Page 403 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 16 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
What is clear in all of the stories included in the report is that when a government and a community try to put people into predetermined boxes where they simply do not fit, we undermine their dignity and their right to a happy life. I am very proud to be back here today, and I thank my colleagues Mr Rattenbury and Mr Corbell for the serious and committed way that they have approached these reforms.
I say again that there is a long way to go on improving government policies and fighting discrimination against sex and gender diverse people. We as a society are still learning, and it is for everyone to pick up the fight that sex and gender diverse people have started by speaking out, and to continue that process.
As Mrs Jones noted in this place last week, I am passionate about this issue. I am passionate because, to me and many in our community, the consequences of inaction for the lives and the life expectancy of sex and gender diverse people remain simply unacceptable.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo—Minister for Corrections, Minister for Education, Minister for Justice and Consumer Affairs and Minister for Road Safety) (11.36): I thank Ms Berry for those supportive comments. I have listened carefully to Mr Hanson’s remarks. I disagree with him, but I am quite happy to offer to Mr Hanson and his colleagues that if they would like to go over more of the details and some of the specific examples of why the law is being worked in this way, I am more than happy for the directorate staff to spend time with our colleagues across the chamber to go through the specific and individual cases as to why this is a relevant change to the law. There are circumstances in which these changes are necessary to give people an appropriate opportunity to express their gender identity while also recognising the biological processes that remain within their scope.
I will leave it at that. I am happy to have a more detailed discussion later if those opposite wish. But for the purposes of today’s proposals, I move, pursuant to standing order 133, that the question on my three amendments be divided so that the Liberal Party may express differing views on each of the amendments as we go through them.
MR HANSON (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (11.38): We will be supporting that amendment. As I indicated in my previous speech, we support two of the amendments; we do not support the other one.
With regard to Mr Rattenbury’s point, if he is genuine about wanting to get amendments like this through, and I indicated that it is unlikely we would, the best way to do it is to engage with the opposition, discuss it with the opposition, and provide the amendments with a long lead time so that we can sit down and discuss what the issues are in some detail. Just dumping it in on a Monday before a busy sitting at lunchtime when these are complex and difficult issues and saying, “Let’s pass it today and then I will offer you a retrospective briefing. You can get up to speed after the effect,” is not a good way to do legislation. If Mr Rattenbury is genuine about wanting to get laws changed in this place, knowing that they would be complex, when his view is that they require some discussion, some engagement, some
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video