Sexual Reassignment Repeat Bill
03/12/2014
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I take the floor to indicate my support for this bill and, in doing so, I indicate that I will move that the bill be referred to the Legislative Review Committee. I thank the Hon. Ms Tammy Franks for arranging a briefing on the bill, at which it was decided that referring the bill to the committee was the best way to commence a discussion in the parliament around the issues presented in the bill and work towards establishing a better model.
I would particularly like to thank those members of the transgender and transsexual community who gave their time and knowledge at that briefing, namely: Dr Rosemary Jones, Ms Gabreiella Wissell, Mr Marcus Patterson from the Men’s Australian Network, and Ms Zoey Campbell from the SA Northern Areas Gender Support Group.
I also acknowledge that quite a wide range of members were present at that briefing: of course, the Hon. Ms Franks and myself, the Hon. Stephen Wade from the Liberal opposition, the Hon. Michelle Lensink, and the Hon. Mr McLachlan was represented by a member of staff. The Hon. John Darley was also there, I believe, and so was the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars. This illustrates to me that there is significant interest in the issues and goodwill to work towards finding a solution.
I think it is important to acknowledge at this point that at the time the original act was passed in 1988, it was a progressive and modern piece of legislation. It seems that many of the matters now arising from that act seem to be largely unintended consequences. As our understanding of gender identity has evolved, the act has simply failed to keep pace. Regardless of an individual member’s views on gender identity politics, I believe it is incumbent on all of us to at least recognise that when people directly affected by legislation tell us that there is a problem, there probably is a problem.
Try saying that 10 times faster: there probably is a problem. Particularly when it comes to ensuring the rights and welfare of people with distinct identities, if I may call it that for simplicity’s sake, the best way to do this is to work with people with the lived experience of that identity, whether it is Aboriginality, sexuality, disability or, indeed, gender identity. The old adage, nothing about us without us, certainly rings true.
I would like to touch on some of the issues with the current Sexual Reassignment Act 1988. Rather than using my own words, I would like to place on the record two pieces of short correspondence which were circulated at the briefing by the Hon. Ms Franks, particularly for the benefit of those members who were not present at the briefing. The first letter is from Dr Rosemary A. Jones. The points she raises are as follows, first:
The title of this Act is inappropriate and wrong. There can be no question of interfering with an individual’s sex that remains an inviolate choice for the individual. Reassignment is an unacceptably paternalistic expression when what is intended is that of confirmation or affirmation of gender.
The second point is:
While it may have been an appropriate piece of legislation in its time when there was a minimal understanding of gender dysphoria restricted to the safe hands of a tiny band of skilled doctors, there is now a wider understanding and empathy for the business of gender transition. The legislation is restrictive and obstructive to the good practice of medicine.
Thirdly:
Perhaps the worst aspect of this act is the ‘designated hospital’ provision. That has effectively given an excuse for surgical facilities not to open their doors for the provision of surgical transition. Even the Public Hospitals are without a facility that leads on to considering Medicare and its mandate that there should be universal provision of services. Gender dysphoria is a recognised ‘ condition’ that is treatable, being listed in so many ways in different schedules and as such should be available in Public Hospitals. Medicare is not completely fulfilling its mandate and as such could be perceived to be functioning illegally; while that is a Federal matter, the provision of Public Hospitals [facilities] remains a State responsibility.
Dr Jones also goes on to say:
There is a ‘one line’ restriction in the Act that is an unacceptable provision. This is…the clause that… reads ‘A recognition certificate cannot be issued to a person who is married.’ This is contrary to human rights that an individual may not marry whom he/she…[pleases] and that if already married, may presumably be required to become divorced. In the latter case it implies that the right to same sex marriage is denied.
The next point reads:
The question of who is qualified to undertake the work is not properly the province of the Minister but rather that of the Specialist Colleges. That needs separate resolution rather than the Attorney General being said to have muttered something about ‘taking action against an individual doctor if there was an error made’. As it currently stands, the Act is obstructive to the aspirations of a Medical Practitioner to take up working in the area of gender dysphoria.
