Page 686 - Week 02 - Thursday, 20 March 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
However, the act requires an assessment to be made as to physical characteristics. The matters to be covered in the statutory declaration cover physical characteristics, and the very definition of “intersex” comprises physical elements. There are no elements that imply an assessment of a person’s state of mind or behaviour. Psychologists are not qualified to make physical assessments. So it is quite unreasonable, in fact possibly illegal, for a psychologist to sign a statutory declaration as to any kind of physical assessment, which is how the commonwealth legislation that this mimics is written.
In raising this matter with the attorney’s office, two explanations were given. Firstly, this was in line with commonwealth policy. That is true, but it is irrelevant, because the same issues arise as an anomaly at the commonwealth level. Just because they have got it wrong does not mean we should mimic it. Further, such a comparison is incorrect. The commonwealth guidelines on the recognition of sex and gender require only a statement and not a stat dec. So the ACT is seeking a higher threshold.
The second explanation was that a psychologist is required to act within the scope of their professional practice in accordance with the health practitioner regulation law. That may well be true, but it begs the question why a psychologist is even mentioned in the bill if, in order to sign a statutory declaration, it is not within their scope of practice. It is also presented to the opposition that an argument might be that the scope of practice for psychologists might change so that they might be able to consider physical characteristics. I think that that is a bit of a nonsense.
It is technical; it is not a disputation about the intent of the legislation. But it highlights that there is an anomaly in that the definition of “intersex” basically for a psychologist to sign off on is a definition of physical characteristics, and a psychologist is not qualified to provide that statutory declaration.
The scrutiny committee noted that the Australian Law Reform Commission 2009 report, Sex files, considered that there should be a psychological element in assessing whether a person’s application for a change in sex or gender identity is genuine. The bill fails to embrace that concept, bringing into further question the relevance of the inclusion of a psychologist as someone whom a person could ask to complete the statutory declaration.
Some other issues have been raised by third parties, organisations like A Gender Agenda. And I note that there are representatives from A Gender Agenda here. It is good to see you here. While supporting the bill, they consider that there is more work that needs to be done to bring the ACT’s laws more into line with the recommendations of the Sex files report. A Gender Agenda say that gender markers should be a matter of self-identification. They also say that there should be more flexibility available for children and young people to pursue their own wishes in relation to gender determination.
Another representation was received by the opposition from Organisation Intersex International Australia Ltd, or OII, a not-for-profit organisation that promotes the human rights and bodily autonomy of intersex people in Australia. They, again, had
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video