Bronwyn Williams letter to Ruth Forrest in regards to her article in the Mercury on the 19th of December titled: “Politics of fear and prejudice”
Dear Ruth,
I refer to the opinion piece published under your name in the Mercury newspaper on 19 December 2018, titled ‘Politics of fear and prejudice’.
In this article you speak about federal politicians ‘fear-mongering’ in their commentary on the changes to birth registration passed in the Tasmanian Lower House on 20 November last.
You said –
‘When a baby is born, the medical staff are required to lodge a notification of birth with the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages.
This form contains information regarding the birth including date of birth, sex of the baby, place of birth and details of the parent or parents. They are also required to lodge a birth registration form, including all the details above plus the name of the child and other relevant details.
This data is entered onto the Register. This information is stored and remains on the register, even if the details change over time, such as a change of name by Deed Poll or marriage.
This is the Register that is utilised for statistical data collection, to inform the planning of health and other services.
This all currently occurs under Tasmanian law and will not alter under the proposed changes’.
I draw your attention to the assertion that information about the sex of a baby is ‘entered onto the Register’ at, or shortly after birth as required under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1999 (Tas) (BDMRA), and this ‘will not alter under the proposed changes’.
This is incorrect.
Pursuant to the fourth amendment to the BDMRA passed on 20 November 2018, section 16 will now read as follows:
‘Registration
(1) The Registrar registers a birth by making an entry about the birth in the Register.
(2) However, if the particulars available to the Registrar are incomplete, the Registrar may register a birth on the basis of those incomplete particulars.
(3) The Registrar may only collect information about sex or gender under section 50 of this Act, except as otherwise allowed under Part 4A’.
Once this amendment is passed into law, information about the ‘sex or gender’ of an infant will NOT be entered onto the Register at birth. It will only be collected as ‘information, other than registrable information relating to registrable events’ under section 50 of the BDMRA.
This intention was confirmed by Ms O’Connor in her contribution to the debate on the fourth amendment on 20 November 2018 (emphasis added).
She said –
‘This states that where information that is collected is retained, section 50 allows information to be collected and held, but not held on the register.
The registration of birth form already includes a lot of information that does not form part of the register. This allows the register to give certificates as registered without including gender and still collect the information and include it on certificates if requested. The current imperative on parents to complete the birth registration documents within 21 days includes the requirement to specify the sex of the child although the act does not require this. It imports a required element that is unnecessary and has no legal purpose.
The removal of the collection of sex or gender information from the register removes the discriminatory impact in birth registration and certificates that seriously affects people who are transgender, gender diverse, non-binary’.
Information about ‘sex or gender’ will only be entered onto the Register if a person over the age of 16 years, or the parents of a person under the age of 16 years, or a magistrate (on application by one parent of a person under the age of 16 years in certain circumstances) applies to the Registrar to CHANGE the ‘sex or gender’ recorded on the Register pursuant to proposed section 28C of the BDMRA.
The proposed amendments to the BDMRA and the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas) (ADA) that will be debated by the Upper House this year contain many drafting errors and inconsistencies, both internal and with other legislation. It is understandable that they cause confusion.
Public statements based on an incomplete understanding of the amendments do not assist the Tasmanian public to fully comprehend the changes, and their meaning and consequences.
Will you be publishing a further opinion piece, clarifying that information about ‘sex and gender’ will NO LONGER be entered on the Register for a newborn infant if the fourth amendment to the BDMRA is approved unchanged by the Legislative Council?
Are you also prepared to address issues arising from the definition of ‘gender’ to be included in the BDMRA pursuant to the second amendment passed on 20 November in the Lower House?
According to this amendment ‘gender’ means –
‘(a) the apparent sex of an infant specified by the parent; or
(b) the gender identity of the person as specified on a gender affirmation declaration’
‘Gender’ is not defined in the ADA, but there are exceptions allowed on the basis of gender under section 27 of the Act. The intention of this exception was to provide for single-sex spaces, services and facilities, but if the definition of ‘gender’ proposed for the BDMRA is approved by the Upper House, these exceptions will be worthless (noting that the definition in the BDMRA will be used as a reference for interpretation in the absence if a definition of ‘gender’ in the ADA).
‘Gender’ will be an extremely problematic concept, predicated not on any objective assessment but on individual notions of ‘gender identity’ and/or the ideological proclivities of ‘the parent’ (is that one parent, both parents, a person acting in loco parentis, an official guardian, or what?) when an infant is born.
It will certainly not support organisations like single-sex schools, or single-sex sporting competitions, or single-sex community groups like Girl Guides, or single-sex prisons to maintain their single-sex integrity.
You said, on 19 December –
‘These changes are important to gender-diverse Tasmanians and would have almost no impact on the rest of us’.
How will you explain the ‘almost no impact’ position to the parents of a female child who want a single-sex educational environment for their daughter, but cannot be assured of same because anyone claiming a female ‘gender’ will be able to secure access to girls’ schools? Such schools will be obliged to accept even intact males making such a claim, or risk being in breach of the ADA.
Similarly, how will you justify this position to female persons forced to compete against intact males in sport, or to traumatised female prisoners forced to share personal facilities with intact males?
It is apparent from even a cursory examination of the amendments to the ADA and the BDMRA now passed by the Lower House that there are significant issues beyond the mere notation of sex or ‘gender’ on birth certificates in Tasmania.
Do you not believe the Tasmanian people are entitled to a thorough investigation of these matters? Do you think simplistic and not entirely correct opinion pieces in the local press offer a complete and satisfactory explanation?
We look forward to your response.
Kind regards
Isla MacGregor and Bronwyn Williams
Women Speak Tasmania