Manager's Report

by Elizabeth Riley

(The Gender Centre advise that this article may not be current and as such certain content, including but not limited to persons, contact details and dates may not apply. Where legal authority or medical related matters are cited, responsibility lies with the reader to obtain the most current relevant legal authority and/or medical publication.)

I have frequently reported optimistically over the years on the steady progress we have made as a community in respect of the way we are treated by the community at large, and for the most part I still believe that we do have sound cause to be optimistic. So please forgive me for again feeling the need to make reference to the Mission Australia Exemption granted by the N.S.W. Attorney General on recommendation from the N.S.W. Anti-Discrimination Board. I don't propose to again go into the details of this whole affair other than to say that I believed at the time and I continue to believe that the granting of this exemption was an assault on that section of our community most in need of compassion and least able to defend their rights and its continuing existence constitutes an unforgivable abuse of the most marginalised in the transgender population.

If anything could be more unforgivable it is the expression of support offered to Mission Australia by a handful of post-operative transsexual women who do not appear to comprehend the despair and desperation associated with homelessness.

So it was with some level of compensatory pleasure that we were able to publish in the last edition of Polare a letter from the N.S.W. Attorney General addressed to Clover Moore M.L.A. detailing a range of measures to be considered before future exemptions can be granted. These measures were put into place by the Governor of N.S.W., Her Excellency Professor Marie Bashir, in changes she initiated and titled Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Exemptions) Regulation 2004.

For the sake of easy reference let me repeat the key measures here. They are worth savouring.

Matters that are to be considered include:

• whether the proposed exemption is appropriate or reasonable;
• whether the proposed exemption is necessary;
• whether there are any non-discriminatory ways of achieving the objects or purposes for which the proposed exemption is sought;
• whether the proponent of the proposed exemption has taken reasonable steps, or is able to take reasonable steps, to avoid or reduce the adverse effect of a particular act or action before seeking the exemption;
• the public, business, social or other community impact of the granting of the proposed exemption; and
• any conditions or limitations to be contained in the proposed exemption.

In light of the above there may well be a few people wandering around with egg on their faces. Laws and regulations are seldom enforced retrospectively but I would venture to say that Mission Australia would have struggled to satisfy any of these considerations and would have had no capacity whatsoever to satisfy the most pertinent one which is (b).

That Her Excellency, The Governor, saw fit to intervene in this area is testament to her commitment to human rights, to her recognition of the flaws in the previously existing process and to the efforts of those people, both within and outside our community, who expressed their concern and outrage over the original granting of the exemption to Mission Australia. Her Excellency deserves the highest commendation from our community and I would like to express the deepest gratitude on behalf of us all. In an ironic twist, which I certainly do not wish to dwell on, it is worth noting that Her Excellency is the Patron of Mission Australia. While this role is unlikely to be one that affords the holder any role in organisational decision making one would hope that the significance of Her Excellency's intervention is not lost on Mission's original architects of the exemption application.

Now to the present. Another organisation, Edward Eagar Lodge, is seeking the renewal of a similar exemption that was granted to them five years ago and is due to expire. Edward Eagar Lodge adopts a rather strange concept of what constitutes discrimination. They have suggested to me on more than one occasion that they don't discriminate. Transgender women are welcome in their service. The only minor stipulation is that they are not welcome in the women's section, only in the men's. How intolerably disrespectful of gender identity is that? I would liken this practice as being the equivalent of accepting Muslim women, but only if they remove their hijab and behave like Christians; or aboriginal women, but only if they behave like white folk. Can you imagine the outrage? and absolutely rightly so.

It will be interesting, therefore, to see how effective the new regulations prove to be. Like Mission Australia, Edward Eagar Lodge will not readily satisfy the matters included for consideration and I am optimistic that we will win this one. In the meantime I await with anticipation the inevitable engagement with the A.D.B. in the raft of consultations that precede their recommendation as the new regulation demands.

Polare is published in Australia by The Gender Centre Inc. which is funded by the Department of Community Services under the S.A.A.P. Program and supported by the N.S.W. Health Department through the AIDS and Infectious Diseases Branch. Polare provides a forum for discussion and debate on gender issues. Advertisers are advised that all advertising is their responsibility under the Trade Practices Act. Unsolicited contributions are welcome, though no guarantee is made by the Editor that they will be published, nor any discussion entered into. The editor reserves the right to edit such contributions without notification. Any submission which appears in Polare may be published on our internet site. Opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the Editor, The Gender Centre Inc.I, the Department of Community Services or the N.S.W. Department of Health.