Anti-Discrimination (Right to Use Gender-Specific Language) Amendment Bill 2018

Opposed the bill, arguing it was an unnecessary social issue distraction and that language matters to non-binary and transgender people. Criticised the Katter party for prioritising this over regional issues like jobs, roads and rail.

“Language does cut and it does hurts, so this issue is important.”— 2020-08-11View Hansard

Bill sponsor who argued the legislation protects individuals' right to use traditional gender-based language without being discriminated against, and protects businesses from having to provide gender-neutral facilities they cannot afford.

“What I am asking is for tolerance from the other side, for the other side to say, 'We would allow you to use that, Rob Katter, because we tolerate all sorts of views.' That is the essence of this bill.”— 2020-07-14View Hansard

Opposed the bill, arguing it contradicts the inclusive Queensland tradition of welcoming and polite speech. Questioned what problem the bill was actually solving, noting only a few university students were affected.

“To legislate against the Queensland way of speech that seeks to include every Queenslander seems to me a step backwards.”— 2020-08-11View Hansard

As Attorney-General, opposed the bill as inconsistent with the objectives of the Anti-Discrimination Act and fundamental legislative principles, arguing it would have a negative impact on transgender, gender diverse and intersex people.

“This bill goes against everything that the government has sought to do since coming to office. We have a proud history of recognising and supporting diversity in our community, the LGBTIQ community, and brought in the Human Rights Act.”— 2020-07-14View Hansard

Defended his bill in reply, arguing it preserves the right to use traditional gender-specific language without fear of discrimination. Emphasised he was not forcing language on others but protecting those who wish to retain their primary vernacular.

“I am not trying to force anyone else to speak anything; I am trying to preserve a place for other people who say, 'I would like to retain the vernacular that I am accustomed to as my primary vernacular.'”— 2020-08-11View Hansard

Acknowledged the concerns behind the bill but concluded that a legislature cannot legislate common sense and governments should encourage more freedom, not more law. The opposition will not support the bill.

“Quiet Queenslanders know instinctively that whenever legislatures get involved in what its citizens can and cannot say, it not only guarantees bad law but also guarantees less freedom. Ultimately, this is why the opposition will not be supporting the bill.”— 2020-07-14View Hansard

Opposed the bill as unnecessary and likely to be harmful to vulnerable persons, arguing it would undermine the policy objectives of the Anti-Discrimination Act rather than enhance it.

“The reality is that the protection of the use of gender-specific language has the potential to be divisive and is inconsistent with the contemporary objectives of fostering an inclusive society.”— 2020-07-14View Hansard

Strongly supported the bill as protecting traditional language use, citing examples of university students being marked down for using words like 'man' and 'mankind', and concerns about future discrimination against small businesses.

“This bill is about protecting our traditional language. This bill represents and protects those who are being discriminated against just because they use basic language. This bill certainly passes the pub test.”— 2020-07-14View Hansard

Spoke against the bill arguing its premise is fundamentally flawed, lacking evidence of actual harm or punishment for using gender-specific language, and based only on a 'vibe' or 'malaise' rather than documented problems.

“This is a private member's bill based on a vibe—a concern or, as the member for Traeger worded it, a malaise. I suggest that 'malaise' is probably a good word to use because the exact cause or reason for this bill is difficult to identify.”— 2020-07-14View Hansard

Supported the bill as marking a turning point for common sense, arguing there is an aggressive push away from gender-based language at universities and expressing concern that without this legislation, people may face penalties in the future.

“I hope this bill marks a turning point for the battle of common sense. It is a slippery slope. People might shrug their shoulders, but a lot of people believe that.”— 2020-07-14View Hansard

As a committee member who examined the bill, opposed it as futile, absurd and dangerous, noting no evidence of widespread disadvantage and highlighting the harm the bill could cause to vulnerable transgender and gender diverse people.

“It bears repeating that transgender people over the age of 18 are 11 times more likely to attempt suicide—11 times more likely. Almost half—41.8 per cent—of gender diverse and transgendered youth between the ages of 14 to 25 have attempted suicide in their lifetime.”— 2020-07-14View Hansard

Opposed the bill in the strongest possible terms on International Non-Binary People's Day, arguing it is completely antithetical to Greens policy and would embolden those who marginalise non-binary and gender diverse people.

“This bill presumes we should be protecting the right to inflict harm rather than protecting people from harm. It is an incredibly simple choice for me.”— 2020-07-14View Hansard

As Minister for Women, opposed the bill as disrespectful to trans and gender nonconforming people, arguing it erases their existence and undermines gender equality efforts.

“Trans people across Queensland, like my friend Jo, see bills like this and they know what it really means. This is what Jo says it means to her. It says to her, 'We are not respected. We are not valued. We are less than our fellow Queenslanders.'”— 2020-07-14View Hansard

Opposed the bill arguing it seeks to divide rather than unite Queenslanders, and shared testimonies from transgender and non-binary constituents about the harm such legislation would cause.

“Anti-discrimination laws have been introduced in this nation to unite us, not to divide us. This bill currently before the House seeks to continue to divide us and disrespect each other.”— 2020-07-14View Hansard

Supported the bill as protecting freedom of speech, citing survey data showing two-thirds of Australians believe political correctness has gone too far, and arguing the bill shields ordinary Queenslanders from 'woke' culture.

“It is these people that the bill will hopefully shield from the contemporary call-out and punish culture of our entitled elites in the government and government protected institutions.”— 2020-07-14View Hansard

Strongly opposed the bill as divisive, repugnant and fundamentally flawed, arguing it seeks to enshrine the right to deliberately misgender people and has no place in a tolerant community.

“This bill is harmful, this bill is dangerous and this bill is not tolerant. This bill has no place in a tolerant and accepting community like ours.”— 2020-07-14View Hansard