Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I want to read into the record the conclusion from a paper written by Bell Lane, who is a barrister of the Victorian Bar and who wrote a paper for the Australian family law profession called Gender questioning children and family law: an evolving landscape. I should say that, in the acknowledgements to this paper—which was released in April 2023—the barrister acknowledges the significant assistance of Professor Kasia Kozlowska, Dr Alison Clayton and Professor Patrick Parkinson, who is one of Australia's leading experts in relation to family law issues.

I'm going to read this, and I recommend this paper to everyone in this place because it does raise serious issues. I'm going to read the conclusion. These aren't my words; this is the conclusion of this paper. And the paper, I should say, is over 100 pages long. The conclusion reads:

It has not been easy to find, read, and understand all of this information. While there is easy access to information which promotes gender affirming medicalisation, it is difficult to find information about contrary views. This paper would not have been possible without the website operated by the Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine (SEGM). In a 2022 Family Law case, a treating paediatrician was critical of SEGM. I note the comments of the Westmead Hospital researchers about the politicisation of information in this area:

"The fifth challenge pertained to the issue of research. In this context, we had set up research as part of the clinic's routine activity, enabling us to contribute to the evidence base regarding children who present with gender dysphoria. In the process of writing up data from our clinic, we became aware that the process of knowledge development—ours and that of other researchers—was at risk of being thwarted by ideology (Singal, 2020). In 2019, in response to this issue, the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine was founded "to promote safe, compassionate, ethical and evidence-informed healthcare for children, adolescents, and young adults with gender dysphoria" (Society for Evidence-Based Gender, 2020)."

Unfortunately for children and young people, and families who are trying to work through complex issues around identity during a time of distress, this is a highly politicised area. Polarisation and the inability to fully discuss these issues comes at a cost, to young people and their families.

As the Westmead researchers conclude:

"One of the biggest challenges for clinicians working with children who present for assessment of gender dysphoria is the effect of polarized socio-political discourses on their daily clinical practice—

Just reflect on that: the impact of polarised sociopolitical discourses on their daily clinical practices. It goes on:

Polarization happens when people become divided in this case with reference to their views about gender dysphoria in children into sharply opposing groups. Complex phenomena are then often simplified along a single dimension that disregards other dimensions, that dismisses the lived experience of others, and that closes off questioning, hypothesizing, and consideration of, and engagement with, opposing viewpoints. We have seen these processes at work throughout our clinical practice, as described in the present article. Polarized views are unhelpful to clinicians who are at the front line trying to provide holistic clinical care to a distressed group of children and such views are just as unhelpful to the children and families themselves. To provide adequate care, clinicians need to understand and confront the complexity of the clinical presentations. They need, in particular, to use a broad, holistic, systemic (i.e., biopsychosocial) framework that takes into account the full range of interacting factors social, economic, relational, family, psychological, and biological that have defined the life circumstances of the child and the family seeking care for gender dysphoria."

The area is complex, and it is important to ensure that the child / young person, parents and the Court have all relevant information.

The author of the article then asks three questions in a family law context. I know it's not proposed to refer this matter to the legal and constitutional affairs committee, but I will read the three questions that are put in a family law context. They are:

A. Given the above, what is the status of Re Kelvin (2017) is it time for reconsideration?

B. How does the Court address keeping updated about evolving medical evidence in an adversarial system?

C. What is the obligation of treating medical professionals to bring alternate views and contrary evidence to the Court's attention?

Those are the three questions put in that article.

There are questions that need to be answered, and it is fit and proper that this place and other places consider questions. I've listened carefully to the arguments which have been made by members of the chamber on both sides of this argument, but, I think, given the evidence that we're seeing—I recommend people read this article, which I have done; it is extremely well researched and very thoughtful—that it is the time now to have an inquiry, and we need to consider it. Is this the best forum for that inquiry? I'm not sure whether or not it is. But there are certainly serious questions which are being asked, and we can't let that sociopolitical divide which is referred to in this article stop legitimate questions being asked. I think all senators need to carefully reflect on this and the pathway forward.