Additional Comments

Inquiry into Sexuality Discrimination

Additional Comments

Senator Eric Abetz

Throughout the course of the hearings on the Sexuality Discrimination Bill, I was invited by former transsexual and homosexual people to discuss their situations and life experiences.

It is to be regretted, although understandable, that they did not talk to the Committee as a whole on the public record.

Whilst some believed they had some innate tendency toward homosexuality they believed it was largely a learned behaviour and conduct which they adopted and then rejected.

Upon rejection of the lifestyle, other elements in the homosexual community considered them to be "traitors" and they were the subject of vilification by elements of that community.

One former transsexual with whom I spoke, had unfortunately only been affirmed in her situation. Her history and life were not fully explored by "therapists" prior to undergoing hormone treatment and surgery. The simply tragic consequences for this young lady who has now changed back to her true and original sex are devastating. The physical damage is horrendous. From having a double mastectomy to having double breast implants and the removal of body hair gained through hormonal treatment is not the product of a caring society but a "Brave New World" experimentation where individuals don't count in the pursuit of a dogma or theory. For these people there is no return to their former state. The surgery is permanent. There is no return.

It is not possible by personal decision to alter one's race or sex. Yet, the facts of these real personal experiences as relayed would indicate that a person's homosexual or transexual behaviour is a learned behaviour and not a characteristic such as sex or race.

Some practising homosexuals have also sought to be distinguished from the aggressive, "in your face" as it was described, lobby. Their own reservation at the antics and "shock" tactics of this lobby begs the question as to whether the lobby is representative.

In those circumstances society must ask itself a threshold question. Is this the type of behaviour we as a society would wish to promote or encourage?

As a society we should and largely do condemn violence, hatred and vilification regardless of its motivation. That is not the issue. The issue is do we consider certain lifestyles desirable and worthy of encouragement and affirmation or do we learn the lesson of history and all the major religions of the world.

Some will say these are moral issues and individuals ought to be allowed to pursue their own lifestyles.

However conflicts arise with those who would wish to pursue their own religious lifestyle, for example. An individual is not an island. They are a part of their society. Their individual conduct does not occur in isolation. It has an influence and impact on society as a whole.

I fully respect and acknowledge that my other Committee colleagues have not been privy to the private briefings that I was privileged to receive. The people that did share their life experience exposed their very soul and vulnerability describing intimate details of their lives. It was an honour to be trusted with this highly personal and sensitive information.

Their advice to me is that the legislation should not proceed. The voice of these people needs to be given an avenue for expression. These additional comments are designed to provide that avenue.

ERIC ABETZ

Liberal Senator for Tasmania