On 16 June 2024, ABC Radio Hobart’s Breakfast with Ryk Goddard featured an interview with Equality Tasmania’s Rodney Croome about Launceston City Council’s decision to develop an LGBTQAI+ inclusion plan. The conversation soon turned to a deeper and far more troubling issue: whether women in Tasmania are being denied the right to speak publicly if their views don’t align with certain political orthodoxies.
When host Ryk Goddard raised the recent controversy in Hobart City Council—where the council has been criticised for flying “inclusion” flags while refusing venue hire to women’s groups—Rodney Croome’s answer was revealing. He framed these women simply as “people who are advocating for women’s rights but at the same time in a way that excludes trans women.”
The problem? The women in question are being denied access to public venues not because they advocate violence, hate, or discrimination, but because they hold the belief—shared by the vast majority of Australians—that sex is real, and that women’s services and spaces should be single-sex for reasons of safety, privacy, and dignity.
This is a legitimate and necessary conversation in any democracy. Yet in the ABC segment, no women from these groups were invited to speak for themselves. Instead, their position was summarised—through a critical lens—by a male guest. The language used (“exclude trans women”) frames them as aggressors, rather than as women defending long-recognised sex-based rights.
This isn’t an isolated example. Across Australia, and particularly in Tasmania, we’re seeing a pattern:
- Women’s groups are denied venues.
- Their motives are publicly questioned.
- Their views are reinterpreted by others—often by people with an opposing stance—without their own voices being heard.
What’s missing is balance. A publicly funded broadcaster like the ABC has an obligation to ensure both sides of a contested issue are fairly represented. When only one perspective is aired, the public is denied the opportunity to hear women articulate their own reasoning and concerns in their own words.
This matters beyond the immediate debate on gender identity and women’s spaces. It’s about the principle that no group—least of all women—should be excluded from public discussion on issues that directly affect their rights and safety. “Inclusion” should never mean silencing those whose views are politically inconvenient.
If we truly care about diversity, equity, and inclusion, that must include diversity of opinion, equity in access to public platforms, and inclusion of women’s voices—even when they challenge the prevailing narrative.
https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/hobart-breakfast
Transcript
ABC Radio 16 June 2024
Hobart Breakfast with Ryk Goddard interview with Rodney Croome
Ryk:
Launceston city council recently passed a resolution to be more LGBTQAI+ inclusive, but what does it mean in practice? Rodney Croome join us from Equality Tas, G’day Rodney
Rodney:
Hi Ryk, Thanks for having me on
Ryk:
What is that motion in Launceston and what does it mean in practice?
Rodney:
Well, The motion that was passed by the Launceston city council, unanimously which was great, committed the council to consulting with the local LGBTQAI+ community, about what their experiences what their needs are, how their council might be able to help, and potentially the council putting together an action plan on how to improve inclusion and equity for LGBTQAI+ people in the city. That’s not a radical thing, there are a number of Tasmanian, other Tasmanian municipalities that have done the same thing, particularly Kingsborough?, last year I think it was Kinsborough? adopted an action plan after a great deal of consultation, and that commits the city to training staff to be more LGBTQAI+ inclusive, supporting the community including raising the rainbow flag on particular days, actions like that, and i’m hoping that’s how we end up with the launceston city council as well. Like i said a number of councils across tasmania have done this kind of thing, we have seen the rainbow flag raised at Derwent valley, Huon valley, Meander valley, we have seen progress towards an action plan in Hobart, Glenorchy, Clarence a number of municipalities are going down this path now
Ryk:
And I mean it’s been an interesting debate in the Hobart municipality where the council has been criticized for flying these flags at the same time as disallowing people to speak in that town hall because it is not in keeping with that policy. So, how do you have an inclusive policy that then includes absolutely everybody?
Rodney:
Well, the controversy in Hobart has been about whether council facilities should be let to people who are advocating they say for women’s right, but at the same time in a way that excludes transwomen from women’s services and women’s spaces, and that’s the question: should people be allowed to speak in a way that is in support of some people but against others? I guess my first point there is I don’t understand why it has to be either/ or. I think we can be inclusive, we can ensure women safety and also be inclusive of trans people. In Tasmania, women’s services and spaces have been inclusive of trans people for decades, women refugees, women health services all those kinds of services without any problem at all. So it’s a bit hard for me to understand why suddenly there is a fuss about this when there is no identifiable issue in Tasmania. Ahh but ultimately…sorry
Ryk:
On that, Rodney Croome also this week, a letter from Guy Barnett to the Federal Minister for Health looking at the review of the entire health system in Australia based on the review in the UK. What was your concern about that letter?
Roodney:
Well, the experts on gender healthcare for young people in Australia unanimously say that it doesn’t really need to be an inquiry because Guy Barnett called is in the wake of a review of gender health services in the UK, and health expert here say we already do what that gender review in Britain recommended, so why do we need a review and we are concerned that our review may become a platform again for hatred and discrimination against transgender people.
On top of that, the concern is that ahead of the last election in march, the state government promised that it would oppose such inquiry, it said it wasn’t needed, it said it did not have to happen and yet now 3 months later we have the government saying “oh yeah maybe we should do this and calling on the federal government to do it” that feels like a broken promise and very disappointing
Ryk:
Rodney thanks for your insights this morning on so many disparage issues but they all seem to circle around the same shack. So really appreciate thanks so much
Rodney:
Thanks Ryk
Ryk:
Rodney Croome there from Equality Tasmania if you have a view….