Analysis: Opponents of independent Sydney MP Alex Greenwich’s proposed Equality Bill this week used a NSW parliamentary survey as evidence that it had been resoundingly rejected by NSW residents.
But when you delve a little deeper, the fine print of the survey’s results contains quite important information that goes to its integrity and credibility.
“Genspect Australia is dismayed that the NSW parliament will now consider independent MP Alex Greenwich’s Equality Legislation Amendment (LGBTIQA+) Bill 2023, although the government’s own online survey showed overwhelming public opposition,” said a media release from Genspect, an international group founded by psychotherapist Stella O’Malley which has been described as gender-critical.
“Of 13,258 respondents, 85% opposed the bill,” it said.
Women’s advocacy group Women’s Forum Australia also used the survey’s results, conducted as part of a parliamentary committee’s inquiry into Greenwich’s bill, to air its concerns about the proposed law changes.
Women’s Forum Australia said the responses to the survey showed “intense opposition to the introduction of sex self-ID, further liberalised prostitution, overseas commercial surrogacy, and amendments making it easier for minors to access puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones without parental consent”.
The survey’s results were published on Monday and are contained in the report of the parliamentary inquiry. At the time the inquiry’s report was tabled, Gay Sydney News reported its recommendation that the bill proceed to debate following its consultation but glanced over the survey, leaving it for further examination in this article.
Read the fine print
Having now had the chance to digest the report’s survey, some important fine print has emerged.
Missing from the media releases of organisations using it to demonstrate broad public opposition to the bill is a relatively important note about the survey:
“Survey respondents self-selected in choosing to participate,” the parliamentary report said. “This means that respondents were not a representative sample of the NSW population, but rather interested members of the public who volunteered their time to have their say,” it continued (emphasis ours).
It also noted that “some survey respondents reside outside of NSW”.
Further, the report said, “some individuals submitted more than one response or ‘duplicate’ responses”.
While the report provided an analysis of responses that included and excluded “duplicates”, it seemed unable to guarantee that individuals submitting their responses multiple times had all been excluded.
“Duplicates were removed from a list of respondents’ email addresses as this was the only unique attribute for respondents within the survey data,” the report said in a footnote. “However, not all duplicates were removed, for example, respondents that used multiple email addresses with slight variations.”
So it was more Survey Monkey, less a statistically representative poll.
Without explicitly saying it, it appeared the committee was attempting to point out that its results should be taken with a grain of salt, especially in an era in which online polls can be easily hijacked by special interest groups who might share the link among their circles and encourage people to submit responses multiple times under different aliases.
What’s in the bill?
Greenwich’s bill is described as an act to amend various acts and other legislation to “modernise laws and advance equality for LGBTIQA+ persons in NSW”.
When introduced, Greenwich said in a speech to parliament that the bill was designed to “close loopholes that leave LGBTIQA+ people vulnerable” and he laid out the various amendments it would make to the law.
He described several proposed changes that he said advocacy group Equality Australia, led by Anna Brown and Ghassan Kassisieh, helped inform by auditing some 500 pieces of NSW legislation.
“The Anti-Discrimination Act protects trans men and trans women but it does not protect non‑binary people,” he said as one example. “Non-binary people are part of the trans community and might sit inside or outside of the male or female spectrum. All trans people deserve the full protection of the law, and the bill would extend the protected attribute to all of them.”
The bill makes substantial changes to the law. In Greenwich’s eyes, it protects LGBTI+ school staff and students from discrimination, ensures trans and gender-diverse people can access identification documents that match their identity, and better recognises queer families by changing surrogacy laws.
The bill would also make threats to “out” a person’s sexual orientation, gender history, HIV diagnosis, and variations in sex characteristics or sex work a form of domestic abuse for the purpose of making an apprehended violence order or an apprehended personal violence order.
But it also makes more contentious changes that, in the eyes of opponents like Women’s Forum Australia, are “some of the most anti-women, anti-children reforms we have seen”.
Women’s Forum Australia said in its submission to the inquiry that the bill will: allow children under 16 to consent to medical treatment without their parents’ consent; enable men to demand they are searched by female officers; penalise those who raise concerns about men who identify as women; “de-sex” NSW laws, further deregulate the prostitution industry; and remove bans on overseas commercial surrogacy.
“Sex self-ID will allow anyone to change their legal sex (with the barest minimum of gatekeeping) and be treated as that sex for all intents and purposes under law,” Women’s Forum Australia said.
Genspect, the group that has been labelled gender-critical, was equally outraged.
“This bill, which casts its tentacles into 20 different pieces of legislation, seriously diminishes the rights of women and girls, permits children to change their name and sex on their birth certificate without parental consent, and will lead to more children with gender confusion making life-altering changes which they may later regret,” Genspect spokesperson Jude Hunter said.
The NSW Labor government highlighted in its submission to the inquiry several instances in which the bill may have “unintended consequences” and present “operational issues”, or in which the subject matter at hand was too complex for parliament to consider without a more comprehensive review.
Advocacy group Equality Australia has previously encouraged parliament to pass the bill to ensure LGBTIQ+ people are treated equally. “The bill presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to bring NSW into line with other states and territories on LGBTIQ+ equality,” Equality Australia said.
But in its current form, the bill looks unlikely to pass without amendments.
Clayton Barr, chair of the inquiry examining the bill and the Labor member for Cessnock, said in a media release that he saw the inquiry as an opportunity for Greenwich “to continue his dialogue with other members of parliament around this concept of, and need for, advances in equality for all people in NSW”.
“In particular, given the length and detail provided in the NSW government submission to this inquiry, I would urge Mr Greenwich and the NSW government to further explore what can and
cannot be agreed to,” Barr said.
As Greenwich and Equality Australia know, the progress they are seeking will likely require compromise.
Will they find support for this bill? We’ll have to wait to find out.
Gay Sydney News editor