Page 1380 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 12 May 2021
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
this insertion would immediately raise a conflict over whose moral, ethical or political standards a school is expected to conform to.
They continue:
The Bill focuses heavily on the teaching of gender fluidity. There are divergent views on the nature of gender, such as whether it is synonymous with biological sex, and we do not see any utility in legislatively banning one set of views. It is worth noting that there is virtually no information on how widespread the teaching of these matters is in NSW government schools in any case.
They make the further point:
We would also remind the Committee that the adoption of the Bill would potentially be in contravention of section 5B of the Federal Sex Discrimination Act 1984.
We do not consider the Bill necessary or justified. If passed it sets a dangerous precedent for the expansion of bans on specific topics that some may see as offensive or controversial.
I agree with that; and I think that there are some good points made in a number of the submissions. There are obviously those submissions that I would not agree with. It is interesting to note that the Anglican Diocese of Sydney does not support the bill. The Catholic Archdiocese of Parramatta does not support the bill. And, certainly, I am unable to find anyone in the local sphere who would support that bill. Certainly it is not something that I think would be brought into this place by the Canberra Liberals, the Greens or the Labor Party. So it very much is within the remit of New South Wales.
Mr Pettersson has made the point about the Canberra region. I guess that there is a link there. What I would say is that in the motion, he makes comments that the bill undermines the important role that our education system plays in enabling a child’s development, knowledge, understanding and empathy towards people from different backgrounds and life experiences. This is a piece of legislation that has been introduced by a private member in the upper house of New South Wales, is in committee and has not yet been debated.
I tend to agree that having these debates, raising these issues, can be harmful. It can be something that would make people who are trans feel uncomfortable about. It is not a debate that necessarily we need to have in the ACT. Perhaps by bringing this forward and bringing attention to this you could argue, in one sense, that it puts our position clear and provides clarity but, on the other hand, if the argument is that we should not be having the debate in New South Wales, it is interesting that we are having the debate here in the Assembly, if simply having the debate itself is harmful.
It is a bit of a procedural point but I just note it because I really think that a submission made to the inquiry, putting the government’s position forward, or Mr Pettersson’s position forward, might have been a clearer way to do that. But they are perhaps procedural points.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video