The Attorney-General Guy Barnett’s recent contradictory statements in The Mercury and The Australian regarding trans inmate policy highlight the need for a broader public debate about women’s rights and the legal distinction between sex and gender.
While Guy Barnett recently decided that a transgender serious child sex offender would be placed in the men’s prison, he has also asserted that transgender, transsexual, and intersex people are allowed to be housed in sections congruent with their gender.
Further contradicting these statements is the Government’s position on rape crime data. Earlier this year, in response to questions from WST, the Attorney-General confirmed that “it is the sex of accused people and complainants that is recorded, not the gender.”
Former Attorney-General Elise Archer—who opposed the 2019 bill enabling sex self-ID—warned at the time that the laws would “bring a risk of serious unintended legal consequences.”
Today, Tasmania is experiencing exactly that: an unresolved tension between sex and gender in law, and a growing national and international debate over the definition of “woman” and the consequences of conflating these two concepts.
WST opposes the placement of trans-identifying males in women’s prisons, but we recognise that many of these individuals are vulnerable and require appropriate care. In reviewing the tragic death of Marjorie Harwood, we approached the coroner’s findings with compassion for a grieving mother and with a commitment to understanding what lessons this case truly offers.
What we found reinforces—rather than weakens—the case for maintaining single-sex female prison facilities.
It is important to acknowledge that losing a child is a profound and lifelong grief. Nothing in this discussion seeks to diminish a mother’s pain.
However, public commentary suggesting that Marjorie died because he was housed in the male prison estate, or because he feared returning there, is not supported by the evidence.
The coroner’s investigation was thorough and clear: Marjorie died of natural causes—specifically end-stage renal failure—after declining life-saving dialysis. Medical records showed ten years of kidney disease, a long-standing personality disorder, and a fifteen-year history of polysubstance abuse.
In the months before death, Marjorie suffered worsening pneumonia, anaemia, bowel disease, and severe physical decline. These were the causes of death—not prison placement, not trauma from the male estate, and not the refusal of a transfer to a women’s facility.
There were historic reports of sexual assault in Western Australia many years earlier, and these traumatic experiences should not be dismissed. But the coroner found no evidence of sexual assault in Tasmanian custody. Ambulance notes recording “rectal trauma ? being raped in prison” were deemed speculative, reflecting Marjorie’s well-documented tendency—when intoxicated or unwell—to be an unreliable historian.
Health staff consistently recorded Marjorie as a complex patient, sometimes aggressive, frequently intoxicated, and often unable to provide coherent medical history. These circumstances do not justify placing male prisoners in women’s prisons.
What the evidence shows is a deeply unwell, socially isolated individual with longstanding vulnerabilities. At times Marjorie even stated he wished to return to prison because he had nothing in the community. These factors point to a need for improved mental-health services, trauma-informed care, and specialised accommodation—not admission into a women’s prison.
It is troubling that some advocates have used this case to argue for placing trans-identifying males in the female estate while rejecting the possibility of dedicated, protected units in the male estate.
This position ignores the reality that women in custody are overwhelmingly survivors of male violence and deserve safety and dignity. The coroner’s findings do not support the claim that transferring trans-identifying males to women’s prisons is an appropriate or compassionate response.
A humane, evidence-based correctional system can meet the needs of vulnerable trans-identifying prisoners without compromising the safety of women. Dedicated, secure accommodation within the male estate—already used successfully in other jurisdictions—would allow privacy, safety, and appropriate care for trans-identifying offenders while preserving women’s prisons as single-sex facilities.
This approach aligns with the Attorney-General’s earlier confirmation that Tasmania records sex, not gender, in crime statistics. That same clarity must apply consistently across correctional policy. It is also consistent with Australia’s obligations under CEDAW, which affirms women’s right to single-sex spaces where necessary for safety and equality.
Marjorie’s death was a tragedy. But misrepresenting its causes does a disservice both to his memory and to the women whose safety depends on clear, sex-based boundaries.
Policy concerning female prison inmates must be grounded in fact, compassion, and material reality—not driven by ideologically motivated lobby groups.
by Dr Elizabeth Caballero – retired GP
Women Speak Tasmania
Op-Ed to The Mercury