parents or guardians do not all agree, they must apply to the District Court to change the record of sex descriptor under proposed new section 32E, supplied on Saturday night. Similar provisions relating to Australian or internationally born persons who were not born in New South Wales to change their sex descriptor are included in new division 4 that was supplied on Saturday night.
The proposal has raised significant community concern because the practical effect is that persons with the sex of a man who identify as a woman may, without any surgical change to their bodies, legally become a woman on their birth certificate and are likely to have, therefore, greater access to female-only spaces, such as swimming pool changerooms and showers, and to play female sport, attend female refuges, female prisons and so on, in a manner that they currently do not have the legal right to do. If a trans woman has a female birth certificate under the proposed new provisions and has undergone no medical hormone treatment or surgical process, then it will become difficult, and perhaps in breach of part 3A of the Anti-Discrimination Act, to treat them as anything other than female. Legalities aside, it would be very difficult from a practical point of view to contradict a birth certificate that states that a person is a woman, which could create significant issues for single‑sex schools, including boarding schools, and women's refuges. There are overseas and interstate examples where it has created major problems and risks in female prisons.
I was joined in a press conference today by an extraordinarily broad alliance of members of the community who are concerned about these issues. With all the trouble in the world today, many of the representatives of the Muslim faith, the Jewish faith, the Christian faiths, Hindus and Buddhists are concerned. Multicultural leaders are concerned. With us were representatives of lesbian groups who are concerned, including one who is a member of the Labor Party, considers herself extremely left wing and opposes the changes. In an Orwellian twist, proposed new section 32H, which we were supplied on Saturday evening, states that any change to the sex record under that part means a person is legally of the sex that has been changed. However, a note to the section which is of no legal effect states:
Nothing in this part changes access to toilets, changerooms, sport, allocation in correctional facilities, women's refuges or any other place.
Section 35 of the New South Wales Interpretation Act specifically states that notations like that one shall not be taken to be part of the Act. Not only do the operative provisions provide to the contrary of the notation, but, interestingly, the notation does not mention specifically schools or marriage ceremonies, which are two concerns about the practical implications. One practical concern that has been raised is the impact of the bill upon religious freedom. One concern is how will churches know that they are not marrying two people who are regarded by their religion as men when, contrary to their faith, one appears as a woman, has a changed birth certificate to state that they are a woman, but physically is a man? Indeed, it has been suggested that the marriage itself could be invalid because the civil marriage's validity depends upon a proper religious marriage. Similar considerations may apply to single-sex private religious schools.
Under Mr Greenwich's document, which was provided on Saturday night, and contrary to press statements made by him, parental consent is not required under the proposed section 32C for minors to apply to the District Court for changes to their record of sex descriptor. They may be excluded from the decision-making process and, indeed, knowledge of the application. As a birth certificate is a person's primary identity document, there are also concerns about the manner in which the bill specifies that any changes must not indicate on a person's record any alteration to a person's sex, sex descriptor or person's name under sections 32F (5) and 32G (5) supplied to us on Saturday night. That effectively means that a new identity is created. The possible implications for law enforcement and fraud require consideration and investigation. Section 32F (5) (b) and section 32G (5) (b) do not appear to match the changes made to the original bill. This was adverted to in the New South Wales Government's submission to the parliamentary inquiry on the proposed changes.
~break/ The Government submission relevantly stated:
The NSW Government has identified a number of areas in which the proposed amendments to the [Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act] do not align with other provisions of the BDMR Act, pose operational issues or may allow for exploitation of the birth registration system.
The submission also stated that the absence of a procedure for the applicant to request a copy of a birth certificate that shows a person's previous registered sex is inconsistent with section 32F of the Act, which allows the child of a person whose sex has been altered or a person prescribed in the regulation to apply to the registrar for a birth certificate that shows the person's sex before the record was altered. I note another strange aspect of the 79 amendments that we were supplied with on the weekend. The narrative of the Premier is that he supports the bill because people's names should not be different on different identity documents. The Premier conflated, as I have already said, a birth certificate, which states a person's sex, with a passport, which states a person's gender. But the "different name" justification seems to have been undercut by the 79 amendments delivered to us on the weekend.
Originally, the bill allowed for a process, within new part 5A, of change of sex to also include a change of name at the same time. But part of the 79 amendments was to take out the possibility of a name change as part of the same process as a sex descriptor record change. That means that a person changing their sex record will have to go the through a different process under part 5 of the births, deaths and marriages Act to change their name. The Premier told the public that it is all about keeping consistency of names and that people should not have to have surgery to change their names, but he actually took out the process for someone to change their name at the same time they want to change their sex descriptor—as originally provided for in the bill. When the parliamentary committee surveyed the public with regard to the changes in the bill, 13,258 people responded and over 80 per cent of respondents opposed them. The changes in the 79 amendments to the bill are unlikely to change that result.
Other curiosities suggest that these provisions had not been drafted by the member for Sydney with care. For example, under new section 32B supplied on Sunday night, a person over the age of 18 needs to sign a statutory declaration in support of a sex change. Under new section 32D (2) (b), a person under the age of 18, with their parents' or guardian's support, must sign a statutory declaration if they want to identify as another sex. But, under new section 32C, if a person under the age of 18 makes an application without their parents' consent, there is no statutory declaration required at all. Why would that be different if it was not the product of a rushed, ill‑considered process that has produced the documents that we were supplied with on Saturday night? There is an absence of any formality in the situation when the person is most vulnerable—that is, when they are making an application without any support from their parents or guardians and are under the age of 18. That is the only situation without a statutory declaration. It does not make sense.
I now move to surrogacy. Currently it is an offence under section 8 of the Surrogacy Act 2010 to enter into a commercial surrogacy arrangement, punishable by a $110,000 fine or two years imprisonment or both. According to the Australian Government website relating to surrogacy overseas and surrogacy in Australia, entering into an international commercial surrogacy arrangement in New South Wales is illegal and carries risks for the surrogate mother, the commissioning parents and the child. The 2018 statutory review of the Surrogacy Act 2010 did not recommend any of the changes contained within the bill proposed by the member for Sydney. The Department of Communities and Justice is currently undertaking a review of the Surrogacy Act 2010 and consulting stakeholders.
Any changes to the Surrogacy Act should sensibly await the outcome of that review and should not be a piecemeal exercise of the kind proposed by the member for Sydney in his proposed further amended bill as supplied on Saturday evening—and that is before I have even had a chance to look at the further changes. The New South Wales Government submission to the parliamentary inquiry agreed that the review process that the Department of Communities and Justice was undertaking may be the most appropriate avenue to consider amendments to the Surrogacy Act because of what it said was the complexity of the policy and operational landscape. That was the Government's own submission.
Schedule 12 to the bill as supplied to us on Saturday evening contains the proposed changes to the Surrogacy Act. In his second reading speech the member for Sydney identified that there are mixed views on commercial surrogacy. The bill proposes to remove the geographical nexus for offences and to allow for easier parenting orders but, somewhat curiously, the change to the bill amending section 26 (3) in division 4 of the current Act would allow for parenting orders with regard to people over the age of 18. Parenting orders are only made with regard to minors, not adults. Section 4 of the Surrogacy Act defines a parenting order as "an order made by the court under this Act for the transfer of the parentage of a child." So the member for Sydney wants to make parenting orders for adults when the Act actually says they only apply to children under the age of 18. In his second reading speech the member for Sydney said that the changes are to facilitate adult children being recognised for legal purposes like wills and powers of attorney. But he cannot do that through parenting orders, which are only allowed in the Act for minors. This is another example of a rushed provision that does not make legal sense.
The proposed changes represent a major policy change in our approach to commercial surrogacy. The NSW Anti-slavery Commissioner has raised concerns about this proposal. In response to concerns raised by the Anti-slavery Commissioner, the member for Sydney has suggested in the media that going forward there will be limits to prescribed jurisdictions "where commercial surrogacy is well regulated and the rights of the surrogate protected". One assumes he is talking about North American jurisdictions. But that statement is not reflected in the amendments that were served to the Opposition on Saturday evening. There seems to be an acknowledgement by the member for Sydney about the issue of slavery, but nothing was done about it in the document that was supplied to the Opposition on Saturday evening.
Hansard
Before I conclude, I deal with the heavily changed amendment sheet that was provided at 12 o'clock today. That document has a completely new amendment No. 1. It has a completely new amendment No. 3, which relates to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act changes. Unless I read them onto the on the run with reference to the bill, it is impossible for me to actually say what those changes are. So I will read the proposed amendments on sheet c2024‑115V, which I assume is now the most recent version of proposed amendments to the member for Sydney's bill.
Amendment No. 10 contains changes to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act. Amendment No. 11 makes further changes to the proposed amendments to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act. These are all changes from the version of amendments we were supplied with on Saturday evening. Amendment No. 12 makes further changes to the amendments to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act. It is impossible for me, as the shadow Attorney General, to address those changes on the run. Amendment No. 25 makes new additions to the amendments to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act that were supplied on Saturday evening. Amendment No. 26 provides further changes to the amendments to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act that were supplied on Saturday evening.
Amendment No. 30 makes further changes to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act amendments that were supplied to the Opposition on Saturday evening. Amendment No. 34 makes further new additions to the amendments that were supplied on Saturday evening with regard to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act. Amendment No. 41 provides further changes to the amendments that were supplied on Saturday evening with regard to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act. Amendment No. 43 provides for a wholly amended division 5A of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act in respect of proposed new sections 32GA to 32GG. Amendment No. 44 has further changes to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act than those that were supplied on Saturday evening.
Amendment No. 45 has further changes to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act than those that were supplied to the Opposition on Saturday evening. Amendment No. 46 has further changes to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act amendments that were supplied on Saturday evening. I am sorry for the tedium, but it is important for the House to understand the changes to the amendments. Amendments Nos 47, 48 and 49 make further changes to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act amendments that were supplied on Saturday evening—and that is not all. Amendment No. 51 makes new changes to the Children's Guardian Act amendments. Amendment No. 53 makes new changes to the Crimes Act amendments that were supplied on Saturday evening.
Amendment No. 55 makes substantial changes to the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act. These are important provisions with regard to apprehended domestic violence, which members of this House saw for the first time at 12.15 p.m. today. The arrogance of Minns Government to introduce the bill in these circumstances is absolutely incredible. I am not going to get personal, but it is important to acknowledge that the Minns Government has allowed the bill to be introduced. New amendment No. 57 makes changes to the Government Sector Employment (General) Rules. Amendment No. 58 makes new changes to the Interpretation Act than those amendments that were supplied on Saturday evening. Amendment No. 59 has new changes to those that were given on Saturday night with regard to the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act.
Amendment No. 61 makes changes to the Summary Offences Act that I have spoken about. That amendment would appear to repeal the criminalisation of living off the earnings of prostitution. Someone has twigged on that what I said about coercion was absolutely spot-on. Proposed new section 15A has now been changed from the version we were given on Saturday evening and will not be repealed. I suppose that is good news for the people of New South Wales, particularly for vulnerable men, women and trans people in New South Wales. Amendment No. 62 makes substantial further changes to commercial surrogacy compared with the version that was supplied to us on Saturday evening. When I say "substantial", I am talking about the number of words and the number of provisions. Some of the other changes I have identified might be only to a section or to some words, but they may have profound implications that we are not in a position to address given the way that these changes have come forward.
Amendment No. 62 makes further changes to the Surrogacy Act than those that were provided to the Opposition on Saturday evening. Amendment No. 64 makes further changes to the Surrogacy Act than those that were supplied to the Opposition on Saturday evening. Amendment No. 65 makes further changes to the Workers Compensation Act than those that were supplied on Saturday evening. Again, amendment No. 66 seems to change another provision with regard to the Workers Compensation Act from the version that was supplied on Saturday evening. I seek leave to table a quickly prepared document that demonstrates in red the matters that have been omitted from the version of amendments on sheet c2024‑115G that were provided on Saturday evening, as well as the version of amendments on sheet c2024‑115V that were only made available at 12.15 p.m. today.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery):Hansard
Standing Order 271 allows a member to seek leave to incorporate materials in in circumstances where that material cannot be readily explained or put on record.
Mr ALISTER HENSKENS:Hansard
I could take five hours and I have an unlimited amount of time. I do not need to incorporate, but I would prefer to seek leave to do so. I would like it to be in if that is possible.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery):
As far as I am aware, that is totally appropriate.
Mr ALISTER HENSKENS:Hansard
I seek leave to incorporate the document in .
Leave granted.
[]
Document to be provided.
Mr ALISTER HENSKENS:
I will just explain again. The matters marked in red—
Mr David Mehan:
Hansard can't wait.
Mr ALISTER HENSKENS:
In the circumstances of the behaviour that has gone on, I do not think that is appropriate. The matters in red are omissions from the version supplied on Saturday evening. The matters in blue are new additions that have come in the version that was made available today, after 12.15, and those in green are provisions that were in the version that was provided on Saturday night but in a different position. So there are three different colours identifying three different things.
I must indicate I did not prepare this document. I have not had a chance to check its accuracy, but others have done so and I assume that it is accurate. I think it is important that it go on the parliamentary record. If there are any corrections, our colleagues in the upper House will have the opportunity to correct them. The upper House has been told this matter will be dealt with tomorrow morning. I think it will be impossible to go through line by line and double-check everything today, as I would ordinarily do as a diligent shadow Attorney General. If there are any corrections to be made, they can be made in the other place.
After the original bill lay dormant for 14 months, all of the amendments are now being moved through Parliament with inadequate notice and in an extremely rushed fashion. Last night I was troubled because the version we were supplied with on Saturday night was not yet up on the parliamentary website and had not been tabled. Even the document we were supplied with on Saturday night was not a publicly available document. It certainly had been drafted by Parliamentary Counsel, so it had a degree of verisimilitude, and it was supplied by the member for Sydney, who told us that it would be his version of changes. But it concerned me that it was not available to be seen by members of the public, and so they could not converse about it with their elected representatives.
I already have said that I consider this process disrespectful. When social policy is changed, there should be proper transparency. That is in the best interests of the public, as well as the people who are making the changes, so that the public can be confident that a proper process has taken place. That gives the provisions authenticity and authority. But when the processes have been perverted, as they have been in this case, it is important to draw attention to those matters because they have real impacts on the way that parliamentarians assess legislation and make laws. From what we have seen, the bill does not get right the balance of the issues I have raised. Accordingly, the Opposition, which at all times has been acting on the basis of the amendments supplied on Saturday evening, will oppose this bill.
I conclude by thanking the many people who have contacted Opposition members of Parliament to give their views on the bill. I think I am correct in saying that the overwhelming majority have expressed concerns about this omnibus bill, and I hope that my speech has shed some light on why they would have some concerns about it. I specifically call out some of the people who have met with me in my capacity as shadow Attorney General. This is by no means an exhaustive list.
I acknowledge and thank Melissa Skalski from the Australian Collective Rights group; Virginia Mansel Lees and Bronwyn Winter from the Coalition of Activist Lesbians; and Michael David and others from the LGB Alliance. I thank the many religious leaders who spoke to us: Sheikh Shadi Alsuleiman; Bishop Michael Stead; Surinder Jain, who is involved in the Hindu Council and is one of the co-presidents of Better Balanced Futures; and Darren Bark from the Jewish community, who is the other co-president of Better Balanced Futures. As I have said already, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists and Hindus are all united against this legislation.
I acknowledge that a number of other people came on short notice and attended a press conference I held today, some of whom expressed their concerns about the bill. They included my colleague the Hon. Susan Carter from the other place and Bronwyn Winter from Australian Feminists for Women's Rights. Bronwyn was a lesbian Labor Party member from the left faction who said that she had been unable to get any engagement from the party about her concerns with the bill. Also in attendance were Viviane Morrigan from the Coalition of Activist Lesbians; Monica Doumit, who was the director of public affairs and engagement at the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney; Surinder Jain, whom I already mentioned; Bishop Michael Stead; Reverend Emma Little from the Anglican church; and Reverend Kamal Weerakoon from the Presbyterian church. Murray Norman, the CEO of Better Balanced Futures, and Vanessa Cheng, the executive officer of the Australian Association of Christian Schools, also were in attendance. At that press conference, some attendees had the opportunity to present their concerns about the bill.
I hope that we can have a respectful debate. I was very troubled by the personal attacks against me by the member for Sydney. This is not personal. I am representing the concerns of the community. It should not be the case that if I have policy differences with another member, they personally attack me. Members of the public expect better than that from members of Parliament. I have been able to draw together a troubling chronology that I believe represents a lack of respect for the Opposition. That is not a personal attack. That is a reflection on the process, the way in which this matter has been progressed and the promises that were made to the Opposition about receiving the amendments with plenty of time. I have said everything that I can say at this point in time. I reiterate that the Opposition will be opposing this bill.
Mr TIM CRAKANTHORP (Newcastle) (14:30:48):
I speak in support of the amendments to the historic Equality Legislation Amendment (LGBTIQA+) Bill 2023. The member for Wahroonga has a very, very short memory. As a co-sponsor of the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill 2021, I remember that the member opposite dropped 60 amendments on the lap of the member for Sydney and the co-sponsors just moments before debate on the bill began. I thought I would mention that. The member has obviously forgotten. A bit of convenient amnesia—what hypocrisy!
I turn now to the amendments in the bill. Newcastle has a longstanding history as a progressive and inclusive city that continues to drive for greater support for our LGBTIQA+ community. The 2017 legal marriage plebiscite indicated Newcastle's overwhelming support for the LGBTIQA+ community, with 74 per cent of Novocastrians voting in support of legalising same-sex marriage. In the recent local government elections, in a monumental moment for Newcastle, we elected Labor ward 2 councillor Paige Johnson, the first openly transgender woman elected to public office in New South Wales, further affirming Newcastle's stance as an inclusive city for the LGBTIQA+ community. As the vice president of the Hunter Gender Alliance, Paige has been steadfast in advocating for the rights of trans and gender-diverse people in the Hunter region and is committed to continuing her advocacy work in this space.
I acknowledge the contribution of Hunter Rainbow Labor and, in particular, Paige Johnson, Declan Clausen and Steven Moore, for their contribution to the consultation on these amendments. The growing voices of LGBTIQA+ advocacy groups within the Hunter in recent years emphasise the need for greater recognition and legislative change, including the amendments proposed today. ACON Hunter is a leading health organisation specialising in community health, inclusion and HIV responses for people of diverse sexualities and genders. It recognises that members of Australia's sexuality and gender-diverse communities experience health disparities when compared with the health and wellbeing outcomes of the total population. ACON Hunter works tirelessly to reduce the stigma around LGBTIQA+ health.
The amendments update the terminology in the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act to replace terms such as "HIV infection" and "suffering with AIDS" to "living with the HIV/AIDS". This change will significantly help organisations such as ACON to provide support and services to our local community and those across New South Wales. Another organisation making great strides in this space is the Hunter Gender Alliance, which works to improve the health, rights and lives of transgender, gender-diverse and non-binary people within our region. Both ACON and the Hunter Gender Alliance have been steadfast in championing for more inclusive laws.
The Government supports the hard work of those organisations. The Government supports amendments to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act to enable a person to change the record of their sex on their birth certificate without the need to have surgery, and to the Mental Health Act to prove that a person is not mentally ill or mentally disorientated. It is a fitting time to make these amendments. This month in Newcastle there are many events taking place to celebrate our LGBTIQA+ community, including the Newcastle Pride Festival—which runs from 11 October to 27 October. Last weekend, we had the Pride Parade, and it was great to see such a large turnout. The Pride Fair takes place this Saturday. I am very proud to open that event, which is attended by more than 5,000 people each year. These events highlight Newcastle's support for our community.
I acknowledge the large contribution of Hunter Gender Alliance and the team's advocacy and hard work on this issue. I know they have been consulting with the member for Sydney on this bill. I acknowledge the president, Arden Cassie, who is in the public gallery to witness this historic event. I acknowledge the vice president, Paige Johnson, and the secretary, Jo Mills. Another historic political figure who I know would be very proud today is the late member of the Legislative Council, the Hon. Paul O'Grady, who was the first openly gay member of the New South Wales Parliament and a dear friend to me and many others.
The growing support for LGBTIQA+ organisations in Newcastle, in addition to Paige's overwhelming ward 2 results, emphasise Newcastle's impetus for greater policy support and inclusivity. I bring to the attention of the House correspondence I received from Dr Peter Stuart, the Anglican Bishop of Newcastle. He said:
I am writing to you as the Anglican Bishop of Newcastle in strong support of the Bill introduced by Alex Greenwich MP to reduce discrimination of LGBT people and others in our community.
You may have heard from people who hold conservative religious views, but you will also recognise that there is a wide diversity of views among religious leaders and the faithful.
You can be confident in your decision-making that you will receive strong support for the proposed measures people who attend churches and other faith communities.
My Diocese, some years ago, formally adopted an apology to LGBT citizens. We recognised that, with others, we have contributed to discrimination against LGBT people. More recently, Equality Australia identified over 500 laws in NSW perpetuating discrimination.
In March 2022, I was privileged to join with over 150 religious leaders from 30 countries and a range of faiths in a meeting at the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to agree a set of Six Safeguarding Principles to protect LGBT+ people from harm … Alex Greenwich's Bill is consistent with those principles.
In nearly 35 years of ministry and 61 years of life I have been privileged to hear directly the experience of LGBT people. Their life stories have changed me. They have been diminished by institutionalised discrimination which has provided licence to others to act abusively.
To name just one example, I have been moved by the experience of transgender people who have grown up with others assuming one identity for them, based on the sex assigned at birth, who then discover a way to be fully themselves. They name the impact of being limited from changing their birth certificate unless they undergo invasive surgery.
I commend the bill for your support in the current sitting of the Parliament.
Yours sincerely,
Peter.
We are here today to ensure the principles of empowerment, prevention, proportionality, protection, partnership and accountability are implemented into our legal framework to safeguard the lives of LGBTIQA+ people. It is our responsibility as a government to ensure that our laws support all of our community. It is for that reason that I support the bill as it will be amended today. The private member's bill will amend 10 Acts, including the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995, Surrogacy Act 2010, the guiding principles of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 and the Children's Guardian Act 2019, the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 and the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The bill will amend the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and the Mental Health Act 2007. The bill will also amend the Summary Offences Act 1988 to remove an outdated offence. As the member for Newcastle I am very proud to be in this Chamber in support of the LGBTIQA+ community and speak in favour of the amendments to this most historic bill.
Mr RAY WILLIAMS (Kellyville) (14:40:31):
I contribute to debate on the Equality Legislation Amendment (LGBTIQA+) Bill 2023. My contribution is certainly not based on any unequal observations that I may have of people, because I was raised by a family who instilled in me the principles of respect for everybody regardless of their race, religion, gender or the colour of their skin. It is the same way I raised my children, and hopefully it will be the way my grandchildren are raised. But the bill has certain aspects I have trouble accepting, and I join Opposition members in opposing it.
The shadow Attorney General, the member for Wahroonga, has outlined specifically the concerns that the Opposition has, not least of which is the fact that the majority of the amendments, which I have not seen, were presented to the Opposition after 12 o'clock today. That followed the notification to the Opposition at 9.30 a.m. that debate on this bill would proceed in the Chamber today, which I say would have upset many members of this House. That is certainly not the way that this Chamber and this Parliament have worked in the past. It is not the best way for democracy to be seen to be undertaken by the New South Wales Parliament.
I have an issue with one particular aspect of the bill. After the passage of this legislation, a person born with male genitalia will be able to merely request that the name on their birth certificate be changed from a male name to a female name and then assume to be identified as a female. They will then have full access to private women's areas, including private women's toilets, children's toilets, girls' toilets, private women's spas and private women's saunas. I have great difficulty accepting any aspect of legislation that opens the door to a threat against the safety and protection of women within those spaces.
To suggest that nobody would take the opportunity to change their name to give them access to those particular areas is like saying we will never have another murder or rape in this State. I am not in any way joining those two concepts together, but I am saying that there are people who will exploit this loophole. It is because of that loophole that I have great fear for the safety and protection not only of members of my family but also the women of New South Wales, who make up half the State's population. I find that aspect of this legislation absolutely repulsive. I imagine that every decent family member of New South Wales would equally find it disturbing that a man, assuming the name of a woman on their birth certificate, could access those private women's areas—and that not only would this legislation, if passed, not punish that person but it would also protect them. I have a severe problem accepting that. It is for that reason that I will be opposing the bill.
I conclude by saying that one person who was such an ardent opponent of any infringement of women's areas, like women's toilets et cetera, was my favourite Premier, Gladys Berejiklian. Whenever such an infringement of a private women's area was proposed, she stood opposed to it. She did so on behalf of herself as a lady and on behalf of the women, the young ladies and the girls of New South Wales. I stand by that principle today and am in complete opposition to this bill because of the aspect I have outlined.
Dr MARJORIE O'NEILL (Coogee) (14:45:55):
I proudly speak in support of the Equality Legislation Amendment (LGBTIQA+) Bill 2023 brought forward by the member for Sydney. It is a huge testament to his tireless advocacy and steadfast commitment. Before I speak on the bill, I respond to the contribution in this debate by the member for Kellyville. He has come into this Chamber staunchly defending women's spaces and spreading misinformation about this bill. I do not remember a time I have ever had to produce my birth certificate to walk into a toilet, let alone go into the ladies' baths or any actual women's space. But when upgrades to the Parliament were being presented to this House that included women's bathrooms, the member for Kellyville opposed them on the pretext that, by upgrading those bathrooms, women would take too long and they would not get to their divisions. Let us make sure that is on the record for this lovely, great, brave man who has come in here to defend women's rights. And we are still waiting for our bathroom upgrades!
The huge amount of misinformation spread about this bill is absolutely disturbing. That misinformation is harmful and does nothing at all to help bring about equity, equality and the advancement of human rights. Those qualities are at the core of this bill, which is why the Government supports it. I make it very clear: This bill has sat with the Parliament for 12 months. It has been to a committee. It is not some eleventh hour surprise. I believe the member for Sydney when he says that he has presented Opposition members with bill after bill, with amendments, and they have failed to engage with him. It is the Opposition that has not engaged in good faith negotiations over this, not the member for Sydney and not the Government. No-one can say that this bill has been rushed. At its core, this bill is about ensuring the rights and dignity of the LGBTIQA+ community. It is that simple. There is nothing dangerous about it and there is nothing to be afraid of in it. The bill recognises that everyone, regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation, deserves the same protections, opportunities and respects under the law. That is it. There is nothing to be afraid of.
When we safeguard the rights of LGBTIQ+ people, we are affirming their humanity and we challenge discrimination, ensuring that they can live authentically and safely. That commitment to equality extends beyond legal recognition. It encompasses social acceptance and the fights against their stigmas. Ultimately, it is my hope that everyone in this Chamber wants to build a society where every person is valued, respected and free from prejudice. I acknowledge the member for North Shore and her bravery, and I call on other members from the Opposition to be brave as well and stand up for their communities.
The bill seeks to amend 10 Acts to bring New South Wales into alignment with other jurisdictions across Australia, and it addresses a range of issues that impact the LGBTIQ+ community and their families. Under the bill, individuals will be able to change the record of their sex on their birth certificate without the requirement of surgery. For young people under 18, that process will involve parental consent. The amendment recognises that gender identity is a deeply personal matter and should not be subjected to invasive medical requirements. That is it. Again, I bring this note with the other things. I do not remember the last time I have had to produce any identification ever, whether it be my birth certificate, driver licence or passport, to walk into a toilet. The misinformation being spread about this bill is dangerous and harmful, and it does nothing at all to advance the rights of the LGBTQI+ community.
The bill also addresses the legal recognition of children born through international commercial surrogacy. Commercial surrogacy is a divisive and complex topic, but children who come to Australia through that have no choice around that. It is really important that we provide a pathway for those children to be legally acknowledged as part of their families in New South Wales. That is it. It is about protecting those kids and making sure that they can then have the same rights as every other child in this country. It is a practical and compassionate change designed to give legal certainty to families. There is nothing to be afraid of.
The bill also takes importance steps to enhance the legal protections available to the LGBTIQA+ people, particularly in relation to hate motivated violence. Amendments to the Crimes Act will make it clear that prejudice or hate based on gender identity or variations in sex characteristics are aggravating factors in criminal cases. That sends a very powerful message that hate and discrimination have no place in New South Wales, and that the law will respond decisively to protect vulnerable groups.
Additional changes include updating the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act and the Workers Compensation Act to remove outdated references to "HIV infection", and that aligns our language with contemporary medical understandings. It also amends the Mental Health Act to clarify that a person's gender identity or expression is not identified as a mental disorder, which was disproven a long time ago. They are commonsense changes that bring our laws into the twenty-first century and reflect modern attitudes towards health and identity.
The bill will also repeal provisions in the Summary Offences Act that criminalise individuals who have lived on the earnings of sex work, addressing again outdated laws that perpetuate stigma and do not reflect the values of this State. By supporting the bill, we are not just amending laws; we are sending a very clear message as a State that we are committed to inclusion, equality and the protection of human rights. The journey towards true equality is ongoing; this bill is an important step in that process. I commend the bill to House.
Mrs TANYA DAVIES (Badgerys Creek) (14:54:15):
I contribute to the debate on the Equality Legislation Amendment (LGBTIQA+) Bill 2023 in strong opposition. Women's rights, safety and dignity are being eroded where this law exists in other jurisdictions. Grave concerns and fears have emerged from the real life impact this law is having on the lives of women and children. Members in this House can be informed beforehand of the damage and harm this law is causing, and by voting against this bill we can go a long way to preventing that damage and harm from escalating in New South Wales.
In relation to sex self-ID, let us be clear that under existing policies and regulations, men who identify as women are already accessing women's spaces and places, whether they be in female-only jails, in women's sport or in women-only places. Enshrining sex self‑ID into law will only exacerbate that reality. In this bill, gender and sex are conflated so that on birth certificates a person born one sex can become legally another sex descriptor of a man, woman or any other sex descriptor, through an administrative process only without any physical bodily changes.
The bill is not only bad but also dangerous. If passed, it will only accelerate the erasure of the rights, safety and protections of women and girls in our State. The rights of women and girls to female-only spaces and services no longer exist when biological males can intrude. That is an irreconcilable collision of rights. It is unconscionable that women are being expected to sacrifice those rights in deference to the self-perceptions and preferences of biological males who seek to live as or identify as women. In order for women to live with dignity and safety, they must have privacy from men in spaces where they are vulnerable, like toilets and change rooms, and in places from which they cannot leave, like prisons, hospital wards, rape crisis centres, domestic violence refuges and homeless shelters.
There are myriad examples of men exploiting the opportunities created by sex self-ID laws and policies to access female-only spaces, services and sports. For example, in Victoria, a biological male rapist who self‑identifies as a woman is being housed in the female Dame Phyllis Frost correctional centre. In Victoria's Tarrengower women's prison an alleged sexual assault has already taken place by a male prisoner against a female inmate. In schools there are increasing complaints arising from parents whose daughters have been forced to share female-only sporting events and bathrooms with boys. Girls are self-excluding or being withdrawn by their parents from female-only educational, social and sporting opportunities when a boy is present.
In Canada, the USA and the United Kingdom there are multiple cases where self-identifying transgender male prisoners were housed in female prisons only to sexually assault and rape female inmates. Indeed, the number of male offenders self-identifying as women to gain access to a women's prison has become so commonplace internationally that the term "prison onset gender dysphoria" has been coined to refer to it. In Canada, sexual predators have gained entry into female refuges, and in the United Kingdom a trans-identifying male patient raped a female patient in a single-sex female hospital ward. There are numerous examples of males self-identifying into female sports and taking places and awards from women and girls in our country and beyond.
Yogyakarta Principles
Robert Wintemute, a professor of human rights law at King's College in London and an expert on anti‑discrimination law and sexual orientation law, was one of the co-authors of the in 2006, which was a key document utilised by the trans lobby to convince governments, including in Australia, of the necessity of adopting through legislative means policies like self-identification. Wintemute now disavows the document and has said that women's rights were not considered during the meeting where the principles were written. He said that he and the other authors had failed to consider that fully intact males would seek to access female spaces. Furthermore, Ireland's independent Senator Gerard Craughwell, who has served as a senator for the Labour Panel since 2016, stated in August last year that he was horrified by the long-term effects and unintended consequences caused by the gender recognition bill he voted for.
Scotland shows that half of transgender inmates only began transitioning after they were convicted, giving rise to concerns that the system is being abused. Some of these male offenders adopt a trans identity while incarcerated and revert to their male identity upon serving their sentences, giving credence to the argument that opportunistic men will claim a female identity for the purpose of being transferred to a female prison to access women and girls. Police in Scotland have confirmed that male rapists will now not be allowed to self-identify as women. But that is not enough. Males should never be allowed to portray themselves as women and take our safe places, spaces and opportunities.
Supporters of the bill will label me as a scaremonger and a transphobic, but I am neither. I am presenting real-life cases of assault, abuse, rape and trauma. There is already a large number of cases in Australian and in New South Wales where men have abused self-identification policies to gain access to women's spaces, leading to incidents of voyeurism, assault and harassment. It is entirely reasonable to expect that cases like those will increase following the passage of the bill. An anonymous Queensland autogynephile—that is a non-homosexual male to female transexual—made a submission to the Queensland parliamentary inquiry on the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Bill 2022. His submission stated:
In fact, I do not need the wig or the dress. It seems that simply calling myself a woman or a lesbian is now enough. I can even have a beard.
Because self-ID has been "best practice" since 2013 in Australia, at least at the Federal level, I could already use many female-only spaces in Queensland with a considerable amount of freedom if I wanted to.
…
This bill will remove that last line of defence … From then on, as far as I can tell, it will be legally impossible to remove me from women's toilets, changing rooms, lesbian bars and dating apps, domestic violence shelters and so on. After all, I will be legally female and therefore deserve to be there.
The sex self-ID law has created a chilling effect where women, and men, are now afraid or unwilling to challenge men in female-only spaces and services. They are afraid to speak publicly. Those who object face being fired, sanctioned, vilified, litigated against or criminally charged. This has already happened in New South Wales and Australia. This places women-only spaces such as change rooms, refuges and toilets at risk—forcing girls and women to share those spaces with men who identify as women.
There are many circumstances where biological sex matters—including for employment, services and entitlements—and where the subjective self-perception of gender identity must not be allowed to override the reality of biological sex. Even more importantly, deference to the subjective self-perception of an individual must not override the dignity and safety of other groups and individuals, particularly those most vulnerable—typically women, girls and children. No member of a just society should be able to unilaterally change their official identity documents based on a subjective perception. Laws that allow a person to change sex on driver licences, passports, Medicare cards et cetera are rightly controversial since these essentially reflect a legal fiction. The fact that these questionable allowances have been made does not justify further concessions.
My final contribution is in relation to the proposed changes to surrogacy. Simply saying that commercial overseas surrogacy is already happening so we need to legalise it is not an argument that we accept for what is already an illegal activity in Australia. It ignores the reasons for prohibiting commercial surrogacy in the first place, which, according to the Federal Parliament, is because "even with the best of regulatory intentions, there is still significant potential for the exploitation of surrogates and children to occur". This is even more so the case when renting the wombs of disadvantaged women from poor overseas countries. If the current laws banning overseas commercial surrogacy in New South Wales were actually followed and enforced, there would be no children left vulnerable as no children would have been created and purchased in breach of the law.
This modern‑day form of human trafficking is condemned globally by women's, children's and human rights defenders as an affront to the human rights and dignity of women and children. The recent scandal concerning a leading surrogacy clinic in Greece—from which numerous Australians have commissioned babies, and which was raided over allegations of human trafficking and fraud—provides a tragic and timely reminder of this. I reject the bill in its entirety. I call on this House to join me in rejecting the bill and protecting the rights, places, spaces and opportunities of women and girls in this State.
Ms DONNA DAVIS (Parramatta) (15:04:20):
I speak to the Equality Legislation Amendment (LGBTIQA+) Bill 2023. I acknowledge the previous speakers and thank them for their contributions to the debate. This Saturday the Pride Picnic will be held in Parramatta Park—a new location; it is usually held along the Parramatta River. This annual event is a fixture on the Western Sydney events calendar, providing members of our community from Campbelltown to Castle Hill, Wentworth Point to Wentworth Falls with an opportunity to come together and access local services, and interact and celebrate with our LGBTIQA+ community. When speaking about the Parramatta Pride Picnic, then coordinator of the partnerships engagement unit at ACON, Gavin Prendergast, highlighted, "Western Sydney is a massive area but many LGBTIQA+ people are not connected into a gay network". He said that this is why, "The Pride Picnic gives people an opportunity to be out in the open in a safe space and an opportunity to start a connection."
It has not always been that way. At Parramatta's 2013's Rediscover the River Festival, LGBTI youth counselling service Twenty10 was allegedly asked by a council officer to take down a banner that was deemed to contain offensive language. The banner, which advertised Twenty10's presence and purpose, read, "Support services for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, same sex attracted and gender diverse young people, their families and communities." Because of the incident, Twenty10 made the decision to abandon its presence at the festival. More than 12,000 people signed a petition, and a private letter of apology from the Lord Mayor of the day was received by Twenty10.
Ten years later, it is not just the city skyline of Parramatta that has changed dramatically. The population of Parramatta has grown by another 50,000 to exceed one-quarter of a million people. This growth reflects an incredibly rich diversity of age, ethnicity, faith, language, socio-economic status and gender. As a city grows, it also matures. So in February 2023 Parramatta proudly joined in the world's largest celebration of pride and diversity when New South Wales welcomed WorldPride to Australia. I was proud to be the Lord Mayor of City of Parramatta at that time. From our fabulous rainbow stairs in Parramatta Square, PHIVE's sparkling roof and performances at the Riverside Theatres, Parramatta was a kaleidoscope of colour. Parramatta is one of Australia's most diverse and inclusive communities, and I am proud of who we are. Our annual Pride Picnic and the international WorldPride event were some of the opportunities we had to amplify the unique and valued voices of people from our wonderful LGBTQIA+ communities.
Everyone's story matters and everyone should have opportunities to share stories and celebrate them. Everyone's rights matter. That is why the bill is important. I acknowledge the varied views of people in my community who may find the bill challenging to accept in its original form, and even with amendments. Bills that touch on social issues to this extent will attract varied views. Some people may feel consternation, anger, hurt and frustration. They may feel like their views have been ignored. Those members of my community who have contacted me over the past year should know that their concerns have been heard and will continue to be heard. One of the challenges of governing is balancing the views and concerns of all sides and making decisions that are considered to be in the best interests of the broader community. We do not always expect to agree, but we do hope that we can continue to have mature and considered conversations about these issues.
The Australian Government Attorney-General's Department outlines that equality affirms that all human beings are born free and equal. Equality presupposes that all individuals have the same rights and deserve the same level of respect. All people have the right to be treated equally. This means that laws, policies and programs should not be discriminatory and also that public authorities should not apply or enforce laws, policies and programs in a discriminatory or arbitrary manner. As a member of Parliament elected to represent my community, I represent the interests of all, including the LGBTQIA+ community, in all capacities. This also includes advocating for them in the legislative space. As a member of the Minns Labor Government, I believe the bill is important for New South Wales and long overdue. Our Government believes this is a commonsense solution. We believe that the provisions and the amendments negotiated in the bill are commonsense changes to extend the inclusivity of all members of our modern and multifaceted society into New South Wales legislation.
I was a member of the Legislative Assembly Committee on Community Services that undertook an inquiry into the Equality Legislation Amendment (LGBTIQA+) Bill 2023, along with the member for Cessnock, the member for Blue Mountains, the member for South Coast, the member for Myall Lakes, the member for North Shore and the member for Murray. During the inquiry the committee received 66 written submissions and heard from 44 witnesses over two days of public hearings. Polarising views were heard, informed by lived experience or personal belief systems. Ultimately, the deeper nature and importance of the equality bill was highlighted. In the June 2024 committee report, it was recommended that the Parliament of New South Wales proceed to consider the Equality Legislation Amendment (LGBTIQA+) Bill 2023. Finding 1 in the report stated:
There were diverse and conflicting views on the amendments proposed by the Bill and how they would operate.
Finding 2 stated:
There is a need for additional policy measures and funding to improve the safety and wellbeing of LGBTIQA+ people. These may be directed towards addressing issues like disadvantage, discrimination and poor health outcomes experiences by LGBTIQA+ people.
That is how we have arrived at the bill today. How those findings personally relate to people from the community was highlighted in the stories and submissions received in evidence by the committee. Every jurisdiction in the country, except for New South Wales, has a provision for an individual to change government documentation without having to undertake gender affirming surgery. New South Wales is the last jurisdiction to implement that change. New South Wales residents can apply for Commonwealth documents to be changed, but not State government documents, which is unbelievably ridiculous. It is common sense to align with and mirror these pieces of legislation.
Two submissions were heard in the committee inquiry that I cannot forget. They touch on commercial surrogacy. Mr Ashley Scott, the Executive Officer of Rainbow Families, spoke about ensuring that all children are equal under the law. It was noted that, under current arrangements, surrogates and their partners are recognised as the legal parents of children born through commercial surrogacy. That puts the actual parents and children of surrogates in legal uncertainty, unless they are able to get a parentage order. That deprives children born overseas through commercial surrogacy of security and certainty of parentage.
Extension of time
I understand that there are very significant concerns. Many individuals and institutions do not agree with international commercial surrogacy on principle and on religious grounds, due to considered risks of women being exploited, particularly in poorer countries. However, that does not erase the reality we face as a governing body that there are children living amongst us in New South Wales who exist as a result of surrogacy. That cannot be ignored. Those children attend local childcare centres, schools and universities, and they are not treated equally under the law. During the inquiry Mr Ghassan Kassisieh, the Legal Director of Equality Australia, highlighted that uncertainty about parentage disadvantages the economic and emotional security of children born through commercial surrogacy, and that those children should not be punished for their birth. []
Earlier today the Premier said, "Regardless of how you approach the issue of commercial surrogacy, it is not the child's fault. If it is in the interest of the child that a parenting order be issued, the courts are in a position to do just that." That is why it is common sense to implement this provision. The bill will amend the Surrogacy Act 2010 to enable parentage orders to be made, in certain circumstances, for children who were born from an international commercial surrogacy agreement and are part of a family in New South Wales. Commercial surrogacy, including international commercial surrogacy, will remain an offence. Interim arrangements will be provided to cover those children who became part of New South Wales families prior to the commencement of the bill.
In 2024 Australia has evolved into a modern and multifaceted society. Historically known as a culturally diverse and inclusive country, this inclusivity must now extend to all facets of society. As society evolves, so must legislation. Transgender people, surrogate children and those who identify other than male or female live amongst us. They are our friends. They are our family. They are our work colleagues. They deserve legislation that reflects full recognition of all members of our society. I acknowledge the bravery of all who have advocated for the bill. I am sure some of those members are in the Chamber today. It takes courage for anyone who feels marginalised in their own State to speak up and speak out for their own rights and the rights of others. It is so easy to turn a blind eye and listen to the loudest, established, powerful voices in a community. It is not as easy to stand up against hate, prejudice and division.
I thank the member for Sydney for introducing the bill to Parliament and for striving to achieve equality for all in New South Wales. The member for Sydney has a powerful voice, and I thank him for that. I also thank the Minns Labor Government for being willing to work with the member for Sydney and other crossbenchers for the betterment of our community as a whole. I also thank the Attorney General for all that he has done in this space. It is not just the Attorney General and the Premier but many other Ministers and members who will show their support for the bill when the time comes to vote. I thank the members of the Government and all in this place who support the bill for being open to recognising the rights of everyone in this State. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms JENNY LEONG (Newtown) (15:18:00):
On behalf of The Greens and on behalf of the good people of the electorate of Newtown, I contribute to debate on the Equality Legislation Amendment (LGBTIQA+) Bill 2023. The people of Newtown are one of the most proudly queer and diverse groups of our inner-city community. Today The Greens welcome this legislation. It is a significant step forward for the queer community in New South Wales. This week, subject to the clear passage of the bill through both Houses, The Greens are excited to see that this reform will ensure that trans and gender diverse adults will have the ability to change their sex on their State documents without undergoing surgery, threats to out someone will be classed as coercive control, sex workers will have the ability to legally use proceeds from their work to support others, and crimes motivated by the hatred of trans people will be treated the same way as other crimes. These are truly significant reforms that will have a real impact on people's lives.
On the other hand, I cannot help but feel a sense of deep disappointment and sadness. Before we have even had the chance to begin debating the final version of this bill—and potentially see a massive swarm of support from our allies in the union movement, faith groups, legal, health and human rights organisations and a broad range of communities and activists well beyond the inner city of Sydney pushing for this reform and momentum to hold strong to its true vision as an equality bill—it is being reported that it will be gutted. That is in no way to take away from the incredible reform that will be included in the bill. But it is disappointing and a shame that the New South Wales Labor Government is not in a position to support the equality bill as originally drafted and that we find ourselves in a situation where amendments will be moved such that we can get through the other reforms.
With the numbers in the Chamber, those amendments are not needed to pass the bill. If anyone knows how to do numbers in this place and the other place, it is the member for Sydney. The member for Sydney knows full well that, with the numbers of the Labor Government—and anyone who can count can work this out—we can pass the bill with the Opposition opposing the reforms. The only thing standing in our way of delivering full equality in New South Wales, as per the vision of the member for Sydney, is the inability to get support from the New South Wales Labor Government. It means that the bill, as far as reports are concerned, will not include the provisions of anti-discrimination protections for people who are bisexual, asexual, non-binary, intersex or for sex workers and others.
It will also mean that protections for LGBTIQA+ students and staff in non-government schools will be removed. It will mean that required diversity and inclusion standards for public sector workers will no longer be in the bill. It will mean that the pathway for 16- and 17-year-olds to alter records of sex on State documents will no longer be in the bill, treating them as children, and amending the process for children to require consent of both parents, even if it is not practicable or reasonable to obtain consent of the other parent. It will mean not including an assurance of dignity for trans and gender diverse people during invasive strip searches and not including the removal of unnecessarily gendered and non-inclusive language from old laws. That to me, and to The Greens, is not full equality.
At this point we must ask whether an equality bill is an equality bill if it does not remove all forms of discrimination from our laws. State and Federal governments have consistently failed the LGBTIQA+ community when it comes to law reform. It has always been too slow, and it always has been too incremental with too many sellouts along the way. In fact, only months ago some of the faces in the gallery today—and many more that I know are watching on the live stream—were in this Parliament watching the long‑overdue formal apology to those impacted by unjust laws that criminalised homosexual acts. We absolutely welcomed that apology, but to say sorry means that we do not do it again and that we address the wrongs of the past and we do not continue to perpetrate them. An apology needs to come with a commitment to do better and take more action next time.
I expect that a future New South Wales State government will look back at the current state of our anti‑discrimination laws—and, indeed, some of the changes to other laws that will sadly no longer be part of this equality bill—and will issue an apology for the harm caused as a result. It will be an apology for pandering to the homophobes and transphobes—and let us be clear that there has been no shortage of transphobic communications in this Chamber today already. New South Wales still has some of the worst laws for LGBTIQA+ people in the country. The worst of them are explicitly homophobic and transphobic, while others tacitly facilitate discriminatory attitudes within our communities. Neither is acceptable, and it is vital that the New South Wales Parliament passes all the reforms contained in the bill and then looks forward to the next steps to achieving full equality for LGBTIQA+ people.
Queer activists and community members have been organised for change for many decades. Meaningful progress towards queer liberation has never been instigated in this Chamber—and it never will be. Indeed, the changes that we deliver in this place follow longstanding community‑built campaigns over decades and decades. Those struggles have occurred on our streets, in our workplaces, in our schools and in our neighbourhoods. Those conversations have happened in living rooms, in kitchens and in coffee shops, challenging how people feel about our society. The Parliament so often does not lead but follows the sentiment and change that people in the gallery and others contribute to.
New South Wales has an incredible history of social movements fighting for queer rights, including boundary-pushing activists in the Campaign Against Moral Persecution in the 1970s; unionists in the NSW Builders Labourers Foundation pursuing the so-called pink bans; and grassroots groups like the Community Action for Rainbow Rights, formerly CAAH, which did so much of the groundwork around the marriage equality campaign before it became part of the national agenda. That history is very much ongoing. I note that just last Saturday a range of different groups from across the political spectrum joined Pride in Protest for a protest outside this very Chamber.
Earlier I expressed my disappointment that this debate has been brought on in such a way that does not allow us to fill the gallery full of all of the activists and allies who have been a part of the decades‑long campaigns for these reforms. They may not have been the people directly connected to the organisations that were consulted but they have absolutely put their blood, sweat and tears into this reform. I have personally campaigned for over two decades with many of the activists and organisations who have pushed for the reforms contained in the bill and for rainbow rights in Sydney. It is only because of their tireless collective work and dedication that we have the political impetus to move now.
Extension of time
In the early 2000s, there was a big boost for the public campaign for marriage equality. Sadly, both major parties, led by the Howard Liberal Government, then moved on to make marriage only between a man and a woman. The member for Sydney and I also met at around that time. We had been campaigning for over two decades together on these reforms. At that time and still two decades later, The Greens have always stood for full equality, no excuses, when it comes to the rights of LGBTIQA+ people in this State and in this country. I am proud to be a Greens member in this place continuing that struggle. []
I acknowledge the role that The Greens play in social change, whether it is campaigning for marriage equality at a time when some groups heckled us for making it a priority, whether it is rental reform that 10 years ago people said was impossible to deliver, whether it is drugs harm minimisation, or whether it is Bob Brown being called a conspiracy theorist for talking about climate change. We play an important political role in pushing the Overton window. I will not go into the details of that, but anyone who does not know about it should look it up. That said, I appreciate that some people believe that we do politics through pragmatism, polite negotiation and discussion. But we must acknowledge that doing that comes with a level of privilege. Not everybody has the privilege to engage in the corridors of power and negotiate behind closed doors to get things done. When delivering law reform, we need to make sure that we bring everybody in the community on board. It is for that reason that I express dismay that we will see some of the bill gutted today.
We know that, in its original form, the equality bill removed problematic exemptions in the Anti- Discrimination Act that allowed private education institutions to discriminate against students and employees. Our communities need an Anti-Discrimination Act that does not discriminate and the foreshadowed amendment No. 2 to empty the bill of contents that would extend protection from discrimination is deeply disappointing. My heart breaks for those people who will be left behind as a result of that amendment. In addition, we know that others are not included in the Anti-Discrimination Act. The idea or suggestion that review by the Independent Law Reform Commission is the reason why we are taking those out is disingenuous and hypocritical.
The Greens welcome the wholesale review of the Act. We committed to that at endless ACON forums held over multiple election cycles, as did everybody in this place. But the reality is that the Government has already changed the Anti-Discrimination Act in this term of Parliament. It introduced and passed the religious vilification bill, which made religious belief and affiliation and engagement in religious activity protected attributes under the Act. There is nothing stopping it from doing exactly the same in the interim to provide protection to those people who are currently at risk and not protected under the Anti-Discrimination Act until the review is complete. We have made changes to it. There have been referrals around section 93Z. We know that changes have been made. We know that the Government could do that right now. It is choosing not to.
The Greens want to shout-out to the Independent Education Union, which came out strongly this week urging for the changes to not be dropped. I acknowledge its statements in relation to that. Because of the scope and size of the agenda to deliver full equality, we are now in a situation where what we want to celebrate is tainted by the things that have not been achieved. People can have their analyses as to whether that was the right approach—we could go on about that forever—but we should not take away from the significant reforms that will have such an impact on people's lives as a result of the bill passing in its amended form. The bill amends the births, deaths and marriages Act to remove draconian barriers that prevent trans and gender diverse people from easily having official documents reflect who they are and how they live. It is absolutely clear that that is critical.
It is also absolutely clear, as we have heard from debate so far and will no doubt hear in the other place, that there is a need to show collective, public, strong leadership—not just in law reform—and talking publicly about our pride at delivering the reforms is the way we will change society. Homophobes and transphobes exist in this building, in schools and in workplaces. We might be able to call them out in this place, but we cannot call them out in workplaces. That is why we have anti-discrimination law protections in place. The Greens give their commitment that this will be the start of a new campaign and look forward to bringing that on.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery):
Before I call the member for Maitland, I acknowledge the people in the gallery and congratulate them on patiently, quietly and respectfully listening. This is my third stint today. I thank them for watching carefully.
Ms JENNY AITCHISON (MaitlandMinister for Regional Transport and Roads) (15:33:27):
— I, too, acknowledge everyone in the gallery. I understand that it would be very difficult to listen to some of the speeches. I speak to the Equality Legislation Amendment (LGBTIQA+) Bill and I thank the member for Sydney for bringing it to this place. He has been a very strong campaigner for equality in our State. I am very proud to be part of a government that wants to assist him and all of the advocates and allies in getting this legislation through. The bill was introduced last year and considered by the Legislative Assembly Committee on Community Services, which made two main findings and they were pretty obvious: There were diverse and conflicting views on the amendments proposed and additional policy measures were required to improve the safety and wellbeing of LGBTQI+ people in New South Wales. That aligns with the feedback from my community.
It is a difficult space and there are not easy answers. One of the mistakes in this space is to think that one or other party owns any moral righteousness here because I think we are all trying to get through to make the world better for everyone in our community. That is really difficult in here because there are so many cultural and long-held opinions and beliefs that people have. You can make as many laws as you like, but unless we all work together we are not going to get there.
The bill proposes various legislative changes, including allowing people to change their registered sex through an administrative process without requiring surgery. It makes hatred for or prejudice against transgender, gender diverse or intersex people an aggravating factor in sentencing. It updates terminology in legislation to replace terms such as "HIV infection" and "suffering with AIDS" with "living with HIV/AIDS". It clarifies in the Mental Health Act that expressing or refusing to express a particular gender identity does not mean that someone has a mental illness. It enables a parentage order to be made for a child born through international commercial surrogacy if it is in the best interests of the child and other criteria and important safeguards are met.
The changes, particularly those to allow people to register a change of sex without surgery, are simple changes that will bring New South Wales in line with all jurisdictions across the country. They follow ongoing work by the New South Wales Government to progress reforms that ensure all members of our community feel valued, respected and equal. I thank one particular member of my community who came to speak to me on this issue directly in relation to a legal case that has been widely canvassed. Without disclosing their particular circumstances or identity, I really related to some of the concerns. I note that we all bring our lived experience to this topic. What I say next might seem a bit tangential, but I want to place it on record because it might change the view of someone on the other side of this debate.
In 2008, I was told that I had the breast cancer gene and, in order to reduce my risk of dying, I had to have all of my reproductive organs removed. That put me into surgical menopause. Then I had breast cancer. I had to have a complete bilateral mastectomy and reconstruction. Those are some of the surgeries that people who are transgender may choose to go through. The thing that really connected when I spoke to my constituent was the compelling argument that they should not have to go through surgery to say who they are. My surgery did play with my mind at the time. Was I still a woman without my reproductive parts? To put someone through that so that they can prove their identity is quite barbaric. That one piece of the legislation was compelling to me. If they are comfortable with whatever else they have going on in their life to be able to change that in their documentation, that really spoke to me. Even if you do not have a question about your own gender or sexual identity, the surgeries are very confronting. They are very physically and mentally demanding and difficult to go through. I do not think we should force people to go through a surgical intervention to prove their identity.
I have known many people from the diverse LGBTQI+ community. I have loved them and been great friends with them. It is not an easy road. It is not a choice; it is just their life. It is who they are. I think we are up for doing whatever we can to make that easier. The safety and wellbeing measures in this legislation are necessary to ensure that we are directly addressing the disadvantage, the discrimination that no-one argues about and the poorer health outcomes that are experienced by LGBTQI+ people.
When I hear individual stories of discrimination, and when I have lived it with my friends and other members of my community, I know that these changes are required. It is not okay in 2024 that people in our community are afraid to be who they are. We should do what we can to help them to be who they are with pride and joy, and to have the full experience of love that we all want. The changes to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act will enable a person to change the record of their sex on their birth certificate without needing to have invasive, irreversible surgery. It brings our State into alignment with other jurisdictions across Australia. It is beyond time. Currently, you can change your gender on your driver licence and your passport, and with the Australian Tax Office, but you cannot do it on your birth certificate. That is just stupid.
Think about the practical implications of that for someone who has identification documents that do not align. Every time they have to give their ID, there is a question. When I front up for something, no-one says to me, "Are you really a full woman? Because you've got no uterus nowadays." No, they do not. It is just not fair. I note the concerns raised—a bit of a scare campaign, I would say—about children under 18. But an application under this legislation may only be made if both parents consent and certain other preconditions are met, including a counsellor's statement. If one parent does not agree, the matter can go to court. I understand the concerns around privilege. That is a pervasive issue across so many aspects of our system. By the same token, we want to make sure that there are checks and balances in place and that people have protections against other people trying to undermine them or make choices for them. It is a tricky and difficult area.
Surrogacy is also a concerning issue. We have to be clear: The focus is on children. The member for Parramatta said that people should not be subjected to a particular situation because of something that is not their fault and not their parents' choice. The Department of Communities and Justice is undertaking a review of the Surrogacy Act. The Government is also undertaking a review of the Anti‑Discrimination Act. I have been politically active for over 30 years, and I know that no change is right the first time. It is not like we achieve perfection immediately. Things that we thought were good and proactive 10 years ago—even five years ago—might not be the way that we want to proceed now. No matter how perfect this legislation could be from one perspective or another, no-one is going to tick the box and say, "Yes, it's all great. Fantastic. We fixed that problem for everyone." We will come back to it in future years, and I welcome the opportunity to work as an ally with people who want to advocate for change.
It is also important that people from the LGBTIQA+ community have the ability to come out in their own time and do not have that taken away from them. We all have stories of people—for some of us, ourselves or our dearest friends—who have been through awful situations where somebody has taken that away from them. The psychological harm of that is so strong. I commend the part of the bill that addresses that. It is not just harm to the person; it is harm to their relationships, often irreparable harm. That is not fair.
The bill also changes the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act to put it beyond doubt that an offence being motivated by hate or prejudice is an aggravating factor that must be taken into account. I will not go on about the bill. This legislation will make no difference at all to the majority of people in the world, but it will make a world of difference to the people it will impact. Every time we get to a difficult situation as legislators and we are not quite sure—although Government members are today—we have to look at that. We have to ask, "For the people this is impacting, will we really make a difference?" That is what we are working towards today.
Ms FELICITY WILSON (North Shore) (15:43:38):
I contribute to debate on the Equality Legislation Amendment (LGBTIQA+) Bill 2023. The legislation has been a long time in the making, with the member for Sydney flagging his desire to undertake the reforms for a number of years. But regardless of the length of time that we have had to consider the issues, when social policy matters come before this Parliament, they are often challenging for members to decide how to vote on. For me, the decision to support the bill was an easy one, but the need to vote against the rest of my colleagues in the Liberal Party is a very hard one.
I have been a member of the Liberal Party for the majority of my adult life. When I came into this place, I did so with the support of many hundreds of Liberals who stood beside me in my election. But I was elected to this place by tens of thousands of voters in my electorate of North Shore. I made the promise to them that I would always put my community first. I am a Liberal, with strong Liberal values. In my vote on the bill today, I can comfortably reconcile the values of my community and my Liberal values. This week marks 80 years since the Liberal Party of Australia was founded. Our party has a proud record of driving not only Australia's economic progress but also its social progress. The founder of our party, the great Sir Robert Menzies, said:
We took the name "Liberal" because we were determined to be a progressive party, willing to make experiments, in no sense reactionary but believing in the individual, his rights, and his enterprise …
In 2024 Menzies may have used some different pronouns, but the spirit remains the same. For me, the decision to support the bill in its amended form is a fundamental question in the great tradition of liberalism. John Stuart Mill defined the harm principle as a central tenet of liberal philosophy. At its core, liberalism is a test of how and when governments should make decisions, with the view that personal liberty is paramount and should be restricted through the imposition of government intervention only when there is a significant threat or actual harm to somebody. The bill will not harm any person in New South Wales. In fact, as many members have said, it will affect very few people across New South Wales. But, for those it does affect, it will respond to and seek to rectify great harms that they experience. I heard that message loud and clear from my community and from other people it will affect during my time on the committee inquiry into the bill.
Most of the decisions we make in this Parliament are for the many, and most of our votes are for things that we have a personal knowledge or experience of. Today's vote is about a minority, and a minority with which I have no personal experience. I am not lesbian, gay, bi or trans. I was not born through surrogacy; nor did I use surrogacy to birth my own babies. I am not a sex worker. I am not living with HIV. The only people affected by the bill are the people it seeks to protect.
There are those who will argue that there is a slippery slope or a moral hazard and that we should protect the majority from the outcomes of the bill. But those claims do not ring true. Allowing an individual to change their sex on their birth certificate is deeply personal and impactful to that person but to no‑one else. Those who claim it will create risk for women are fearmongering. Women are too often unsafe in our society and even more so in our own homes. But in all my life as a woman, I have never been asked to show my birth certificate to enter a bathroom or a sports change room. I have also stood shoulder to shoulder with women and fought for women's rights throughout my life. Where individuals would threaten, intimidate or harm others, including in places like bathrooms and change rooms, existing laws work to prevent and, if necessary, to punish that horrific behaviour.
That brings me to the detail of the bill. Our society grapples with how to enshrine our fundamental Australian values of individual rights, human rights and freedom when it comes to policy settings for transgender people. I recognise it is a complex policy area, but the decision that any individual feels that they need to make to change their gender, with the support of their family and medical practitioners, is even more complex. As a Liberal, I do not believe that I have a say in anyone else's gender and, as a society, we have enshrined that. Should we require an individual—as we do today in New South Wales—to undertake major, life‑altering surgery in order to change their birth certificate? As a Liberal, I say that medical decisions are a matter only for the individual, with informed medical advice.
This House should not be imposing medical requirements on any person. It is also an inconsistent approach to identity documents. Individuals have been able to change their sex on their passport for over a decade without requiring surgical changes. The passport guidelines commenced in 2013 and operated unchanged throughout both the Abbott and Morrison Liberal governments. The bill will only bring New South Wales ID documents in line with every other jurisdiction in Australia. There is a simple and compassionate reason for the change—everyone deserves to be recognised for who they are.
The bill will simplify the process for transgender individuals to update their gender on official documents, rather than requiring them to undergo major surgery. It is a matter of dignity, autonomy and individual rights. I will share the story of Bodhi Boele, who sadly passed away earlier this year from an unknown genetic degenerative condition. After years of being known as a tomboy, Bodhi transitioned to male in 2020 and underwent hormone treatment and a double mastectomy. His name was changed on his birth certificate but not his gender, meaning his death certificate will also not reflect his gender.
It was Bodhi's dying wish that his gender—his identity—be recognised on his birth certificate. I acknowledge Bodhi's mother, Heike, who is in the gallery. I met with Heike this morning. I thank her for her advocacy on behalf of Bodhi and every other trans person. No‑one should have to live through what Bodhi lived through and what Heike is living through. Bodhi's story is a tragic reminder that for trans and gender diverse people, their birth certificate is much more than a simple piece of paper: It is about their right to exist and be seen for who they are. Hopefully today we can ensure that Bodhi's story is not repeated across our State in the future.
I am a member of the Legislative Assembly Committee on Community Services, which undertook an inquiry into the bill. The committee received evidence from a range of stakeholders, organisations and individuals. We heard stories about lived experience and why the bill would be a positive force for good in communities across New South Wales. In considering the bill, both as a member of Parliament and as a member of that inquiry, I have heard many such stories, and I could not do anything but support those people.
I turn now to the changes on commercial surrogacy. Every child deserves the economic and emotional security that comes with legal recognition of their parents. The bill aims to provide parentage rights for children born in overseas commercial surrogacy arrangements where the court is satisfied that it is in the best interests of the child to make that parentage order. The bill will retain the geographical nexus for offences of engaging in commercial surrogacy and will only allow a parentage order to be granted through a court process if it is in the best interests of the child.
I will share a story from a couple who in 2009 decided they wanted to start a family. Ashley and his husband tried to adopt through a fostering agency in New South Wales but were told that it was illegal for a same‑sex couple to adopt or foster in New South Wales at that time. They then spent some time exploring co‑parenting options and domestic surrogacy, but they were unable to start their family that way. That left them with international surrogacy, which they commenced before changes to the laws in New South Wales were made. They have shared with me the stress, concern and fear they had navigating that process, all because the law in their home State had changed and would not recognise their child as legally theirs. The effect of the ban on commercial surrogacy has been damaging, resulting in children—like their child, Stella—born through overseas commercial surrogacy being deprived of the security and certainty of legal parentage. As a result, only one of Stella's parents is listed on her legal documentation. Her birth certificate has Stella's birth parent and surrogate listed. Her citizenship application only has one parent listed. In his letter to me, Ashley said:
I have sleepless nights worrying about what would could happen if I were to die—how would my husband navigate the legal documentation often required of parents when there is no record of him.
Extension of time
The bill maintains the requirement for a surrogacy arrangement to be altruistic but makes a minimal change to the Surrogacy Act 2010 by enlarging the Supreme Court's residual discretion to depart from this requirement and still make a parentage order if it would be in the best interests of the child. These minimal changes prevent a child from being punished for the circumstances in which they were conceived, where a court is convinced that it would be in the best interests of that child to recognise the reality of their family. With the increasing challenges that we see with fertility, we may need to revisit surrogacy policy. I acknowledge that the Act is currently being reviewed. Under the bill, international commercial surrogacy will remain against the law. However, the bill addresses what to do with children who are already here but do not have the necessary legal rights and protections. It also provides that parents are able to have the same legal rights and protections that other parents have in our community. As a Liberal, I want to see strong families providing safe foundations for our children. []
I now turn to the provisions of the bill that delete the summary offences that seek to prevent people from living off the earnings of a sex worker and inducing someone to engage in sex work. Sex work is not the profession all of us would choose. But in New South Wales it is legal, legitimate and regulated, and sex workers have a right to determine how they work and spend their income, in the same way we do. I will share Giselle's story. For three years she supported her life partner, his mother and their two children with her earnings as a sex worker—a story that many of us can relate to, but with a different source of income. Giselle's partner was struggling financially, and his business was decimated due to COVID. His mother was living overseas and unable to work, so she also needed financial support.
As Giselle was able to work and earn a legitimate living through sex work, she supported the five of them through a very difficult time, paying for two mortgages, insurance, tax, medical bills, food, clothing and the other necessities of life. Her job kept them afloat, without outside assistance. Giselle told me that she should be able to be proud of that, not criminalised for it. We should support women and their agency over what they do with their bodies and income. We should empower women to make the right decisions for themselves, without paternalistic judgement about those decisions.
The bill will also make changes when it comes to addressing those with HIV in this State. Over many decades, education campaigns have significantly reduced the stigma of HIV and AIDS. However, misconceptions and prejudices against those living with HIV still linger. The bill will update terminology to replace terms such as "HIV infection" and "suffering with AIDS" to "living with HIV/AIDS", which is an important change for those individuals. The bill addresses challenges regarding domestic violence. Everyone deserves to live in safety and free from violence. The bill will provide equal protections to members of the LGBTIQA+ community by ensuring that crimes motivated by hatred or prejudice towards transgender and intersex people are treated in the same way as hate crimes towards people of a particular religion, race, ethnic origin, language, sexual orientation, age or disability.
Too often LGBTIQA+ people in our communities are threatened to be outed or to have their personal information disclosed without consent. The bill ensures that threats made about a person's sexual orientation, gender history, HIV status or variation of sex characteristics, or the fact that they are sex workers, are a potential form of violence for the purpose of making an apprehended violence order or apprehended personal violence order. The recent tragedy in which Jesse Baird and Luke Davies lost their lives is a timely reminder that domestic violence happens in all communities across New South Wales. There are alarming statistics of domestic violence in same‑sex and transgender relationships.
In considering the bill, I acknowledge and recognise the contribution of the member for Sydney, who has worked incredibly hard to bring the issues of these minority interests to this Parliament to ensure that we vote on them and try to resolve them for those individuals. I know he would like to see the changes go a lot further. Knowing the member for Sydney, he will work to ensure they do. In closing, I acknowledge the breadth of views on the bill. I know that some will be disappointed by my decision to support it. But I remain confident that my conscience is in line with that of my community. In previous debates on matters of social conscience, I have referred to my Christian upbringing and my grandparents. I particularly welcome the comments from the Newcastle diocese of the Anglican Church, where I was born and raised—we can blame them!—and in particular the comments of strong support from Anglican Bishop Peter Stuart.
The Christianity with which I was raised was founded in compassion and non-judgement, and those are the values by which I choose to live my life and which inform my approach as a member of this Parliament. I recognise that the Liberal Party will vote against the bill. I say to those who vote Liberal across New South Wales that this is the only party in this Parliament where I could take this step and remain part of the team. Our philosophy as a party ensures that I can vote with my conscience. I thank my Liberal colleagues in this place for demonstrating their profound respect and kindness to me as I make this decision. My liberalism naturally extends to respecting their right to disagree with me on the bill.
Once again, I thank my community for entrusting me with this decision. I have now voted in this way on three occasions. That is a precious commodity, which is hard fought for around the world. I know the bill will not affect most members. Our community is compassionate, respectful and stands up for people's rights. I thank those people who have reached out to me, particularly over the past 24 hours. I am proud to be their MP too. I know that I am working in their name and as their voice. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms LIZA BUTLER (South Coast) (15:58:43):
I begin by thanking the member for North Shore for her courageous, well‑considered and articulate contribution to debate on the Equality Legislation Amendment (LGBTIQA+) Bill 2023. I thank her for mentioning Bodhi, because he lived on the South Coast. It is wonderful that his mum, Heike, is in the gallery, and hopefully his dad, Richard, is watching the debate online. I was honoured, as was the member for North Shore, to sit on the Legislative Assembly Committee on Community Services' inquiry into the bill. We asked ourselves what equality is and how we as a society have a common and shared view of the concept of equality. I think that, unless you are part of the LGBTQIA+ community, you cannot actually comment on that. The committee wanted to know how equality in law is achievable for everyone. I believe that this bill achieves that, and I am pleased to make this short contribution to the debate.
During the inquiry, the committee received 66 written submissions and heard from 44 witnesses during two days of public hearings. The committee made two findings: the views put to the inquiry were diverse and conflicting; and the Parliament should proceed to consider the bill. For me, there was one overriding factor: the need for additional policy measures to improve the safety and wellbeing of LGBTQIA+ people and to advance equality for all people in New South Wales.
As we all know, the bill has been in draft for over a year. I thank the member for Sydney for his work to have this bill before us today and for the way in which he has worked with the community and all members of this place. Government and Opposition members have been given opportunities to knock on his door to ask questions and to request or suggest amendments to the bill. I believe that the amendments will address the concerns of some parts of the community while still ensuring we provide the legislation that the LGBTQIA+ community needs. Today in question time, the Premier said that the bill before us today is a commonsense solution. He said:
I completely acknowledge that the bill is not everything that the member for Sydney has asked for but, in my view and in the Government's view, its time has come.
I received an email today from Jenny from Mollymook, and I believe she summed this up perfectly. She said:
Dear Liza, 40 years ago homosexuality was decriminalised in New South Wales. This year Premier Chris Minns delivered a heartfelt apology to our community, beginning a new chapter in New South Wales' history. And, while New South Wales also banned conversion practices this year, unfair laws continue to disadvantage our community. You can help fix this. I urge you to support the New South Wales LGBTQIA+ equality bill and reform New South Wales' laws.
I am pleased to be standing here and doing just that today. There are many aspects to the bill. I will not address everything, but I do want to discuss some important inclusions. The first is about birth certificates.
The bill will amend the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 to enable a person to change the record of their sex on their birth certificate without needing to have surgery. For children under 18, an application can be made only if both parents consent and certain other preconditions, including obtaining a counsellor's statement, are met. If one parent does not agree, the matter can be determined by the District Court, with procedures also in place if a child has only one parent or other guardianship arrangements. People under 18 years old will not be able to make applications on their own. That was a major concern for some people in our community. I think this amendment will address that concern.
Not only that, but this change will also bring New South Wales into line with all other States in Australia and will align with Federal documents such as passports. Having mismatched identification or a birth certificate that does not align with one's gender risks outing trans people and puts them at risk of harassment and violence when they must provide their ID or prove their identity. This is particularly important for young people, for whom a birth certificate may be the only piece of identification they have access to. In Bodhi's case, it was extremely important. Unfortunately, Bodhi's death certificate will always say that he was female.
The bill will also address the Surrogacy Act 2010 to enable parenting orders to be made in certain circumstances for children who were born from an international commercial surrogacy agreement and are part of a family in New South Wales. Commercial surrogacy, including international commercial surrogacy, will remain an offence. Regardless of anyone's views around commercial surrogacy, these children exist and are living in New South Wales through no fault of their own and must be protected under the law. The bill will provide for interim arrangements to cover those children who became part of a family in New South Wales prior to the commencement of the law. I reiterate that commercial surrogacy will remain an offence.
I thank the families, individuals, organisations and the wider community of the South Coast who have met with me over the past year for sharing their views on this issue. I believe we now have a balanced and well- considered bill before us today. I have listened to those who have tagged me in posts today on Instagram and who have messaged me. I thank them for reaching out, but the views of the young constituents of the South Coast are what really resonated with me. They do not discriminate. They accept others for who they are and they want equality for all. I thank Adam and the Milton Ulladulla Community Kindness group, known as MUCK Up, for their advocacy and community education in this space. I thank the member for Sydney again for his work on this equality bill. I thank him for getting these amendments through, for briefing all members on the changes and for discussing any concerns we have. It is now time that this important piece of legislation is passed in the New South Wales Parliament. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms TAMARA SMITH (Ballina) (16:06:28):
I am proud to contribute to debate on the Equality Legislation Amendment (LGBTIQA+) Bill 2023. I give a big shout-out to any LGBTQIA+ people in the gallery today, to the rainbow community in the Ballina electorate and the Northern Rivers and to all LGBTQIA+ people across the country. It is so wonderful to take part in this debate and be part of historic progress for rainbow communities in this State. I give a big shout-out also to the LGBTQIA+ members of The Greens and their allies who for many decades have championed true equality under the law and the respect and dignity that everyone deserves and that our society recognise that nobody is less because of their sexual or gender identity. I thank our Greens NSW spokesperson, Dr Amanda Cohn, MLC, in the other place, for her advocacy and work in this space. We are debating this bill today only because the member for Sydney used his political capital to advance the rights of LGBTQIA+ people and brought the bill before the House. Will it achieve everything we would like? It will not today. Will it embed significant reforms in the law and redress discrimination across a raft of vital areas of the law? Yes, it will.
Today I am choosing to celebrate what we have because I know there are so many advocates in my community and in communities across New South Wales who really want us to mark this occasion and this progress, and it is a Labor government supporting that process, albeit in minority government. As our education spokesperson, I lament that there are so many things we need to still fix, and I will allude to those, but I do not see any value in spending time on that here today because I want, on behalf of my community, to thank the member for Sydney for his tireless advocacy. I thank also his team and all of those advocates who have worked behind the scenes for many years for the significant gains in law before us.
Many speakers, including the member for Sydney, have spoken at length and provided very extensive analysis on what is in the bill. I want to focus on the top lines. The bill before us, which I believe will pass, ensures that trans and gender-diverse people are able to update their birth certificates without surgery. To put that in perspective—and I certainly have not experienced it personally—New South Wales is Australia's last jurisdiction to require reproductive organ surgery before a person can alter their record of sex. That leaves most trans people without accurate documentation. We know that is incredibly difficult and painful. It forces trans people to reveal deeply private and personal information to validate their identity, for instance when showing a birth certificate to apply for a job, loan or course, or to access services. That is just horrendous.
This is a massive reform to bring us in line with other jurisdictions in this country—yay! The options for sex descriptors will now include non-binary. That is incredibly welcome. I vaguely listened to some very ill‑informed arguments from Opposition members on that issue today. I cannot even go there. The support for that change is very welcome, as is the extra time to register a birth. I know this issue is deeply personal to members in this place. The bill extends the time to register a birth from 60 days to 180 days if variations of sex characteristics make it difficult to determine sex. That is a very welcome reform. Under the bill, family members will be able to alter the record of the sex of a trans or gender-diverse child, parent or sibling who appears on their own birth certificate.
There are also provisions that deal with living off the earnings of sex workers. That is not my area of expertise, but The Greens absolutely welcome these reforms. The bill requires that decisions about where to accommodate a child under State protection have to consider an appropriate placement for their gender identity or variations in sex characteristics. As someone who worked with children and young people for most of my career, that is so welcome. It is a huge change and provides a very different lens for placing children. It is incredibly overdue, but it will make such a difference to those children, who will be able to live without shame and express their true selves. I really hope the system can deliver that change. The bill provides that requirement in law.
Children under the age of 16 who have received gender-affirming care or any other specialist medical treatment approved by the Family Court will no longer have to go to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal for approval. I cannot believe that has been the status quo. NSW Health will still be able to issue guidelines for specific treatments and procedures and parents will still be able to challenge treatments in the Federal Family Court. However, denying timely access to gender-affirming treatment presents enormous risks, as we know, to the health and welfare of young people, in particular. We need to remove the barriers that prevent health care so young trans people can embrace education and all of life's opportunities.
Under the bill, threats to out a person's LGBTIQA+ status or sex-work history will be an offence. The importance of that change cannot be overestimated, in my view. Currently, there is no protection against that under the law. That is a terrifying area of discrimination. Aggravated sentencing for crimes motivated by hate for a group will be extended to hate for gender identity and being intersex. It makes it explicit. The bill updates outdated and stigmatising language used to describe people living with HIV or AIDS. It also updates the Mental Health Act to make it clear that gender identity and gender expression are not mental illnesses or reasons to detain someone. The fact that we need to make that explicit in the law is a terrible indictment on our society. It upsets me very much to think we have to make that explicit in the law.
It would be remiss of me not to mention, on behalf of thousands of teachers, students and staff of private schools across the State, that the Government has not supported amendments to address the discrimination of LGBTIQA+ people in those workplaces. That system green lights homophobia in those schools under the banner of religious freedom. It is unacceptable and The Greens will continue to champion change. It is a two-tiered system and the definition of inequality. Over the course of my teaching career and in my role as the member for Ballina, many teachers and students have reached out to me to express how hurtful that is. It not only hurts their employment or enrolment and determines whether they can be hired, fired, enrolled or expelled and discriminated against based on their sexuality or gender identity, but also sends a terrible message to everyone inside and outside those school communities that they are not the same. It is absolutely unacceptable. The Greens will continue that work.
The removal of that amendment is not on the head of the member for Sydney; it is on all our heads. The Australian Law Reform Commission has done excellent work in this area. We do not need any more inquiries. The sky will not fall. The issue must be fixed. I certainly hope that in the time I have remaining in this place we will make that change. I look forward to working with the member for Sydney, allies and LGBTIQA+ people to ensure that change is delivered. I mark the historic reforms being made and look forward to the bill passing today. I thank the member for Sydney.
Ms JO HAYLEN (Summer HillMinister for Transport) (16:16:37):
— I acknowledge that the Equality Legislation Amendment Bill (LGBTIQA+) Bill 2023 evokes strong views in the community and thank all the Summer Hill constituents who have written to me to express their views, either in support of or in opposition to the bill. Despite the breadth of views from across the community, it is important to understand that this bill does two things: It makes very important, transformative changes for the few people it directly impacts; and it sends a strong message that everyone in our community, including our LGBTIQA+ communities, are valued, respected and cared for. I am very proud to support the bill.
The equality bill makes substantive changes that address discrimination faced by LGBTIQA+ people in New South Wales. It amends the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act to allow for a person to change their sex on a birth certificate without needing to have irreversible surgery. It amends the Surrogacy Act 2010 to ensure that parentage orders can be made in certain circumstances for parents who have accessed international commercial surrogacy in order to form their families. It establishes a new coercive control offence for a person who outs or threatens to out another person. It removes outdated offences related to circumstances where a person knowingly lived wholly or partly on the proceeds of sex work.
The bill amends the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 to clarify that the existing aggravating factor applies when an offence is motivated by hatred against a group of people of a particular gender identity or with variations of sex characteristics. In short, crimes motivated by hatred of trans and intersex people will now be treated the same as other hate crimes. The bill addresses language that is stigmatising for people living with HIV and AIDS, updating both the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 and the Workers Compensation Act 1987. Importantly, the bill amends the Mental Health Act 2007 to provide that a person is not mentally ill or mentally disordered merely because the person expresses or refuses to express a particular gender identity or gender expression.
Following amendments foreshadowed by the member for Sydney, there are several reforms contained within the first print of the bill that will be considered at a later time. Whether or not LGBTIQA+ students and teachers are protected from being expelled or fired from religious and private schools will be considered as part of the Government's landmark review of the Anti-Discrimination Act, which is currently underway. Following advice, provisions in the bill that clarify consent requirements for young people seeking to access gender‑affirming care have been withdrawn from consideration. Good progress has been made by the Minister for Health and NSW Health to support those young people and their families. As Equality Australia has noted, "The Australian Medical Association and community advocates believe these changes are unnecessary and unhelpful. Removing this provision will have no impact on young people and their families accessing gender-affirming care." Finally, consideration of provisions around street-based sex work offences can occur under the statutory review of the Summary Offences Act.
While the bill has evolved, today members have before them a real opportunity to make pragmatic, progressive and concrete change for LGBTIQA+ communities. It is an opportunity we must not miss. New South Wales is the last State that still requires transgender and gender diverse people to undergo invasive, irreversible surgical interventions before being able to change the record of their sex on their birth certificate. Frankly, this arrangement is outdated, nonsensical and cruel. I have met with several trans and gender‑diverse people from my electorate who have detailed the impact of this practice. A young trans person who is looking to find a job has been hampered in their efforts because their birth certificate does not align with their gender identity. An older trans woman experienced bureaucratic delays in accessing housing support because of the discrepancies between their State-issued documentation and their gender identity.
A justice of the peace [JP] attended a local medical centre for half a day to ensure they could witness the signatures of two separate doctors confirming that a constituent had undergone gender‑affirming surgery, a statement they could only make after undertaking an invasive medical examination. This was not only humiliating for the trans person undergoing the examinations, as well as the doctors and the JP, but was also utterly unnecessary. Equality Australia notes that a 2021 survey of 153 trans and gender‑diverse people born in New South Wales found only 14.9 per cent of people had been able to update their gender under existing laws. It is well past time that we make this change, get this right and get it done.
The bill also creates a pathway to obtain parentage orders for children born and families formed through international commercial surrogacy provisions. Under current law, commercial surrogacy is illegal. Consequently, surrogacy parentage orders cannot be made in circumstances where a child is born through a commercial surrogacy arrangement. It means that children in New South Wales who are raised in loving families—both same‑sex parented and opposite‑sex parented families, mind you—are not recognised legally as the children of their parents under a range of laws, including superannuation and inheritance laws. That causes undue concern and distress to families and fails to recognise the many ways families are formed. One Marrickville resident wrote to me to share their story. After exploring options for local fostering and adoption, as well as domestic altruistic surrogacy arrangements, he and his partner chose to form their family through overseas surrogacy. Years later the family still lives in legal limbo and fear. He states:
In NSW families through surrogacy can apply for a parentage order to transfer legal parentage from the surrogate and her partner to the intended parents.
However, my husband and I have not done this as we are still fearful of being charged with engaging in commercial surrogacy if we go before the court and admit to having our children through commercial surrogacy.
This leaves my family and thousands of others in legal limbo.
My husband is not recorded on any legal document as my daughter's parent. Her birth certificate has me and her surrogate listed. Her citizenship application only has me as her parent. Because of this, when I apply for a passport for my daughter I do this as a single parent.
I have sleepless nights worrying about what could happen if I were to die—how would my husband navigate the legal documentation often required of parents when there is no record of him?
When I was recently filling out the NDIS application for my daughter there was a question asking if I am the legal parent of the child I am applying for NDIS for.
I had to question again if it is not me—who is her parent? Not the wonderful, generous person who gave birth to her 12 years ago.
A person who she has no connection to.
A person who has not changed her nappy, wiped her nose, picked her up from school when she is sick, or kissed her goodnight.
This is just one example of the impact and legal limbo families like mine are facing.
All children should be equal before the law regardless of the circumstances of their conception.
This family is not alone. There are so many stories like this one in my electorate and across the State. Those families need this bill. The bill as it stands delivers a pathway for families in those circumstances to have the certainty of parentage orders. While I appreciate some in the community will want a clearer outcome that addresses the illegality of commercial surrogacy itself, I note that a review of the Surrogacy Act is currently underway and there will be opportunities to assess whether the current laws are fit for purpose. Many other members have done so during this debate, but I put on record that the member for Sydney is an honest, principled and incredibly hardworking member of this place. He has worked tirelessly and persistently to improve the lives of LGBTQIA+ people in New South Wales. I appreciate that it has been a long road to get this bill to this point, and I pay tribute to him and all the incredible people in his office.
Today is also a day to thank the many advocates from key community groups, including Equality Australia, Rainbow Families, members of the union movement, ACON and others. I also acknowledge the leadership of the Hon. Penny Sharpe and advocates from our party. Rainbow Labor has played a powerful role in advocating for LGBTQIA+ members of the Labor Party and their allies. Because the leaders of Rainbow Labor have strong, longstanding ties to other community organisations, they have been able to navigate the complexities of this bill and work closely with members across the Parliament. Today is a truly historic day that delivers real, pragmatic and progressive change for the LGBTQIA+ community in New South Wales. Today is the result of persistence and patient advocacy. It is a big step in the right direction. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr WARREN KIRBY (Riverstone) (16:27:02):
I make a short contribution in support of the Equality Legislation Amendment (LGBTIQA+) Bill 2023 introduced by the member for Sydney. I will not retread the ground covered by other members in their eloquent and articulate contributions detailing the contents of the bill. Instead, I am compelled to contribute today because I truly believe the proposed amendments to the bill before the House are clearly targeted toward meaningful improvement to the lives of members of the LGBTQIA+ community. They are changes that provide people with basic human rights and instil the dignity that most in the community take for granted. At the same time, I believe the bill before us will not affect the rights or religious freedoms of people from the faith community, or indeed the rights of anyone else who is not part of the rainbow community.
Particularly, I note the work and approach undertaken by the member for Sydney and commend him for his advocacy in this matter. His determined and collaborative approach goes to the heart of good policymaking. I am a new member of this place, and the legislative process is something I am still learning. Nonetheless, the member for Sydney afforded me the courtesy of coming to my office in Riverstone to discuss the bill and what it entails in detail. He took the time to answer my questions about the bill and allay my concerns about the effect it might have on the rights of others, particularly the concerns raised with me by members of the faith community. The member has gone out of his way to continue those conversations here in Parliament. In order to try to stop debate today, Opposition members have said they have not been consulted on this bill and suggested they have not had time to consider its contents. The temerity is frankly ludicrous. As the Premier pointed out in today's question time, irrespective of members' position on the bill, it needs to come before this House to be debated for change to be implemented.
When it comes to the content of the bill, I believe the proposed amendments to be sound, reasonable changes that align our State's provisions with other jurisdictions in the country. I acknowledge the correspondence my office has received in opposition to and in support of the bill. Much of that correspondence is based on outdated information and earlier versions of the bill, and they do not accurately reflect the bill we are debating today. I reiterate that the proposed changes will not affect the rights of the wider community or the religious freedoms afforded to the faith community. Most importantly, the bill provides very basic measures for members of our rainbow community to live their lives in a dignified way and be afforded equitable treatment under New South Wales law.
Ms JODIE HARRISON (CharlestownMinister for Women, Minister for Seniors, and Minister for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault) (16:30:11):
— I speak in favour of the Equality Legislation Amendment (LGBTIQA+) Bill 2023, introduced by the member for Sydney. I will not use all the time that I can under the standing orders because, to be honest, I want the bill to pass through the Parliament as quickly as possible. The member for Sydney is a tireless and effective advocate for his electorate and for the LGBTIQ+ community. He understands well the power of working across this House for a greater good. I commend the member for Sydney on his effort and his commitment to collaboration, which has resulted in a bill that enables support from across the benches. I also acknowledge the member for North Shore for her support for the bill. The issues it addresses are fundamentally human, and I thank her for her humanity in helping to bring our laws in those spaces into the modern era.
Trans people are already using public bathrooms, and transwomen are already accessing women's spaces. As the Minister for Women, and Minister for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, I know that women and children are most often at risk of violence at the hands of a man they already know. That includes transwomen. Trans people should feel welcome and safe in our community, and the support for the bill demonstrates our shared commitment to doing that. At its heart, the bill is about allowing people to be who they are and to have that recognised in law.
To that end, one of the most significant legislative changes is to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 to give people the right to have their birth certificate amended to accurately reflect their sex. The proposed change will enable a person's sex to align with the sex by which they identify on arguably the most important identity document they have. It allows that to happen without requiring a person to undergo major surgery that they might not want to have or that may not be accessible to them. Particularly for children and young people up to 18 years of age, who can only change their record with their parents' consent, I believe the ability to amend their birth certificate will have significant positive outcomes, regardless of the choices they make in relation to their bodies. The amendment is not radical—New South Wales is the last jurisdiction in Australia to allow a person to have the sex on their birth certificate changed without undergoing surgery.
I am also pleased to support amendments to the Crime (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act that will classify outing or threatening to out someone as behaviour that amounts to domestic abuse. LGBTIQ+ people experience distinct forms of domestic and family violence, especially violence referred to as identity-based abuse. That includes threatening to out a person's gender, sexuality, HIV status or intersex status, or exiling a person from a family due to their sexuality or gender. The bill recognises that threats to out someone are a powerful form of control and appropriately classifies them as abuse. That is especially true in rural and regional areas, where people are more isolated and may be deterred from seeking help due to the fear of stigma and shame.
The amendments strengthen protections for LGBTQI+ people who experience domestic and family violence. Those and other amendments in the equality bill represent important steps forward in ensuring that transgender and intersex persons enjoy equal rights and protections under the law in New South Wales. The bill brings our laws into the twenty-first century and better meets wider community expectations. As I said at the outset, I am very pleased to support the bill. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr STEVE WHAN (MonaroMinister for Skills, TAFE and Tertiary Education) (16:34:45):
— I contribute to the debate on the Equality Legislation Amendment (LGBTIQA+) Bill 2023. I support the bill as amended. The process of considering the bill has gone on for a very long time. I acknowledge the efforts of the member for Sydney and the other people who have advocated for the bill. I represent a rural community with a city at the heart of it, Queanbeyan. I am a 60-year-old straight, white bloke, so I do not pretend to understand all the issues people are going through. But I come into this debate—as I did in 2003, when I voted for the age of consent to be standardised—with a philosophy that people should be able to make their own choices about their own lives. They should be able to determine what gender they wish to be, and they should be able to make decisions that do not affect other people. By the same token, other people's beliefs should not be able to be imposed on those people.
In my circle of family and friends, I have seen three young people begin to identify as trans, and they found that a very difficult process to varying degrees. They all lived in communities that were not major cities. A couple of them now live in a major city because that is a more comfortable community for them to be in, with more acceptance. It is sad for rural communities when that happens. I certainly see this legislation as making that very difficult process a bit easier and more accepting, and it is important that trans people can undertake that. I also observed the parents of those young people go through difficult times in how they dealt with that. In some cases there was resistance. In some cases there was a willingness to try to understand and help. I encourage people to take the latter approach if they feel they are able to.
Over the past year or two, my office has received quite a few emails about the issue. I read what they said. To those who opposed the bill in its original form, or elements of it, a lot of the amendments today deal with some of the things they raised with me. To the people who would have liked to see the bill go further, I understand their position, but I think the bill is a very practical way to address the really important issue of people being recognised and will make their transitions easier and smoother. Frankly, to be the last State to do so is a bit of an embarrassment. Many of us, particularly on this side of the House, would like to think we are on the progressive side of politics.
I was not able to listen to all of the debate because I was in meetings, but I did hear some of the contributions from the Opposition. I was a bit astounded that the shadow Attorney General spent about 40 minutes complaining about the process and apparently not knowing what was happening, despite the fact that the bill has been in a very open process of discussion for a very long time. I was disappointed to hear a member of the Opposition suggesting that the bill would cause problems in prisons. It has been made very clear to the Labor party room that there is no change to the way that decisions are made about where prisoners and where they are housed. There are no changes to the way that toilets operate or the way that schools operate. Some of the things that were raised legitimately to me by my constituents when the bill was being discussed have been adequately dealt with through this process.
As I said at the start, I have a philosophy that people should be able to make their own decisions. People should not impose their moral views on others. I stand by that as a person who represents a rural electorate. It might surprise people to know that we have people of all gender identifications in those electorates. I am aware from hearing over many decades stories from people of how they feel, particularly from a good—now deceased—friend who was a gay man growing up in a country town in the '50s and '60s. He told me how awful that was. I am pleased that our society has moved on so substantially. This is another step along the way to being a society that recognises people's ability to make their own decisions about their own futures. I commend the bill with the foreshadowed amendments to the House.
Ms LIESL TESCH (Gosford) (16:40:00):
I speak on the Equality Legislation Amendment (LGBTIQA+) Bill 2023. The bill considers commonsense changes to ensure that New South Wales will be a safer and more inclusive place for our LGBTIQA+ community. These changes have been a long time coming and ensure that equality, respect and dignity exist for everyone in our community. I acknowledge the incredible the work of my fantastic colleague the member for Sydney. He has been transparent in the delivery of information and generous in sharing the journey of the bill with the whole Parliament. It upsets me a little to see the ways in which some Opposition members have acted today.
I also acknowledge those in the gallery. They are fantastic. I thank them for their patience with us and for their advocacy. This is an important part of the journey, though it has been challenging. Solutions to the parts of the bill that will be removed by foreshadowed amendments will be found in other legislation as we move forward. It is important that the amended bill be passed today. As the member for Monaro said, it is disappointing that we are the last State in Australia to bring forth such a bill. The bill was considered, with significant stakeholder input, by the Legislative Assembly Committee on Community Services, which reported in June 2024. While the committee acknowledged the diverse and sometimes conflicting views regarding the proposed amendments in the bill, it also acknowledged that additional policy measures are needed to address the disadvantage, discrimination and poor health outcomes experienced by LGBTIQA+ community members. As such, the committee moved that the Parliament proceed to consider the bill.
It is beyond time that we make the changes that will align New South Wales with every other jurisdiction in Australia by amending the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act to allow people to change the record of their sex on their birth certificate without the prerequisite of surgery. This change is not merely procedural but recognises the fundamental rights of individuals to define their own identity, removing unnecessary barriers that have historically marginalised and discriminated against those who do not conform to traditional gender norms. Important safeguards will be in place for children under 18, including parental consent of both parents and counsellors' statements. Children under the age of 18 will not be able to make an application on their own.
Furter, the bill provides a vital avenue for children who have become part of New South Wales families through international commercial surrogacy arrangements to have parentage orders made. This is a significant move that acknowledges the complexities of modern family structures and that ensures that these children are afforded the same rights and protections as their peers. Importantly, commercial surrogacy remains an offence. Critically, amendments to the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 explicitly clarify the existing aggravating factors that apply when an offence is motivated by hatred for or prejudice against a group of people who the offender believes the victim belongs to, including people of a particular gender identity or with particular variations of sex characteristics.
The bill amends the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act, taking a strong stance against harassment, particularly pertaining to the act of outing individuals—a violation that can have devastating effects on a person's life. This amendment acknowledges that this action is an example of conduct that may amount to harassment of a person, a type of intimidation under the Act. The bill also seeks to modernise outdated language in various Acts, including the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act and the Workers Compensation Act, which will help remove stigma and ensure that our laws reflect current the understandings of health and identity. The bill provides us with the opportunity to affirm our commitment to equality and inclusion across our State. The bill is a fundamental move towards affirming the rights, dignity and identities of LGBTIQA+ community members.
I thank all the people who have contacted my office about the bill, from one side of the debate to the other. There has been a lot of communication. I appreciate their input. I listened to and met with a lot of people who have expressed their concerns. I celebrate the mother of a bright young 12-year-old girl who, as the law stands today, could not update her gender marker on her New South Wales birth certificate, though she can legally do so on her passport. This has caused difficulties for the family who are travelling to Canada. It is frustrating that this is the case and it is nice to know that change is in the wind and that action will be possible in the future. I also acknowledge Linda Telisman and a group of people who I met along with Linda who opposed a lot of components of the bill as originally drafted that will be removed.
Not everyone is happy with all parts of the bill, but it has been a big process. The Minns Labor Government and the Premier have done an incredible job. I also acknowledge Minister Kamper, who has worked with faith groups to ensure we got to a place where all were comfortable so that the bill passes through the House. Again, I thank the member for Sydney, and I congratulate the team involved in fighting for this change. As far as I am concerned, it is a celebration of our rainbow community. Together we can build a New South Wales that truly embodies the values of equality and respect for all.
Mr GREG PIPER (Lake Macquarie) (16:45:31):
I speak in support of the Equality Legislation Amendment (LGBTIQA+) Bill 2023, to which amendments will be moved by the member for Sydney. It is always good to follow someone such as the member for Gosford, who articulates the issues so well, as have some of the other more progressive speakers today, and I think they have moved many people. The bill was brought before the House in recognition that LGBTIQA+ people, like all of us, deserve to be afforded the same dignity as every other member of our community. They deserve to thrive as the person they are, not as a person others wished they were. This requires that the legal framework governing their daily lives and decisions protects and supports them. Yet, the current framework does not protect and support them as it should. The bill presents us with an opportunity to strengthen our laws for the benefit of LGBTIQA+ people and to address the discrimination and intolerance embedded in our State laws.
I add my voice to support for amendments to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act. In particular, I support those amendments that would mean that trans and gender diverse people no longer need to undergo invasive and expensive surgery in order to update their birth certificates to reflect their gender identity. New South Wales is the only jurisdiction in which surgery is a precondition for a trans or gender diverse person to update their birth certificate. Some people cannot afford the surgery, while others might not wish to undergo it for personal reasons, including because it involves sterilisation. That surgery is only required today in New South Wales, but not in other Australian jurisdictions. That demonstrates the need for a change to this Act.
Proposed amendments to the bill will make clear that the alteration of records to reflect a person's gender identity would not change access to toilets, change rooms, sport, allocation in correctional facilities, women's refuges or any other place. This added clarity—which I did not think should be necessary—may help alleviate some concerns around the amendment of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act. I also support changing the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act in relation to outing a person's sexual orientation, gender history, variation of sex characteristics, HIV diagnosis or sex work. Provisions in the bill regarding outing a person apply to domestic settings. However, the proposed amendments of the member for Sydney would bring outing a person within the offence of intimidation under the Act, meaning that people would also have legal protection from being outed in other settings, such as the workplace. Everyone deserves to earn a living free from harassment. This should include those who, for personal reasons, do not wish to disclose their sexual orientation or history.
The bill also makes a number of other commonsense changes, for example, by modernising some legislation to update language describing people living with HIV or AIDS so that it is more respectful than the stigmatising terms currently included; by providing extra time to register a birth if variations of sex characteristics make it difficult to determine the sex of the child, from 60 days to 180 days; and by removing the summary offence of living off the earnings of a sex worker, which ignores the reality that people can do both sex work and support loved ones who are over 18. The continued presence of this offence on the statute book is outdated and simply unjust. The bill is an important step in entrenching equality in New South Wales laws.
To that end, I note that the NSW Law Reform Commission is currently reviewing the Anti-Discrimination Act. I look forward to the commission's findings and hope that they will act as a platform for further reform. As society evolves, legislation too must evolve to reflect contemporary community standards. The bill is an effort to help the law keep pace with our society, which is now far more accepting of LGBTIQA+ people than when the outdated provisions the bill seeks to amend were drafted. It does not make sense to retain unfair or obsolete laws or overlook LGBTIQA+ people by failing to recognise, support and protect them in law. For the marginalised minority that the bill affects, it will be a stride forward and no doubt a great relief. For those not directly impacted, it will invariably become part of the social fabric shaping our society with no harm done to them.
Finally, I commend the member for Sydney and his team, particularly Tammie Nardone and all those who have worked with him, and supporters of the LGBTIQA+ community. The member for Sydney has done a fantastic job bringing the bill forward. As we know, it has been a struggle to make some of these big social changes. We did it for the decriminalisation of abortion and for voluntary assisted dying, and now we are going to do it for the LGBTIQA+ community.
Ms TRISH DOYLE (Blue Mountains) (16:51:19):
I make a brief contribution to debate on the Equality Legislation Amendment (LGBTIQA+) Bill 2023. Today is about equality, respect and dignity. The detail of the bill has been covered by many members, so I will not go through it again. I acknowledge the Premier and the Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council, who have said today that, as a government, we have been committed to equality for a long time. Supporting the bill is our latest step in ensuring that every citizen in New South Wales is valued.
I am a member of the Legislative Assembly Committee on Community Services, which undertook an inquiry into the bill to listen to people's views about equality. We discussed whether, as a society, we have a common and shared view around the concept of equality and whether equality in law was achievable. This bill is a huge step towards that. I quote from my friend the good member Sydney. In 2024 he said, "All residents in New South Wales should be treated with dignity and respect", but he sadly hears a number of stories from the LGBTIQA+ community from across the State about lawful discrimination that impacts on their health and wellbeing. This bill presents a clear pathway to improving the safety and wellbeing of LGBTIQA+ people in ensuring that they can live their best lives.
I acknowledge Rainbow Labor, particularly Mits, who spent some time talking with me in the final days of us pushing to ensure that this debate went ahead today. I thank them for sharing personal and very powerful stories. I was contacted, like many members in this place, by a range of people over many months who had polarised views. I assure my community that I read and listened to all of those views. But we cannot stand in this place and debate and pass legislation that is not grounded in respect and dignity. That is why I am speaking today. Finally, I acknowledge one of the many people who wrote to me. Glenda from Blaxland in the Blue Mountains said:
Again, I thank you for your support of the LGBTIQA+ people in our community. I know you will strongly support the upcoming NSW LGBTIQA+ Equality Bill.
Earlier this year, my child … came out publicly. Her transition has been very smooth, with lots of support from all around her. We're happy that she's been accepted as who she is throughout the community.
I am looking forward to my daughter being able to have her ID changed … without gender modification surgery that is not necessary for many transitional people to be who they are.
We love you, we see you and I commend the bill to the House.
Ms KOBI SHETTY (Balmain) (16:55:05):
The Greens welcome the significant reforms the Equality Legislation Amendment (LGBTIQA+) Bill 2023 will bring. So many in my community in the Balmain electorate welcome these positive changes. I acknowledge the members of the LGBTIQA+ community, who have pushed so hard over so many decades. I commend the member for Sydney for bringing the bill before the House and for all of his work. I also commend my colleagues for their push for equality in New South Wales. I must acknowledge my disappointment that Labor was unable to support the full bill introduced by the member for Sydney. The bill was intended to ensure that LGBTIQA+ people in New South Wales are recognised and protected in law against discrimination.
The member for Sydney in his second reading speech outlined a vision where the LGBTQIA+ community in New South Wales was not only protected but also able to thrive. That is the sort of transformational change that the LGBTQIA+ community, advocates and others deserve to see. The original bill that was introduced would have provided significantly improved protections for LGBTQIA+ people in New South Wales. A great deal of proposed protections have been removed from the bill. In acknowledging the positive change the bill will bring, it is very disappointing that Labor have watered it down, and the changes are significant.
First, the amendments will remove anti-discrimination protections for people who are bisexual, asexual, non-binary and intersex. They will remove anti-discrimination provisions to protect sex workers and others. The bill will back away from protections for LGBTQIA+ students and staff in non-government schools and remove the pathway for 16- and 17-year-olds to alter records of sex on State documents. The amendments will remove protections that would have ensured dignity for trans and gender diverse people during invasive strip searches. The bill will also fail to remove unnecessarily gendered and non-inclusive language from old laws. These are not minor alterations. These changes will have a significant impact on vulnerable communities. The bill will effectively maintain the status quo whereby teachers in private schools will remain without the protections from discrimination afforded to their public school counterparts.
The queer community in New South Wales deserves equality without exception. They deserve reforms that do not leave people behind. The decision of NSW Labor to let this opportunity pass is disappointing, and we must not lose sight of the work ahead. My Greens colleagues and I firmly believe that the queer community in New South Wales deserves equality without exception. They deserve protection from discrimination and they deserve a government willing to take steps to ensure that everyone in our community is able to thrive. While I remain disappointed, I commend the member for Sydney for providing important reforms that will protect sections of the LGBTQIA+ community. I do not want to lose sight of the fact that the protections to be afforded under the bill will provide meaningful improvements in many people's lives. I have heard from many LGBTQIA+ residents in my electorate of Balmain who want to see these reforms passed and who need to see these protections enshrined in law. While the bill could go further, I recognise how important these reforms are.
Among other things, the bill will finally remove the need for trans and gender diverse adults to undergo risky and invasive surgery in order to change their sex on their State documents. It has been disappointing to see some of the arguments raised today, which have suggested that outdated requirements should be kept in order to protect women. Arguments like that are dangerous, and they do not have a place in our Parliament or in our community. LGBTQIA+ people are not dangerous, they are not a risk to women and children, and they should not be forced to undergo invasive procedures just to have their State documents correctly identify their gender. I welcome the changes the bill will make to ensure it is easier and safer for people in our community to self‑identify sex on official documents. These changes are long overdue.
I commend the member for Sydney and his team for ensuring that these much-needed changes and protections will be enshrined in legislation. We still have a long way to go, and I remain committed to working with my community in the Balmain electorate, with LGBTQIA+ advocates and with my Greens colleagues to ensure that we have equality without exception and that no-one is left behind. Today's bill is a step in the right direction, and we will keep pushing for better protections for all.
Transcription in progress…
Search
Call 02 9909 2594
northshore@parliament.nsw.gov.au
