CHAPTER 2
Key issues
2.1
This inquiry generated a high level of public
interest and the committee recognises the policy arguments raised by submitters
and witnesses during the course of this inquiry.
2.2
The focus of this inquiry was the Recognition of
Foreign Marriages Bill 2014 rather than marriage equality more broadly. Therefore,
this chapter briefly discusses the question of marriage equality before
addressing key issues raised by submitters and witnesses with regard to the Bill.
It also discusses certain issues faced by intersex Australians.
Marriage equality
2.3
The majority of the submissions received by the committee
contained general arguments for and against marriage equality, as opposed to
addressing the specific provisions of the Bill. The arguments put forward were
similar in nature to the main arguments raised with regard to the Marriage
Equality Amendment Bill 2010 during the 2012 Senate committee inquiry.[1]
2.4
Submitters supportive of same-sex marriage argued that:
-
marriage equality would address the inequality and discrimination
felt by same-sex couples in not being allowed to marry;
-
same sex couples have a right to marry and a right to
non-discrimination at international law;
-
public opinion is in favour of allowing same-sex couples the
right to get married;
-
marriage equality for same-sex couples has been recognised in a
number of overseas jurisdictions;
-
marriage will greatly benefit the health of lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender and intersex people; and
-
the amendments are in the best interests of children of same-sex couples.[2]
2.5
Submitters opposed to same-sex marriage argued that:
-
marriage should remain between a man and a woman;
-
children have a right to both a mother and a father;
-
the majority of Australians do not support marriage equality;
-
the issue has already been debated by the Parliament;
-
it is not discrimination to restrict marriage to between a man
and a woman;
-
international law does not provide a right for same-sex couples
to marry; and
-
allowing same-sex marriage would be a "slippery slope"
for other forms of marriage.[3]
Committee comment
2.6
As stated above, the purpose of this inquiry was
not to consider the merits or otherwise of marriage equality in Australia and
the committee does not intend to address those matters in its report. However, as many witnesses noted, the issue of same-sex
marriage has already been considered by the Parliament and the committee is not
persuaded that this inquiry has yielded any new material that speaks to the
issue.
Key issues arising from the Bill
2.7
During the course of the inquiry, submitters and witnesses identified a
number of issues with regard to the Bill. These included:
-
whether the Bill was a surreptitious attempt to introduce
marriage equality in Australia;
-
differential treatment of domestic same-sex partnerships versus
overseas same-sex marriages, and whether the provisions of the Bill would result
in economic discrimination between those who can afford to travel and those
that cannot;
-
that other jurisdictions have recognised same-sex marriage and whether
this should influence Australia's position on the issue;
-
the impact the Bill would have on religious freedom;
-
whether the Bill would address some of the family law and
migration issues currently facing same-sex couples or instead create more uncertainty;
-
whether the amendment would be contrary to Australia's
obligations under international law; and
-
whether the Bill represented a "slippery slope" to allowing
the recognition of other types of marriage (for example polygamy and child
marriage).
2.8
These issues are discussed in the following sections.
Attempt to introduce marriage
equality in Australia
2.9
Some submitters expressed concern that the Bill was a surreptitious
attempt to introduce marriage equality in Australia.[4]
The Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) described the Bill as 'intended to be a
different path to redefine marriage in Australian law'.[5]
A number of submitters suggested that the title of the Bill was misleading, as
foreign heterosexual marriages are already recognised in Australia and the Bill
only goes to foreign same-sex marriages.[6]
2.10
The National Marriage Coalition stated:
We would say that, if marriage equality or
same-sex marriage is to be debated, it should be debated as a separate issue,
not in this step-by-step approach...[7]
2.11
The ACL argued that the Bill 'shows contempt for Australia's democratic
processes'[8]
and pointed out that the issue of marriage equality had already been debated a
number of times in various legislative forms:
A bill to recognise foreign same-sex
marriages was defeated in the Senate just last year. There have been at least
11 attempts at state or territory level to legislate a new definition of
marriage. All have failed. A House of Representatives committee in 2012
declined to support same-sex marriage. There have been three Senate inquiries
since 2010. There have been numerous state parliamentary inquiries in the past
two years, all followed by votes opposing changing the definition of marriage. The
exception was the ACT Legislative Assembly, where nine people voted to set a
precedent for the nation, which was obviously later overturned by the High
Court as unconstitutional. ACL, in approaching this inquiry, facilitated 42,000
signatures on a submission to this inquiry.[9]
2.12
In response to these claims, Senator Hanson-Young acknowledged that the
Bill was quite plainly aimed at furthering the case for marriage equality in
Australia.[10]
A number of submitters supported the Bill on this basis because 'it will move
Australia closer to a position of marriage equality'.[11]
2.13
Some submitters argued that there was no reason the Bill could not be
debated on its own merits.[12]
The New South Wales Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby stated that the policy issue
of marriage equality generally and the provisions of the Bill were separate
issues.[13]
2.14
Australian Marriage Equality concurred. Mr Rodney Croome, National
Director, stated:
Firstly, we can deal with this separately; there are no
constitutional barriers to dealing with this issue. One of the reasons,
certainly in my experience, that same-sex couples marry overseas is that they
have a sense of urgency. The partners might be ageing and wish to marry before
they die, or they may have children to whom they wish to provide the benefits
of marriage before those children grow up, which was the case with the couple I
mentioned earlier who married in Auckland.[14]
Differential treatment and
discrimination
2.15
Another issue raised by some submitters was the differential treatment
of domestic same-sex partnerships versus same-sex marriages solemnised overseas
and potential discrimination against certain same-sex couples.[15]
2.16
The Law Council of Australia was concerned that the Bill would create
"economic" discrimination by establishing a situation where same-sex
couples with the financial resources to travel overseas would have access to
same-sex marriage whilst same-sex couples without those financial resources
would be denied access to same-sex marriage. On that basis, the Law Council submitted
that the Bill would create a serious 'discriminatory effect':
The dichotomy that the Bill would create if passed in its
current form is likely to be problematic and result in confusion.
Furthermore, it would create a situation in which same sex
couples who are able to travel overseas and marry can have their marriages
recognised in Australia, while others may not be able to do so, due to the
expense involved or other factors such as disability or age.[16]
2.17
The Attorney-General's Department noted in its submission that:
The passage of the Bill will result in
differential treatment for same-sex marriages solemnised overseas in contrast
to same-sex partnerships recognised pursuant to some State and Territory laws.[17]
2.18
Other submitters acknowledged this concern but on balance
supported the Bill[18]
on the grounds, for example, that the Bill was 'a first step towards marriage
equality in Australia'.[19]
Yet other submitters argued that discrimination already exists towards same-sex
couples and the benefits of the Bill would outweigh the concerns around
economic discrimination.[20]
Overseas jurisdictions
2.19
Some supporters of the Bill, such as Australian Marriage Equality,
argued that due to the significant number of countries recognising same-sex
marriage, the amendments in the Bill were necessary in order to ensure that
those couples that marry overseas are not faced with having to choose between
their nationality and their marriage.[21]
2.20
Mr Croome stated that there had been an increase in the number of
Australian same-sex couples marrying overseas since the last time the Senate
considered the issue of marriage equality:
What has changed is that an increasing number of Australian
couples are marrying overseas, particularly in jurisdictions that are very
similar to Australia's and where a large number of Australians reside, and that
includes New Zealand and Britain. So, the problem that already existed has magnified...[22]
2.21
In addition, Australian Marriage Equality argued that 'the number of
jurisdictions allowing same-sex couples to marry is growing rapidly' and
provided information on countries that currently allow or will soon allow
same-sex couples to marry.[23]
2.22
The Law Institute of Victoria (LIV) noted that there are currently five
countries which do not allow same-sex marriage domestically but do recognise
foreign same-sex marriages:
...Israel, Japan, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands Antilles.
They do for same-sex marriage what your bill will do for marriage equality.
They do not allow it, just like we do not allow it. But they recognise it, as
we should.[24]
2.23
Other submitters argued that Australia should not feel compelled into
action by the actions of other nations. For example, the ACL argued that 'Australia
is a sovereign nation responsible for its own policies':
The fact that New Zealand, the UK, and a small group of other
countries have legislated to redefine the most fundamental relationship in
society does not compel Australia to follow suit.[25]
2.24
The National Marriage Coalition noted that only 16 out of the 193 United
Nations member states have legislated for same-sex marriage.[26]
It argued that this is less than 10 per cent of countries, 'hardly a landslide
of opinion'.[27]
2.25
The Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney submitted that the Bill attempted to
circumvent Australia's democratic process and that adoption of 'a foreign
definition of marriage' would undermine Australian law:
It is unjust and underhand that the Bill attempts to change
the meaning of marriage for all Australians whilst purporting to do so only for
a small number of same-sex couples.[28]
Religious freedom
2.26
The impact of the Bill on the right of organisations and individuals to uphold
their religious beliefs was of concern to some submitters.[29]
2.27
The ACL argued that:
...there is a big threat to freedom of belief and freedom of
conscience that flows as a result of a change in the legal definition of
marriage. And I must say that this is of major concern to the Christian
constituency in this nation.[30]
2.28
A number of submitters referred to cases overseas where small businesses
that refused to supply their services to same-sex couples were prosecuted under
anti‑discrimination laws.[31]
At the public hearing, Lawyers for the Preservation of the Definition of Marriage
remarked that:
Our point is more in what we call the butcher, baker and
candlestick maker cases, which is the people who are downstream in the
religious faith community: so those like the camp that is being talked about,
those who will not do the wedding cake, those who will not take photographs,
those who will not hire out the hall and those who will not let out their
accommodation because of fundamental conscientious beliefs.[32]
2.29
Mr Shelton from the ACL also referred to some specific examples:
Our submission also references the florist in Washington
state, the photographer in New Mexico and the baker in Colorado, who have all
faced or are currently facing serious legal sanctions because of their
conscientious objection into participating in same-sex weddings—and there are
many more.[33]
2.30
Conversely, the Law Society of New South Wales argued that section 47 of
the Marriage Act provided sufficient protection for religious ministers who did
not wish to solemnise same-sex marriages.[34]
The Human Rights Law Centre (HRLC) shared this view, stating:
Our position is that the Marriage Act currently preserves
religious freedom in the sense that it recognises the autonomy of religious
organisations and their ability to undertake religious ceremonies and it does
not require them to perform marriages that do not accord with their beliefs.
Nothing in this bill will change that. Marriage is a civil institution and, as
such, marriage performed by civil celebrants should not be affected by
religious views, whatever they may be.[35]
2.31
In respect of the overseas cases cited by some submitters and witnesses,
the LIV stated that such cases occurred in overseas jurisdictions and therefore
did not apply under Australia's anti-discrimination law.[36]
Family law and migration
2.32
During the course of the inquiry, some submitters and witnesses raised
issues related to family law and migration.[37]
Family law
2.33
Some submitters were concerned about legal ambiguity under Australian
family law in the current circumstances where foreign same-sex marriages are not
recognised, whilst others believed passage of the Bill would exacerbate these
problems. For example, the HRLC discussed the matter of separation and divorce:
In certain circumstances, the lack of recognition of foreign
marriages in Australia can have the cruel effect of denying people access to
divorce and separation if they are, or have become, Australian citizens.
Clients of community legal centres have found themselves in what is,
effectively, a legal void. This can have a profound impact on individuals. The
result for some has been that they continue to have legal obligations to a
former spouse who continues to reside in their former country. This included
continuity of claims to the (now Australian) spouse's estate in that former
country.[38]
2.34
The HRLC argued that passage of the Bill would 'resolve many legal and
practical uncertainties and complexities':
It is worth pointing out that, despite lack of recognition
under the Marriage Act, our family law recognises overseas same-sex marriages
for the purposes of property settlement and parenting issues. Our family law
also recognises same-sex couples as parents.[39]
2.35
By contrast, the Australian Family Association opined that passage of
the Bill would create inconsistency and confusion and, contrary to the views of
the HRLC, would further complicate family law matters for those in a same-sex
marriage solemnised overseas and recognised in Australia.[40]
Spousal visas
2.36
The Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby voiced concern about current
spousal visa arrangements for same-sex couples, in particular the evidentiary
burden placed on couples in a de facto relationship:
The spousal visa requirements if you are in a registered
relationship or a marriage are waived of any time limit. If you are in a de
facto relationship or the law only recognises you as a de facto relationship,
which is how the law would treat these same-sex couples who are married
overseas, they have to be together for two years and have to be able to prove
the existence of the relationship. It is a much higher burden that they are
placed with than a married couple.[41]
2.37
In response to written questions on notice, the
Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) informed the committee
that 'there is no difference between the types of visa applied for by a married
couple or a de facto couple':
The "spouse" or "de facto partner" of an
eligible Australian sponsor (Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible
New Zealand citizen) may apply for a Partner visa. Same-sex marriages are not
recognised under the Australian Marriage Act 1961. Same-sex couples who have
been legally married overseas may still apply for a Partner visa, the only
difference being that the applicant will be assessed as a "de facto
partner", rather than a "spouse". This has no impact on the
assessment or the outcome of the Partner visa application, which depends on
whether an applicant meets all of the relevant criteria.[42]
2.38
In response to a question about evidentiary requirements, DIPB provided
the following information:
When assessing a spouse or de facto partner relationship for
the purpose of a Partner visa, officers must, by law, consider all the
circumstances of the relationship, including the:
a) financial aspects of the relationship;
b) nature of the household;
c) social aspects of the relationship; and
d) nature of the couple’s commitment to each other
Examples of supporting evidence include but are not limited
to statutory declarations from the couple as well as third parties and evidence
of financial arrangements.
A marriage certificate alone is not sufficient to meet the
requirements of being a "spouse" for visa purposes. In addition to
being married, the Migration Act requires couples to:
-
have a mutual commitment to a shared life as husband and wife to
the exclusion of all others; and
-
be in a genuine and continuing relationship; and
-
live together or not live separately and apart on a permanent
basis.
Generally, a marriage that is recognised as valid in the
country in which it is solemnised will be recognised under Australian law.
There are some exceptions, however, such as same sex and polygamous marriages.[43]
2.39
DIBP noted that these requirements for de facto couples do not change,
regardless of whether the couple has registered their relationship.[44]
International law
2.40
Submitters and witnesses both for and against the Bill raised concerns
with regard to Australia's international law obligations.
2.41
Submitters in favour of marriage equality argued that current section
88EA of the Marriage Act may contravene Article 9 of the Hague Convention on
the Recognition and Celebration of Marriages (the Hague Convention).[45]
2.42
At the public hearing, the HRLC commented:
The discrimination that characterises Australia's current
marriage laws offends international human rights standards and the obligation
for Australia to uphold the principles of non[-]discrimination and equality
before the law. However, the issues raised by this particular bill go further.
As a matter of international comity, Australia should recognise validly formed
marriages from overseas, regardless of the sex or gender of the couple. We are
a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Celebration and Recognition of
Foreign Marriages and it is our obligation under that convention to recognise
those marriages.[46]
2.43
It was also argued that the Marriage Act 'directly discriminates on the
grounds of sexual orientation in denying same-sex couples the right to marry'[47]
and therefore breaches Australia's obligations under the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the ICCPR).[48]
2.44
Submitters who opposed the Bill argued that it was not discriminatory
under human rights law for marriage to be restricted to between a man and a
woman.[49]
2.45
The Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney submitted that Article 23 of the
ICCPR does not encompass same-sex marriage:
...international law has always recognised the truth that
marriage is a union of a man and a woman orientated to the begetting and
nurturing of children. As the United Nations Human Rights Committee has
affirmed, the "right to marry and found a family", expressed in
Article 23 and elsewhere, "implies, in principle, the possibility to
procreate".[50]
2.46
Lawyers for the Preservation of the Definition of Marriage similarly
argued that Article 23 of the ICCPR does not give rise to the right for same-sex
couples to marry:
The case was inviting the court to revisit the question of
whether there is a right under the European covenants to same-sex marriage.
That had been ventilated previously and it had been decided that there was no
such right under any of the covenants that prevail in the European Union, which
are obviously analogous to those that are provided for at the UN level as well.[51]
2.47
The Australian Christian Lobby claimed that the Hague Convention was
never intended to apply to same-sex marriages in Australia[52]
while the Presbyterian Church of Australia stated that the Bill would be in
conflict with Australia's obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the
Child.[53]
The "slippery slope"
2.48
It was the view of some submitters that the recognition of foreign
same-sex marriages in Australia would lead to other types of relationships,
such as polygamous marriage and marriage to minors, also being recognised.[54]
2.49
At the public hearing, the National Marriage Coalition raised this
concern:
We also say that other groups could seek to have their
foreign marriages recognised, and the Marriage Act is very clear in that it
recognises foreign marriages that are legal in Australia. That is already the
case, even though the name of the bill might not suggest that. So the Marriage
Act currently recognises foreign marriages that are legal.[55]
2.50
In its submission the ACL listed a number of unions that are recognised
in other countries (child marriage, polygamy and polyamory) and argued that
while the focus of the Bill was same-sex marriages, it was unlikely to be limited
to such marriages in practice.[56]
2.51
These claims were refuted by supporters of the Bill. The Victorian Gay
and Lesbian Rights Lobby pointed out that 'that every single lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender and intersex reform for the last 30 years we have been
having this discussion on things always has an attack of slippery slope
attached to it, and not one of those predictions have ever come true in those
30 years'.[57]
2.52
Australian Marriage Equality stated that such concerns have not borne
out in other countries where same-sex marriage is recognised:
In the world at the moment marriage equality prevails in
almost 20 jurisdictions, the combined population of which is hundreds and
hundreds of millions of people, and yet the Australian Christian Lobby can only
find one example where there was legal recognition of a polygamous relationship
in a country that does not otherwise have that cultural tradition.[58]
Committee comment
2.53
The committee heard a range of views canvassing the broader issue of marriage
equality and the definition of marriage. This, however, was not the purpose of
this inquiry despite those on both sides of the debate acknowledging during the
course of the inquiry that the Bill is an intended step towards the wider goal
of legislated marriage equality. In the committee's view, marriage equality is an
issue that should be addressed honestly and directly in the context of wider
debate, not through attempts to address the issue incrementally.
2.54
The committee notes that passage of the Bill would legislate a form of
discrimination in that same-sex couples able to marry overseas would be
afforded a different set of rights to Australian same-sex couples who under
domestic law would be unable to marry.
2.55
The committee recommends that the Bill not be passed as it appears to
have been introduced as a vehicle to progress marriage equality more generally,
rather than the specific amendment proposed. While the inquiry did reveal some
issues which should be addressed by the Commonwealth government at the
appropriate time and in the appropriate forum—for example matters relating to family
law and migration—it is not within the terms of reference of this inquiry to
address those issues. The committee nonetheless urges the government to give
these matters due consideration.
Recommendation 1
2.56
The committee recommends that the Bill not be passed.
Issues facing intersex Australians
2.57
A number of submitters and witnesses to the inquiry raised issues
particular to intersex Australians and acknowledged that even if the Bill were
passed, in its current form it would not allow for intersex Australians to
marry.[59]
2.58
Organisation Intersex International Australia Limited explained what the
term intersex encompassed:
In this regard, we note that intersex is a term that relates
to a range of physical traits or variations that lie between ideals of male and
female. Intersex people are born with physical, hormonal or genetic features
that are neither wholly female nor wholly male; or a combination of female and
male; or neither female nor male. Many forms of intersex exist; it is a
spectrum or umbrella term, rather than a single category. It can include
differences in the number of sex chromosomes, different tissue responses to sex
hormones, or a different hormone balance. Examples of intersex variations
include Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS), Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia
(CAH), 5 alpha Reductase Deficiency, and sex chromosome differences such as 47,
XXY (often diagnosed as Klinefelter Syndrome) and 45, X0 (often diagnosed as
Turner Syndrome).[60]
2.59
During its inquiry, the committee heard evidence from Tony Briffa,
Vice-President of both Organisation Intersex Australia Limited and Androgen
Insensitivity Syndrome Support Group Australia Inc. Tony referred to her own
circumstances:
I was born with a biological intersex variation. Doctors
refer to this as "Disorder of Sex Development" (specially
"Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome" in my case) but essentially it
means that I was born with a natural variation that resulted in being born with
biological attributes of both sexes. As a result of my biological variation and
the way it was treated by doctors, I have lived as a woman and a man at various
times in my life though I was raised as a girl. (I have also had Victorian
birth certificates that reflect my sex as female, male and nothing). I am
extremely comfortable with who I am and am open about being an intersex person
in all aspects of my life. Like most Australians, I identify in line with my
biology at birth; I am both female and male.[61]
2.60
Tony explained that even if the Bill was passed, her marriage to her
partner in New Zealand would still not be recognised in Australia due to the
terminology used:
The bill before us is important to me. It is particularly
about same-sex marriages solemnised in foreign countries. It assumes that people
are either male or female. In Australia marriage is between a man and a woman
to the exclusion of all others. This bill would allow marriages from overseas
solemnised between two women or two men to also be recognised in Australia. The
problem we have is that, for some people like me, it is not as easy as that, it
is not as black and white as that.
I got married in New Zealand 11 months ago. I have my
marriage certificate here, which I will table, and you will see on that
certificate that my sex on my marriage certificate is not male or female. It
says 'indeterminate'. I would have preferred, personally, that the sex would
have reflected more accurately my sex, being part male and part female. They do
have an option of 'indeterminate' in New Zealand and I chose that option,
because that more accurately reflects me. I am fierce about being true to
myself. I do not want to have to pretend, particularly in legal documentation,
that I am one or the other, because I would be denying a part of myself.[62]
2.61
Tony noted that she and her partner's marriage would be recognised in
Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, the Netherlands,
New Zealand and a few other countries, though not Australia.[63]
She argued that even if the Bill were passed, she would be 'one of the few
people in Australia that cannot actually be legally married'.[64]
2.62
She further pointed out that the Marriage Act as it currently stands is
not clear with regards to whom she would be allowed to marry:
In fact, it is a terrible situation. I technically could have
married my wife in Australia but I would have had to have been a man to do it.
I would have to forget the female part of me, accept the male part of me, have
a male birth certificate—and I have had a female birth certificate, a male
birth certificate and a blank birth certificate—be in a heterosexual
relationship and have that recognised to be able to marry in Australia. I could
have married her that way, but I am not her husband. Physically, if you like, I
am not her husband, so it would be very strange. I would always be worried
about what that would mean in the future. Would someone invalidate my marriage
if I get older and am in a nursing home or have had a car accident, because
when I go to a nursing home or a hospital they would be able to identify that I
am not male?[65]
2.63
The HRLC acknowledged the difficulties faced by intersex Australians:
...that as a society we need to be more aware of the particular
circumstances of transgender people, gender diverse people and intersex people
that do not neatly fall into the categories of male and female. Some of our
laws have been set up in a way that have really negative impacts for these
people.[66]
2.64
The HRLC also discussed how the Bill could be amended to ensure that the
marriages of transgender, gender diverse and intersex people would be
recognised under Australian law:
When we say a man and another man and a woman and another
woman what a man and what a woman is under Australian law is not clear,
particularly after the Norrie case, and we have seen moves in other states and
territories that do recognise the greater diversity in sex and gender that does
exist outside those strict categories. By using the words "two
people" we can be sure that we are fully inclusive of anyone who is transgender,
gender diverse or intersex and does not identify as purely male or female or
may not fit within a legal definition of those concepts.[67]
2.65
Tony also drew the committee's attention to other situations where
intersex people are not properly or accurately recognised, such as passports
and birth certificates. Australian birth certificates currently only allow for gender
to be identified as 'man', 'woman' or 'indeterminate', while passports allow
intersex people to have their gender listed as 'X'.[68]
Tony explained why these options are unsuitable:
Like all intersex people, I consider myself to be one of the
few classes of people in this country who cannot have a birth certificate which
recognises what they are. Even a trans person, a person who is born one sex and
identifies with the other and starts living as that opposite sex, they can get
a birth certificate which recognises their affirmed sex. I am biologically born
this way but I cannot have a birth certificate that acknowledges what I am
because birth certificates at the moment require that you can only be one of
the other or you could have 'indeterminate'. I am not indeterminate; I know
what I am. My issue with the X personally is that it sets up a situation where
you have males, you have females and then you have something that is outside of
that—you have an X. I am not outside of that. I know what I am. I am actually
part male and part female. That is why I do not particularly like the X.[69]
Committee comment
2.66
The committee is concerned by the issues raised in relation to the
recognition of marriages for intersex people, as well as their recognition in
Australian birth certificates and passports.
2.67
Whilst the recognition of intersex people in Australian birth
certificates and passports is not germane to the terms of the Bill subject to
this inquiry, the committee urges the Commonwealth government to give further
consideration to the evidence of Tony Briffa regarding intersex rights and
intersex marriage and to how these issues can be addressed.
Senator the Hon Ian Macdonald
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page