Letter sent to Tasmania AG Guy Barnett on 16 February 2026
Dear Attorney-General Barnett,
Re: Thank you for meeting and submission regarding Anti-Discrimination Act reform
We write to thank you for meeting with our delegation on 15 December. We appreciate the time you gave to listen to the concerns of Tasmanian citizens, and we commend your stated commitment to hearing a diversity of perspectives on matters of public interest.
We would also like to acknowledge that you are the first Attorney-General in Australia to meet with representatives from LGB Alliance Australia and the Women’s Action Alliance Tasmania (WAAT) to discuss the protection of LGB rights and women’s sex-based rights. We recognise the significance of this meeting and welcome it as an important step toward open and constructive dialogue.
We hope this engagement marks the beginning of an ongoing and positive discussion, and a broader recognition of women as essential stakeholders in law and policy relating to sex-based rights, as recommended under Australia’s obligations pursuant to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
During our meeting, we also provided you with a document containing 29 testimonies from members of the Tasmanian community. We sincerely hope you have had the opportunity to read these accounts. They are deeply important and provide first-hand evidence of the real-world impacts current laws and policies are having on ordinary Tasmanians. We respectfully ask that these testimonies be formally acknowledged and considered as part of a review process.
Women Speak Tasmania (WST) has also prepared and attached a submission on reforming the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas) to restore sex-based protections. As outlined in that submission, the current Act does not include “sex” as a protected attribute. This omission has created significant legal and practical consequences for the protection of women and girls, including uncertainty around single-sex sport, services, accommodation, facilities, and safeguarding practices.
We propose a series of minimal, evidence-based amendments intended to restore clarity, uphold Tasmania’s human rights obligations, and ensure equitable protections for all Tasmanians, including transgender and people with Disorder of Sexual Development. We respectfully request that the Government prioritise review of the Act and consider adding sex as a protected characteristic within the Anti-Discrimination framework.
It is important to note that in Australia, biological sex can be determined as early as 10 weeks’ gestation through a widely used prenatal screening test known as Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT). NIPT is a maternal blood test that analyses cell-free fetal DNA circulating in the pregnant person’s bloodstream and determines fetal sex by detecting the presence or absence of Y-chromosome DNA, including the SRY gene — the biological marker that directs male sex development. If Y-chromosome sequences are present, the fetus is male; if they are absent, the fetus is female. NIPT also screens for common chromosomal conditions such as Down syndrome (trisomy 21), Edwards syndrome (trisomy 18) and Patau syndrome (trisomy 13) and is recognised in Australia as a safe, highly accurate screening tool from around 10 weeks’ gestation. https://www.racgp.org.au/afp/2017/october/non-invasive-prenatal-testing/
Despite this clear and well-established scientific understanding of sex as a biological reality, the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 does not provide explicit protection against discrimination on the basis of sex — a foundational biological attribute — while offering protection for “gender identity”, a subjective sense of identity that is not defined in the Act. This disconnection between the law and biological science undermines clarity and exposes women’s rights to erosion through inconsistent interpretation. NIPT’s routine clinical use underscores that sex is an objective, measurable biological category recognised by Australian healthcare practice; it is therefore crucial that Tasmania’s laws reflect this scientific reality. This is yet another example of why public policy and legislation must be grounded in empirical evidence and medical science, particularly when such laws directly affect women’s rights, access to services, and protection from discrimination.
Women Speak Tasmania would welcome the opportunity to meet with you, or with relevant departmental officers, to discuss our recommendations and the testimonies provided in more detail.
Thank you again for your time and consideration. We look forward to continuing constructive engagement on these matters.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Elizabeth Caballero
Retired General Practitioner
Director, Women Speak Tasmania