Page 687 - Week 02 - Thursday, 20 March 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
different views. Their view was that the proposed definition of “intersex” was too broad, in that it included transgender or transsexual people, and asserted that intersex was a congenital state and not one that was created through treatment or sexual reassignment surgery.
They also said that the third sex marker or X was experimental and should not be available for children and young people because it raised the risk of unintended discrimination. OII further said that the amendments proposed were at odds with international definitions and understandings of the intersex state and had serious implications for that sector and the broader transgender or transsexual sectors. The commonwealth guidelines on the recognition of sex and gender appear to support that take on the definition of “intersex”. Those guidelines describe intersex characteristics as “always congenital and can originate from genetic, chromosomal or hormonal variations”. The guidelines go on to note:
Environmental influences such as endocrine disruptors can also play a role in some intersex differences.
These comments appear to narrow the interpretation of the legislative definition of “intersex” and should be considered in the context of adoption of the commonwealth definition in ACT law.
The scrutiny of bills committee in its report No 14 called on the minister to do a number of things: explain why an adult should not be allowed to change their sex in the birth records through self-identification alone; respond as to why the proposed clinical treatment requirement, which implies some form of physical treatment, should not be softened, as recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission, to require only that psychological counselling be required; and respond as to similar circumstances in relation to children, particularly in cases where a child wishes to change the birth record as to their sex but either one or both parents do not agree.
The attorney made quite a closed response to all those issues and has not considered any further consultation or discussion or any amendments to reflect that. In fact, he has said that he will not be taking any further action. I would also note that he has been tardy in his responses, firstly, to the scrutiny of bills committee and, secondly, to Organisation Intersex International. Responses to both the scrutiny committee and that organisation were only provided after midday yesterday. I am concerned that the stakeholders perhaps have encountered an unreceptive ear from the attorney who has not given them, certainly, a timely response.
Given the range of views and evidence that has been put forward, the attorney’s lack of adequate analysis in some part and the fact that the response was provided to that organisation and, indeed, to the opposition yesterday afternoon, this is something that perhaps could have been debated at a later date once we had had a chance to absorb some of that and have further consultation. But as I understand from the minister’s office, that was not going to occur. Nonetheless, I am encouraged by attorney’s assurance in his letter to Organisation Intersex International Australia:
This government will keep this issue under close review.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video