Page 690 - Week 02 - Thursday, 20 March 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We can see from these examples that there are different ways of approaching the issue and that around the world different jurisdictions are working on the policy. The bill before us today requires that the person believes their sex to be the sex nominated in the application and either the person has received appropriate clinical treatment for alteration of the person’s sex or the person is an intersex person.
I am aware that there has been some discussion and debate about the threshold that should be reached before a person can change their birth certificate. This includes comments made through the scrutiny of bills committee. On this issue, while I am satisfied to pass the bill in its current form today, I acknowledge that in some ways it is a starting point for further discussions and I leave open the possibility that the exact nature of this requirement may need to be looked at again over time and potentially reviewed—in consultation, of course, with the people it affects.
On this note, I would like to acknowledge the work of the LGBTIQ Ministerial Advisory Council as well as other local advocates. It is fair to say that they have gone above and beyond in their willingness to contribute to government policy and in their tireless advocacy on these issues. The changes today are a culmination of probably a decade of hard work in that community, and I congratulate everyone involved in the process. You should be proud of your efforts.
Returning to the reforms made in the bill today, the changes will change the legal definition of “intersex” in the ACT. It will bring the legal definition of “intersex” in line with the commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act. The new definition adopts the recommendation of the LRAC report, removing the reference to a genetic condition as the reason for a person’s intersex status. As the report notes, this is inappropriate, and it is sufficient to refer to the fact that an intersex person’s reproductive organs or sex chromosomes are not exclusively male or female. I acknowledge that this is not a definition that is universally agreed by sex diverse people and advocates, and I have received some last-minute representation on the matter. For the record, my view is that we should proceed with the definition currently in the bill. I think it is a positive way forward. The alternative suggestion for the definition of intersex is that a person must have been born with the relevant features, rather than simply having the relevant features.
At 6 pm, in accordance with standing order 34, the motion for the adjournment of the Assembly was put and negatived.
MR RATTENBURY: The matter I was referring to is a vexed issue, of course, but I think there are several problems with the alternative definition, perhaps most notably the fact that it could exclude people who were not clearly intersex at the time of their birth.
I do note that the bill, and the definition of “intersex” in the bill, has strong support from local advocacy groups and from the LGBTIQ Ministerial Advisory Council. I am aware as well that the government has engaged extensively with the ACT community on the issues addressed in this bill.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video