Introduction
In 2016, a dispute arose between Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, Robin Banks, and members of the Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF) Tasmania during consultation on proposed reforms to Tasmania’s Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act.
The dispute centred on recommendations that would have removed the requirement for sex reassignment surgery before a person could legally change the sex recorded on their birth certificate.
What followed was a series of public disagreements, formal complaints, media reports, calls for a parliamentary inquiry, and a review by the Tasmanian Department of Justice.
Years later, these events remain relevant to ongoing debates about sex, gender identity, women’s rights, public consultation, and the treatment of women raising concerns about proposed law reform.
This article documents the events as reported at the time.
The Proposed Reforms
In early 2016, Equal Opportunity Tasmania released an Options Paper titled The Legal Recognition of Sex and Gender Diversity in Tasmania.
The paper sought public feedback on proposed reforms to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act.
Among the recommendations supported by Anti-Discrimination Commissioner Robin Banks was the removal of the requirement that a person undergo sex reassignment surgery before changing the sex marker on their birth certificate.
According to reporting in The Australian, the proposed changes would have made changing legal sex significantly easier and would have allowed changes without surgical intervention.
Members of WoLF Tasmania became concerned about the implications of the proposal for sex-based rights, women’s services, female-only spaces, sport, privacy protections, and exemptions contained in anti-discrimination law.
WoLF’s Concerns
WoLF Tasmania argued that allowing legal sex to be changed based solely on self-identification would blur the legal distinction between sex and gender identity.
According to media reports and later public statements by WoLF activist Tessa Anne, the group sought clarification from Equal Opportunity Tasmania regarding how the proposed reforms would interact with existing legal protections for women and girls.
Questions reportedly included:
- Whether “sex” and “gender” were being used interchangeably in the consultation paper.
- How the proposed reforms would interact with anti-discrimination legislation.
- Whether women’s ability to maintain female-only services, spaces, and activities would be affected.
WoLF later stated that these questions were not answered to its satisfaction.
The June 2016 Meeting
On 29 June 2016, Tessa Anne attended a meeting with Anti-Discrimination Commissioner Robin Banks and Equal Opportunity Tasmania policy adviser Leica Wagner.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss WoLF’s concerns regarding the proposed reforms.
What occurred during that meeting would become the subject of a significant dispute.
According to Tessa Anne, the meeting was hostile, dismissive, and intimidating. In a detailed public account published later that year, she alleged that concerns raised by WoLF were ridiculed rather than seriously considered.
Anne alleged that she felt bullied, belittled, harassed, and discriminated against because she was a woman raising concerns about the impact of the reforms on women’s rights.
Robin Banks strongly rejected those allegations.
Speaking to The Australian in October 2016, Banks stated that she did not believe her conduct, or that of Leica Wagner, constituted bullying, harassment, or discrimination.
Banks characterised the meeting as a discussion about an issue on which the parties fundamentally disagreed.
Public Reporting and Formal Complaints
The dispute became public in August 2016 when The Australian reported on WoLF Tasmania’s opposition to the proposed reforms.
The article outlined the group’s concerns that the recommendations would undermine sex-based protections and create uncertainty regarding women-only services and spaces.
In October 2016, Tessa Anne lodged formal complaints with the Tasmanian Attorney-General and the Integrity Commission.
According to reporting at the time, the complaints alleged that Robin Banks and Leica Wagner had behaved aggressively and dismissively during the June meeting and had failed to engage honestly with WoLF’s concerns.
The complaints further alleged that this conduct amounted to discrimination on the basis of sex.
Banks publicly denied the allegations and stated that she did not believe there were grounds for the complaints.
Calls for a Parliamentary Inquiry
Following publication of the allegations, Whistleblowers Tasmania publicly supported calls for a Parliamentary Inquiry into the conduct of Robin Banks and Leica Wagner.
The organisation argued that public confidence in the Office of the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner required the allegations to be independently examined.
Whistleblowers Tasmania described the allegations as serious and stated that they warranted further investigation.
No Parliamentary Inquiry was ultimately established.
Tessa Anne’s Public Account
On 4 October 2016, Tessa Anne published a lengthy article detailing her recollection of the June meeting and the events leading to her complaint.
The article expanded upon allegations already reported in the media and provided her personal account of interactions with Robin Banks and Leica Wagner.
Among other claims, Anne alleged that concerns raised by WoLF regarding women’s rights and legal protections were dismissed, that she was subjected to ridicule, and that discussion of the proposed reforms failed to adequately consider the interests of women and girls.
The article also set out WoLF’s broader concerns regarding the legal implications of self-identification policies and their potential impact on female-only spaces and services.
These claims represented Anne’s account of events and were disputed by Robin Banks.
The Department of Justice Review
The most significant official development occurred in early 2017.
In January 2017, The Australian reported that the Tasmanian Department of Justice had reviewed Anne’s complaint at the request of Attorney-General Vanessa Goodwin.
The review was conducted by Deputy Secretary Ginna Webster.
According to the report, Webster concluded that the June 2016 meeting:
“was conducted in a manner which does not reflect best-practice process.”
The review reportedly resulted in concerns being formally communicated to Robin Banks.
Webster also directed that further guidance be provided to Equal Opportunity Tasmania to ensure future public consultations complied with appropriate standards and processes.
However, the review did not find grounds for the dismissal of the Commissioner.
According to the report, the Department advised that the federal Sex Discrimination Act may provide an alternative avenue should Anne wish to pursue the matter further.
Referral to the Australian Human Rights Commission
Following the Department of Justice review, Tessa Anne announced her intention to pursue the matter through the Australian Human Rights Commission.
At the time, Anne stated that it was important that the treatment she alleged had occurred be formally recorded and that concerns regarding the treatment of women advocating for women’s rights receive broader attention.
Public reporting indicates that a complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission was contemplated or initiated.
However, despite searches of publicly available sources, no published determination, tribunal decision, court judgment, or subsequent media report regarding the outcome of any such complaint has been located.
As a result, the ultimate resolution of that aspect of the dispute remains unclear from the public record.
Conclusion
The dispute between WoLF Tasmania and Anti-Discrimination Commissioner Robin Banks occurred during an important period in Australia’s debate over legal recognition of gender identity.
For supporters of the proposed reforms, the changes represented an effort to reduce barriers faced by transgender people seeking legal recognition.
For WoLF Tasmania and other critics, the proposals raised significant questions regarding sex-based rights, women’s protections, and the operation of anti-discrimination law.
While the parties remained deeply divided on those issues, the Department of Justice review later concluded that the June 2016 meeting had not been conducted in a manner reflecting best-practice process and directed improvements to consultation procedures.
Beyond that finding, many aspects of the dispute remained contested, with allegations and denials continuing to coexist in the historical record.
Years later, the events provide a snapshot of the tensions that emerged as governments across Australia began considering reforms that would place sex, gender identity, and women’s rights at the centre of public debate.