Page 472 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 23 February 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is in relation to this aspect of the bill that I flag I will be moving some amendments which have been circulated in my name that would deal with these concerns. We did ask that given these concerns this could be withdrawn. I think that would have been a better way to go to get this clunky definition right. I understand the government and the Greens will not be supporting that. As a result, I will be moving amendments to the bill in relation to industrial activity.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (12.20): This bill amends four pieces of legislation relevant to the powers and responsibilities of the Human Rights Commission. The amendments improve on the existing operations of the commission and the Greens will be supporting the changes.
The Human Rights Commission was created in 2005 and its experiences since that time in implementing the legislation have highlighted some practical areas where change is required. We have tracked through each of these practical changes and measured them against the commission’s ultimate objective, which is to promote the human rights and welfare of people living in the ACT.
We are confident that the proposed amendments do enable that goal to be better met. There is one specific amendment that the Greens think has the potential to go further. That amendment relates to gender identity, which is the first of two new discrimination grounds to be inserted. The amendment is a step in the right direction and we welcome it.
However, there is some level of uncertainty as to whether the new definition will cover absolutely all the practical examples of discrimination faced by the gender-diverse community. The existing discrimination ground of “transsexuality” is replaced with “gender identity”. This reflects accepted modern terminology and is a positive change to the law.
The issue is that the amendment retains the requirement for the complainant to prove they are a member of one sex and identify as another. This contrasts with a broader view that gender identity can and should be about more than the narrow sex-based criteria. There is the potential for a person’s gender identity to be portrayed in such a way as to attract discrimination, but not actually to involve identification as a member of the other sex.
We did receive a briefing from government officials on the proposed new definition of gender identity and I would like to thank them for taking us through the provision and their understanding of it. The point was made in the briefing that other already existing grounds of discrimination may catch those people who are not protected by the gender identity grounds.
So much of gender and sexual identity law reform is a process of evolution, not revolution. I think this is a good example of that. The Greens are awake to the potential for gaps to exist in the current framework and we will be monitoring the situation as the new definition is put into practice in the ACT.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .