Anti-Discrimination (Right to Use Gender-Specific Language) Amendment Bill 2018
Plain English Summary
Overview
This bill sought to amend Queensland's Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 to make it unlawful to penalise someone for using traditional binary gender language like 'he', 'she', 'Mr', 'Mrs', 'husband' or 'wife'. It also aimed to protect organisations from being disadvantaged for only providing male/female facilities. The bill was introduced by Mr R Katter MP but failed at the second reading and did not become law.
Who it affects
The bill would have affected employees, students, employers, and educators by creating new discrimination protections around gender language use. It would also have reduced protections for gender diverse individuals seeking non-binary accommodations.
Key changes
- Would have made it unlawful to penalise someone for using words like 'he', 'she', 'Mr', 'Mrs', 'husband' or 'wife' in the workplace or at school
- Would have defined direct discrimination as treating someone less favourably for using binary gender language, such as deducting marks on an assessment
- Would have defined indirect discrimination as imposing policies that discourage binary gender language, such as a workplace memo asking staff to stop using 'husband' and 'wife'
- Would have protected businesses from being disadvantaged for only providing male/female facilities without non-binary options
- Exceptions applied where language was used to sexually harass, unlawfully discriminate, or intentionally offend or intimidate
- The bill failed at second reading and none of these changes took effect
Bill Story
The journey of this bill through Parliament, including debate and recorded votes.
▸Committee19 Sept 2018View Hansard
Referred to Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee
The Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee examined the bill over five months, receiving seven submissions and holding a public briefing and hearing. The committee recommended the bill not be passed, finding it inconsistent with the objectives of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 and with fundamental legislative principles. The committee concluded the bill would likely negatively impact transgender, gender diverse and intersex community members.
Key findings (5)
- The Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland advised that no one had approached it with the concerns the bill purported to address and considered the proposed amendments unnecessary or misconceived.
- Several stakeholders, including Caxton Legal Centre and the Australian Association of Social Workers, raised concerns the bill would increase discrimination against transgender, gender diverse and intersex people.
- The committee found the bill's proposed definition of indirect discrimination could prevent employers from introducing inclusive language policies, breaching fundamental legislative principles regarding rights and liberties of individuals.
- The proposal to extend anti-discrimination protections to businesses and organisations was found to be inconsistent with the framework of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991, which protects individuals rather than entities.
- The bill omitted the reasonableness and proportionality tests from its definition of indirect discrimination, making the prohibition too broad according to the Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland.
Recommendations (1)
- The committee recommends the Anti-Discrimination (Right to Use Gender-Specific Language) Amendment Bill 2018 not be passed.
Committee report tabled
▸Second Reading14 July 2020View Hansard
That the bill be now read a second time
Party VoteFinal vote on whether to advance Mr Katter's private member's bill that sought to protect the right to use traditional gender-specific language from anti-discrimination claims. The bill was defeated under standing order 106(10).
The motion was defeated.
What is a party vote?
This was a party vote. Each party's Whip declared how their members voted without a physical count, so individual votes were not recorded. Party votes are used when all members of a party are expected to vote the same way.
▸16 members spoke5 support11 oppose
Opposed the bill, arguing it was an unnecessary social issue distraction from more important matters like jobs and regional Queensland issues, while also defending the importance of recognising non-binary and transgender community members.
“This bill really surprises me, because surely when in opposition you would want to put forward a private member's bill that stands up for jobs, stands up for roads or stands up for rail, yet this social issue has been brought before us.”— 2020-08-11View Hansard
As the bill's sponsor, moved the second reading arguing the bill is needed to protect individuals' right to use traditional gender-based language like 'he' and 'she' without penalty, and to protect businesses from being disadvantaged for providing only male/female facilities.
“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 that inclusive language reflects traditional Queensland values of being welcoming and polite, and that the bill does not address any real problem affecting Queenslanders.
“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, arguing it would negatively impact transgender, gender diverse and intersex people and that no compelling evidence of injustice had been presented to justify the changes.
“You do not start a conversation by first changing the law. You have the conversation first. You find the evidence to support the need to change laws and then you bring that law before the parliament.”— 2020-07-14View Hansard
As the bill's sponsor, defended the legislation as preserving the right to use traditional gender-specific language without fear of discrimination, arguing that language is being regulated by stealth through universities, government policies and workplace directives.
“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 raised by the bill's sponsor but argued that a legislature cannot legislate common sense, and that governments should encourage more freedom rather than more law.
“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.”— 2020-07-14View Hansard
Opposed the bill as unnecessary and likely harmful to vulnerable persons, drawing extensively on the Human Rights Commissioner's evidence to the committee that the bill would expose vulnerable people to increased discrimination.
“The bill, which would make respecting the gender choice of individuals optional, may be problematic, including in its capacity to create psychological harm.”— 2020-07-14View Hansard
Supported the bill as straightforward and logical, arguing it protects the right to use traditional language without fear of reprisal, and criticised the nearly two-year delay in debating the crossbench bill.
“It is an absolute joke that words like man and humanity are no longer good enough to use at universities, and worse still students are being penalised for the use of these words.”— 2020-07-14View Hansard
Opposed the bill, arguing its premise is fundamentally flawed due to a complete lack of evidence of widespread harm, describing it as a private member's bill based on a vibe rather than documented injustice.
“This is a private member's bill based on a vibe—a concern or, as the member for Traeger worded it, a malaise.”— 2020-07-14View Hansard
Supported the bill as pre-emptive protection against an aggressive push away from gender-based classifications, expressing concern about the lack of legislation to protect small businesses and sporting clubs from potential anti-discrimination claims.
“I hope this bill marks a turning point for the battle of common sense. It is a slippery slope.”— 2020-07-14View Hansard
Opposed the bill as a member of the committee that examined it, arguing the member for Traeger failed to provide evidence of widespread disadvantage and that the bill would increase discrimination against transgender and gender diverse people who are already 11 times more likely to attempt suicide.
“It bears repeating that transgender people over the age of 18 are 11 times more likely to attempt suicide—11 times more likely.”— 2020-07-14View Hansard
Opposed the bill in the strongest possible terms on International Non-Binary People's Day, reading testimonies from gender diverse constituents and arguing the bill would embolden those who marginalise others and undo the work of advocates supporting gender diverse communities.
“It presumes we should be protecting the right to inflict harm rather than protecting people from harm.”— 2020-07-14View Hansard
As Minister for Child Safety, Youth and Women, opposed the bill as disrespectful to trans and gender nonconforming people, sharing the perspective of a trans woman on her staff and arguing the bill would undermine gender equality achievements.
“This bill is disrespectful to trans and gender nonconforming people, including intersex people, and it erases their existence.”— 2020-07-14View Hansard
Opposed the bill, reading testimonies from non-binary and gender diverse community members, and arguing that anti-discrimination laws are meant to unite rather than divide Queenslanders.
“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 a protection of free speech, citing the Australia Talks survey showing over two-thirds of Australians believe political correctness has gone too far, and arguing the bill would shield ordinary Queenslanders from call-out culture.
“Freedom of speech needs as much protection as it can get nowadays.”— 2020-07-14View Hansard
Opposed the bill as harmful, dangerous and fundamentally flawed, arguing it would enshrine the right to deliberately misgender people and that it only speaks to the threat of privilege and power.
“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