Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the Senate for the opportunity to make some brief remarks this evening. There have been a number of motions in relation to gender dysphoria since I started in this Senate in 2019, and I've always voted in the same way. I've always been of the view that these are the most sensitive issues and we're talking about the most sensitive and vulnerable parts of our community. I welcome the opportunity to make some remarks rather than just vote one way or the other.

Very recently, the coalition was in government and the then health minister, Greg Hunt, was asked about these matters. He said, 'In recognition of the risks of further harm to young people, the government does not intend to establish a national inquiry on this matter.' That has been our starting position as a political movement, and I think it reflects the great sensitivity here. It also of course reflects the jurisdictional issues which are essential in any discussion of these matters. The jurisdictional issue I refer to is that these are matters which are dealt with by the state health departments. These are matters of state and territory law. The Australian Senate is not the arbiter of gender dysphoria policy and law; that is the preserve of the state and territory legislatures and their health departments.

I fear greatly that an already-vulnerable community is going to be subject to more unnecessary politicisation of these issues. I would say that there certainly are people in this chamber who have genuine concerns about these issues who would like to have a reasonable discussion about them. But it is not true, and it is not reasonable, to invoke parents in the way that it has been by some. Parents who have been connected to children who have gender dysphoria have different views about these matters, but I think they are almost all united in their belief that these matters should not be politicised—that they should not be weaponised by politicians. And they would be united in their view that even if they thought there should be an inquiry—and I note that there are parents who believe there should be inquiries into these matters—that the inquiry should be conducted by bureaucrats, by health officials and by people who are working in the jurisdiction, not by people who are seeking to make other, perhaps political, points.

Of course, the jurisdictional issues are important here and the Commonwealth doesn't have a day-to-day role in them other than in relation to family law, where family law cases have made it very clear that nothing can happen unless there is parental consent. That is established under the family law arrangements through the Imogen case. But I'll reiterate this point: this is about the way the states and the territories run their own affairs, it is not about the Commonwealth parliament. So the terms of reference here, I would say, are not balanced. They already present a view and, as a Liberal, I would say strongly that they violate the federalist principles that I think are very important here. That's particularly so with term of reference (e), which proposes that the Commonwealth takes a broader role here. The natural extension of this point is that the Commonwealth will be running state and territory health policy, and that is not the appropriate thing for us to be doing here. Australians already know that we are overgoverned. If there is a problem with a state or territory law then that should be taken to the state or territory jurisdiction.

So what should happen next in relation to these sensitive matters? I believe that people who are coming to this with an open mind, or who want to undertake a good-faith inquiry, should be given options to do that. I don't think we should be closing down inquiries for the sake of closing down an inquiry. I think that genuine issues should be investigated. No-one is suggesting that things should be pushed under the carpet. Where would these issues go, bearing in mind the extreme sensitivity and the heightened suicide risk that everyone in this debate accepts? Everyone in this debate accepts that these are the Australians who are most likely to take their own lives, so therefore surely this demands the greatest degree of sensitivity. I would have thought it would be something that the state health ministers could come together and look at, or that it could be something, if it were really necessary, that the Commonwealth health minister could discuss with their counterpart in the other party of government—the alternative government. I think bipartisanship on these matters would always be essential, because there is a risk that some of these US style culture wars on these matters could be introduced into our jurisdiction, which could make a very sensitive situation with a very vulnerable community much worse.

I'm sure everyone tries to do the right thing when they come into this place. But I am convinced that it would not be the right thing to subject an already very vulnerable community to an inquiry which the health officials and the doctors and physicians have all said would not be appropriate, as it would provide a platform for politicisation and weaponisation of these issues.

By all means, let's look at issues where they need to be examined, but let's do it in the right way. These are matters of state and territory law; therefore, the obvious place for these matters to be assessed, in a calm and measured and, frankly, private way, would be through the state and territory jurisdictions. If people would like to engage on that, I am very happy to have a discussion, but it's got to be balanced.

I will be voting against this motion when it comes up tomorrow because I do not believe it is the appropriate place and avenue for such a debate.