Dear Premier Rockliff,
Re: Request for Delegation Meeting – Concerns Regarding Free Speech and the Anti-Discrimination Act
We thank you for your letter dated 17 July 2025, in which you reaffirmed your commitment to protecting Tasmanians from discrimination while also upholding key freedoms, including freedom of belief, expression, and association. In light of this, we respectfully request a meeting for a delegation of concerned citizens to discuss how current anti-discrimination laws are impacting freedom of speech/association and undermining the rights of individuals to engage in lawful expression.
Under your government, these fundamental rights have continued to be constrained. A clear and troubling example occurred during the Let Women Speak rally in Hobart, where peaceful participants advocating for women’s rights were subjected to harassment, vilification, and even physical assault. Despite the presence of elected representatives, no meaningful action was taken to protect these women or uphold their right to speak freely in public even after repeated requests to Tasmania Police officers present, to Tasmania Police Headquarters and to the Police Minister Felix Ellis.
We are deeply concerned that such incidents reflect a broader trend in which legitimate political and social speech—particularly when expressed by women—is increasingly being met with hostility, censorship, and legal threat under the existing Anti-Discrimination law framework. We believe this poses a serious risk to democratic debate and the civil liberties of all Tasmanians.
At present, as you noted in your letter, the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act already protects a wide range of attributes, including gender identity, race, age, sex characteristics, disability, political belief, religious belief, and association. However, the interpretation and application of this Act—particularly in the development of “Inclusion and Diversity” policies—have deviated from its original intent. Terms like “safety” and “inclusion” are now frequently weaponised to silence and exclude individuals and groups who hold views aligned with biological reality, particularly when it comes to hiring public venues under the administration of your Goverment.
A clear example of this occurred with the cancellation of a Women Speak Tasmania (WST) public forum by the Devonport Library. The forum, titled “Women’s Rights in the Modern World,” was scheduled for 7 April 2025 and intended to foster open discussion about how legislation affects the definition and rights of women and girls. The booking was initially accepted and publicly promoted, but on 19 March, Simon Jones, Acting Director of Libraries Tasmania, informed us the booking had been cancelled. When we asked for clarification, Mr. Jones cited Libraries Tasmania’s Client Diversity and Inclusion Policy and claimed that WST had made public statements that left members of the LGBTQIA+ community feeling unwelcome. We should point out that our forum was to present evidence in our Dossier that we previsoulsy presented at a meeting with Attorney General Guy Barnett on 20 January 2025:
This cancellation was followed by hateful and defamatory comments posted on WST’s public Facebook page—remarks that were not only vile but suspiciously predated our public announcement about the event’s cancellation. One such comment read: “Haha get wrecked losers, your fascist event got cancelled! Good luck finding a venue that accommodates Nazis and delusional attention seekers like yourselves!”
Following this, our attempt to book an alternative venue—the Hive in Ulverstone—was also rejected. In a message from a Hive representative, the refusal was based on concerns about disruptions and safety risks to staff and other patrons. While we acknowledge the responsibility to ensure public safety, it is deeply troubling that peaceful public discourse is being preemptively shut down due to threats or opposition from activist groups.
The enforcement of these policies has effectively resulted in WST being treated as a politically proscribed organisation by your Government. We have been barred from accessing government owned public venues to host events that are open to all and designed to foster constructive discussion about legislation that affects women, girls, and broader society. Our perspectives—grounded in material reality and supported by evidence, including our Dossier presented to Mr Guy Barnett on 20 January 2025—are being wrongly categorised as “hate speech.” This mislabelling is being used to justify cancellations, stifle debate, and incite hostility against women and men who are critical of sex self-ID laws and their real-world consequences.
Eventually, members of the Devonport RSL branch kindly agreed to WST’s request to hire their meeting room for our forum and subsequently resisted all attempts by extremists to ban us. During the Q&A session, many attendees voiced deep concern over the current state of legislation, and several disclosed that they had been advised not to attend publicly out of fear of being seen, doxxed, or losing their livelihoods. That such fear exists in Tasmania today simply to hold a public forum on the impacts of legislation should be deeply troubling for your Government.
These “Diversity & Inclusion” policies are also having a chilling effect in schools. At Lindisfarne North Primary School, for example, a male student who identifies as female competed in the girls’ category during a recent sports day and won multiple events. Parents rightly expressed concern, including Mr. Rolfe, who wrote to Education Minister Jo Palmer, asking:
“In your role as Minister for Education, can you please advise me what policies Tasmania has in place to protect girls’ rights in sports at school?”
In Minister Palmer’s reply she stated that under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, discrimination on the basis of sex or gender identity is unlawful for children under 12. Yet this fails to address the real problem: Tasmanian educational and sporting institutions appear unwilling to apply Section 42 exemptions of the SDA, which exist specifically to preserve fairness and safety in female sports. As a result, girls are losing opportunities, and the principle of sex-based categories is being quietly eroded. Further, that parents in particular, are too afraid, on behalf of their daughters, to raise the exemption of Section 42 of the SDA for fear of reprisal by school officials or extremists.
Further concern arises from legislation soon to be introduced in Parliament—the proposed “Conversion Therapy” Bill. While the phrase traditionally evokes practices like “pray the gay away,” the definition has now been expanded in an Orwellian fashion to include any therapeutic approach that affirms a child’s birth ‘gender’. By equating standard psychological support with conversion therapy, this bill threatens to criminalise care that encourages children to explore their distress rather than immediately affirming a trans identity.
This is deeply misguided. The Cass Review, the most comprehensive investigation into paediatric gender care to date, explicitly recommends a cautious, evidence-based approach, warning against automatic medicalicalisation and affirmation. It also highlights that many gender-distressed children are likely to grow up to be same-sex attracted. Thus, a model that channels all distressed children toward transition—effectively “transing the gay away”—amounts to a modern form of conversion therapy in itself.
In our previous correspondence with the then Health Minister Guy Barnett, we outlined the harms of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, including sexual dysfunction, infertility, cognitive decline, osteoporosis, and depression. These are not minor side effects—they are life-altering harms, particularly when administered to children, many of whom would otherwise grow up healthy and gay.
As you might be aware, The Federal Goverment recently ordered an inquiry into the gender affirming model, the results of the consultation will be presented in 2026. In the meantime Queensland has already taken action by banning the prescription of puberty blockers after it was found that medical providers were giving these experiemtnal and highly contested treatments to minors without their parents consent.
The Tasmanian Gender Service currently operates in accordance with the gender-affirming medical treatment (GAMT) model developed by the Royal Children’s Hospital (RCH) in Melbourne. The GAMT model advocates for early social transition, the use of puberty blockers, and, where indicated, progression to cross-sex hormones, often at a very young age. The GAMT has been promoted nationally and adopted by several Australian jurisdictions without NHMRC approval, independent clinical review or broad public consultation.
However, the GAMT model has come under increasing scrutiny both domestically and internationally. Most notably, the credibility of the RCH guideline was significantly undermined earlier this year following Justice Strum’s Family Court ruling, where concerns were raised about the role of Professor Michelle Telfer, a key architect of the RCH model. Justice Strum found that Professor Telfer, while acting as an expert witness, failed in her duty to the court by not disclosing material that would have undermined her position. Her conduct called into question the neutrality and rigour of the evidence used to support the gender-affirming pathway. The ruling highlighted the need for greater judicial scepticism and independent scrutiny when courts are asked to rely on clinical guidelines that have significant ethical, psychological, and medical implications for minors.
These developments reflect a growing body of concern that the GAMT model lacks a robust evidence base, particularly when it comes to long-term outcomes. Despite these red flags, the Tasmanian Gender Service has not paused or reviewed its clinical protocols including prescribing the puberty blocker Leuprorelin Acetate now banned in the UK. The continued use of the GAMT model, now subject to judicial and clinical discrediting, raises serious ethical concerns, particularly when minors are involved and when irreversible interventions like puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are being administered. The Tasmania Gender Service continued adherence to the discredited RCH model places young people at risk of harm and exposes the state to future legal and medical liability.
For the reasons I mentioned above, we request a delegation of concerned Tasmanian citizens to meet with you to discuss issues that you have made public statements about. Our delegation will consist of medico/legal/education professionals as well as parents.
We understand that you have met with representatives of Equality Tasmania on numerous occassions in the past, and consider that it is important to hear from community members with different views on these very serious public health issues.
We appreciate your attention to these urgent matters and welcome the opportunity for a delegation to meet with you at your earliest convenience.
Kind Regards,
Dr. Elizabeth Caballero
Retired General Practitioner
Director, Women Speak Tasmania
Reply from the Office of The Premier 29.08.25
The Premier’s office has responded to Dr Caballero’s request for a meeting to discuss current anti-discrimination laws. The Premier has referred the matter to the Minister for Justice, Guy Barnett MP.
Chrissy Weller, Minister Barnett’s Diary Manager, has been copied into the correspondence and will follow up to arrange the meeting.