There were eight recommendations specific to the LGBTQIA+ community, which included:
- Removing the exemptions that allow religious schools to legally discriminate against LGBTQIA+ students and staff
- Eliminating legal exemptions that allow discrimination against trans, gender-diverse and intersex people
- Delivering public education campaigns to reduce stigma and discrimination against the queer community
- Introducing a national ban on conversion practices
- Banning unnecessary surgeries on intersex children
- Improving systems to allow trans and gender-diverse people to legally change their gender without intrusive requirements
Fuck me, they were like bare minimum decency choices.
Yep, but such recommendations need to go to the states/territories in our federal system. I suspect Albo is spooked by the rise of the far right/culture wars bullshit in Australia. Nobody had the return of Hanson on their bingo cards. For instance conversion therapy is banned in SA, NSW, ACT, Vic. So the recommendations on that should go shit state/territories like WA, Tasmania and NT. Any attempt by the federal govt to legislate outside of its constitutionally defined powers would have to survive a high court challenge. The external affairs power worked for the Franklin dam but that was a specific set of circumstances.
Curious as to why conversion therapy or private schools would be a state vs federal thing
From what I can tell from an admittedly brief search for more information is that if the federal government was to federally criminalise conversion therapy a legal challenge could be mounted by state governments as federal criminal law normally in relation to crime that crosses state borders (i.e. drug trafficking) and might be seen as federal overreach. (Though during my reading apparently the federal government has overridden state laws before; namely overriding Tasmanian sodomy laws so maybe it could be done)
Private school funding on the other hand I’m not as certain about. I don’t know if the Act that details how funding for non-government schools is dispensed allows the federal government to place restrictions on funding based on discriminatory practices in these schools. It might be something that needs to be done on a state level.
Of course the federal government would reject the recommendations when they’re almost entirely state government responsibilities
Removing the exemptions that allow religious schools to legally discriminate against LGBTQIA+ students and staff
This at a minimum comes under employment law, which is a federal responsibility.
Eliminating legal exemptions that allow discrimination against trans, gender-diverse and intersex people
Pretty sure discrimination laws come under federal law
Delivering public education campaigns to reduce stigma and discrimination against the queer community
This could be done by anyone
Introducing a national ban on conversion practices
Some states already done this, federal could?
Banning unnecessary surgeries on intersex children
This one I’m unclear on
Improving systems to allow trans and gender-diverse people to legally change their gender without intrusive requirements
I’m also unclear on how births deaths and marriages is divided.
But in conclusion, kinda feels like you’re making excuses for the Labor government
You’re stretching on what is federal vs state here and you know it. See other comment regarding federal overrides. This isn’t a good faith argument
I am definitely not stretching it on the point of discrimination and employment law.
That is super-duper squarely federal.
Federal https://lawcouncil.au/policy-agenda/human-rights/anti-discrimination-laws
And federal supremacy clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_109_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia
So, yeah, the states can legislate for discrimination, but if there’s any conflict, federal takes precedence.
I am not a lawyer, and freely admit I am not an expert on this, but it feels like you’re pretending like the federal government doesn’t have these powers as an excuse for why they ignored all the recommendations. But they DO legislate on matters of discrimination, that is simply true.
And unless you’ve got something extra up your sleeve, I think you’re making excuses.
It’s okay to disagree with the Party you support, provided you agree with the majority of their positions. It’s a bit annoying if you make excuses for them though.
See the other comment regarding federal overrides of state responsibility
Had to go looking, you mean this?
we should undermine the democratic process and state government powers because I don’t like it when the state government doesn’t lean the way I personally want
A very dangerous road to walk
I never thought I’d be defending the coalition but imagine if the coalition federal government (who historically avoid/prevent federal overrides) did this for issues like abortion
This is a cop out, because certain issues should be legislated for the whole country (opinions, and constitutionally where the power lies, varies)
Nek minnit you’ll be telling me the states should take back their right to legislate workers rights (which they used to).
It absolutely makes sense for it to be uniform across the country. This isn’t the USA, most people don’t believe in states rights. Depending on the topic, opinions will vary on what should and should not be prerogative of federal vs state.
What is true is that devolving too many things creates a mess. Engineering registrations are hodge-podge even though we regularly work between jurisdictions. Chemical regs are also not harmonised, meaning you a nation-wide company has to follow different rules for every state… (taking examples from my industry, but you get the point).
Transport infrastructure makes sense to be state by state, since we’re such a big country with a relatively sparse population.
Unless you just want to be rid of the federal government entirely, what exactly do you think is the point of the federal government?
In conclusion, federal Labor absolutely should and importantly could have implemented at least some of the recommendations… and you saying “oh it’s dangerous!” seems unconvincing to me.
While that’s true, there should be some federal minimums to prevent backsliding in case a bigoted state govt gets voted in.
we should undermine the democratic process and state government powers because I don’t like it when the state government doesn’t lean the way I personally want
A very dangerous road to walk
I never thought I’d be defending the coalition but imagine if the coalition federal government (who historically avoid/prevent federal overrides) did this for issues like abortion
I think you touch on a really good point. If the federal government was to use its powers like a cudgel to force compliance of the states it also creates a single point of failure if you have a change of government. We should be looking at building legislation at both the federal and state level synergistically.
Tangentially, look at the damage Roe V Wade has caused by being overturned. From how I’ve understood it the federal (and some state governments) have basically relied on the supreme court decision instead of building proper legislation to protect abortion.
