Culture

Yesterday Was A Significant Day For LGBTQI Rights In Australia

In South Australia it was good, in Victoria it was not.

by Sinead Stubbins  7 December 2016
Rainbow flag.

Want more Junkee in your life? Sign up to our newsletter, and follow us on Instagram and Facebook so you always know where to find us.

Yesterday South Australia passed a significant gender rights bill that will ensure that transgender people won’t have to go to court to change the gender on their birth certificate.

This is a noteworthy win for the transgender community, as previously the bureaucratic process for changing gender identities on the record was much more lengthy and fraught — particularly as one of the requirements was for the applicant to prove that they had had sexual reassignment surgery.

Now in South Australia, transgender people over 18 only need to provide a statement from a psychologist or doctor saying they have “undertaken a sufficient amount of appropriate clinical treatment in relation to the person’s sex or gender identity” (if you’re under 18, you will still need to obtain a court order).

In the past, the ACT and Western Australia have also passed legislation which means that transgender adults don’t need to prove reassignment surgery but unfortunetly, this requirement still stands in other states. In Victoria last night, a similar bill was defeated with Liberal MP Bernie Finn saying the proposal was “nutbag central” and the government accusing the Liberals of betraying transgender Victorians.

The bill was narrowly voted down 19-19.

This wasn’t the only blow to LGBTQI rights in Victoria. Last night an equal opportunity bill, which would have introduced an “inherent requirement” test that made sure that schools and religious groups couldn’t discriminate against employees based on their sexuality or beliefs, was knocked back. The bill would have ensured that these groups couldn’t unfairly discriminate on the grounds of religion or sexuality unless it was proven to be central to their job.

The Opposition argued that it would remove the much-needed protection around religious groups, however Sex Party MP Fiona Patten claimed that religious institutions had “felt privileged and above the law”.