Wednesday, 20 March 2024

Gender identity

Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (18:08): (804) My adjournment matter this evening is for the Attorney-General and concerns the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Act 2021 and the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission’s guidance on it. My reservations about this act are on the record, as is my vote against it. I am sorry to say that nothing in the intervening three years has persuaded me otherwise, and tonight I will touch on just one problematic element. With legislation this serious, which creates new offences and potentially criminalises parents, medical professionals and religious leaders, clarity is essential, yet the wording is complex and ambiguous. The VEOHRC was supposed to assist by providing interpretation and guidance for those whose work or family relationships might bring them into areas covered by the act. That guidance, however, has been alarmingly inconsistent. The original effort put online in 2022 stated it would be illegal under the act for a parent to refuse to:

… support their child’s request for medical treatment that will enable them to prevent physical changes from puberty that do not align with the child’s gender identity …

That was later withdrawn, perhaps because someone noticed refusal might not legally constitute a ‘practice or conduct’. The website intended to assist those who might be confused about their responsibilities has changed its advice in form, content and substantive definition several times. Most recently, as pointed out by the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee’s expert legal adviser Professor Jeremy Gans, it completely dropped two important examples of acts by parents which would break the law. These related to denying access to gender-affirming treatments and declining to follow the advice of doctors prescribing puberty blockers. This is the very definition of bad legislation.

The VEOHRC has either failed to understand or deliberately exaggerated the law’s reach. The consequences are obvious and damaging. Uncertainty has understandably led generalist medical practitioners to decline to treat children who may suffer a range of psychological conditions and instead to refer them to larger, more specialist gender clinics whose very existence is founded on acceptance of the gender-affirming model. So the action I seek, Minister, is an urgent update to this house on the progress of the review required by section 57 of the legislation, which must begin two years after the commencement of the act and be completed in six months.