Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 4 September 2023:

Treatment options for children and young people with gender dysphoria in Australia, with particular reference to:

(a) whether children are being rushed into gender reassignment treatment, as has been suggested by University of Queensland Law Professor Patrick Parkinson;

(b) whether psychiatrists, such as Dr Jillian Spencer, a senior staff specialist in the Queensland Children's Hospital's consultation liaison psychiatry team, who question the use of puberty blockers without an appropriate mental health assessment, are being silenced;

(c) whether children are being over-diagnosed with gender dysphoria without proper consultation or mental health assessment;

(d) whether Australia should follow the United Kingdom and many European countries in adopting a more cautious approach to the prescription of puberty blocking drugs, amid concerns the evidence base for their efficacy is lacking;

(e) whether the Commonwealth should take a greater oversight and regulatory role in the prescription of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to children, following the admission from the Federal Government that it has no idea how widely the drugs are being prescribed off-label for gender dysphoria; and

(f) any other related matters.

I hope that the Senate will listen to what I have to say, as well as all those who have contacted our offices to tell us of the growing concern they have.

A growing chorus of experts in Australia are speaking out against gender dysphoria treatment, at great risk to their jobs and reputation, and are revealing the harm it causes children. A growing number of Australian parents are feeling completely powerless against it. A growing chorus of experts overseas are warning of its consequences. Countries held up by the Australian Left as progressive, like Sweden and Finland, are restricting it. After a broad inquiry which found little evidence supporting it, the United Kingdom has virtually stopped it. The rapid increase in the number of Australian children being prescribed puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to treat gender dysphoria deserves a comprehensive inquiry by this parliament. Last year, a freedom-of-information request revealed the alarming increase in this phenomenon. It revealed a 10-fold increase in the number of Australian children enrolled in public adolescent gender clinics from 2014 to 2021. It revealed more than a seven-fold increase in the number of adolescents receiving cross-sex hormone treatments over the same period. Of greatest concern, it revealed a more than 100-fold increase in the number of children being prescribed puberty blockers. These were just the public figures. The numbers are certainly much higher when children being treated by GPs in private clinics are included.

This controversy has been raised recently by Queensland paediatrician Dr Dylan Wilson, who has called for an immediate halt to those treatments being carried out by the Queensland Children's Gender Service. He has called for an immediate investigation into the process of diagnosis and treatment at the clinic. In a letter to the chief executive of Children's Health Queensland, Dr Wilson noted:

The evolution of the treatment of gender-questioning children and adolescents over the last three years has been exponential …

He said:

… despite these developments … it continues to operate in the same manner as it has always done with little or no regard for the evolution of information in the area of clinical practice.

He said that, in doing so, the service was 'conducting poor quality medicine lacking evidence base, that is causing harm to children'. Just sit back and absorb that for a moment. A leading paediatrician is saying these treatments are harming children. This man is not an idealist, a politician or a media commentator; he is an expert on children's health. He said:

There is no evidence of benefit for the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for gender-questioning children and there never has been …

The Queensland Children's Gender Service has almost 1,000 kids on its books and has the nation's highest rates of cross-sex hormone prescriptions. These are being given to children as young as 14, despite conclusive clinical evidence that they cause permanent long-term health impacts, such as osteoporosis, impaired fertility and sexual function, negative impacts on brain development and increased risks of hypertension, cardiovascular disease, obesity, high cholesterol and diabetes.

I also refer to an article published this month in the Australian by Professor Patrick Parkinson. Professor Parkinson is an emeritus professor of law at the University of Queensland and the former chair of the Family Law Council. He has called this rapid rise of so-called gender-affirming care 'a public health crisis caused not by a virus, not by a disease, but by a social contagion'. He noted that anyone who raises concern about this issue is shouted down and vilified. He's absolutely right because that's exactly what happened to me when I raised this matter in the Senate last year. He notes that it's true that a very small number of people genuinely suffer from gender dysphoria, which is resolved only with cross-sex hormones and risky surgery. He also noted that this fact has been seized upon and used to build an intricate web of lies and falsehoods, such as the disproved notion that 'there are not just two sexes, or that it is actually possible to change sex or be "non-binary"' and 'that every child has an innate gender identity that awaits discovery'. It is this web of lies that effectively forms the basis of the so-called gender affirmation approach that is followed by children's gender clinics across Australia. It's nonsense and it's not supported by the scientific or the clinical evidence.

Professor Parkinson also noted that politicians have embraced this new faith, without evidence. So have I: the usual suspects in Labor, the Greens and the coalition proved that last year in rejecting my motion for an inquiry—not all the coalition; there were some that have common sense and did support my motion. But it was all of Labor and the Greens and some of the crossbench as well, to name Senator David Pocock as one. Politicians in this country have actually passed laws supporting this new faith, effectively criminalising any other approach to supporting vulnerable children, and even preventing parents from trying to help their own children in other ways. As the professor pointed out, fashionable but unsupported ideas about gender don't really matter if they do no harm. But this is causing harm. Children are being harmed, and families are being torn apart.

Earlier this year I met some mothers who had gone through this with their children. It has been a wrenching, traumatic process for all of them. They've seen their children influenced by teachers, peers and social media into believing all their problems will be solved by switching genders. This gender affirmation ideology has all the hallmarks of a crazy cult: capturing impressionable minds, isolating them from their families and ultimately destroying their lives.

One mother's tale bears repeating. She took her young teenage daughter's gender-questioning very seriously and sought all the psychiatric and psychological help she could. These experts couldn't compete with the indoctrination this poor girl was getting in her classes, in the schoolyard and on the internet. The girl, aged only 14, decided she was a boy trapped in a girl's body and demanded gender-affirming treatment. Her mother did all the research she could, consulting the same experts she had asked to help her daughter. Life at home became unbearable, as her daughter grew increasingly estranged as she underwent appalling changes to her body, thanks to cross-sex hormones. Now 21, this young woman has completed her transition, although she is bound to a lifetime of cross-sex hormone treatments. And she is bitterly unhappy. She is now so depressed about how she looks that she only leaves her home a few times a year, deeply disguised. Her family has been torn apart. I ask you: How was she any different from the generations of Australian teenagers who have been depressed or confused as they enter puberty? How was she any different from them in seeking the approval of her peers and society at large and in seeking the attention that all teenagers need as they approach the dawning prospect of adulthood? She wasn't. The difference was that she's part of a generation that is being used to push a political agenda that is supported and promoted by many senators in this chamber.

As Professor Parkinson and Dr Wilson have said, this issue deserves the closest public scrutiny. They have been joined by the National Association of Practising Psychiatrists, no less, in calling for an inquiry. Families that have been caused to suffer by this cult deserve the opportunity to tell their stories. If you oppose this, you are a science denier. If you oppose this, you are deliberately ignoring experts who know a great deal more about it than you do. If you oppose this, you are telling these Australian families you don't care about their trauma. You will be telling these families you don't care about their children. You will be telling these families you care more about your political agenda than the wellbeing of the most vulnerable people in our Australian society.

I ask: what are you afraid of? What is the problem? Are you afraid of the evidence that will emerge to expose this cult for what it is? You are afraid you'll be exposed as complicit in the experimentation which has been proven to destroy lives. Mark my words: if you deny this inquiry, you will not escape accountability because the Australian people are actually demanding answers to this, as did those mothers who walked the halls of this Parliament House at the end of last year. When they came to me, I said, 'What reaction have you had?' 'Great reaction from the senators; they are all in support of a Senate inquiry.'

This is not a bill; it is a Senate inquiry to give these people the opportunity to have their say to tell us what is actually happening out there with their children. You are not asking me the questions. I am just putting forward on behalf of the people that I represent that they want to have a voice. They want to be able to put their stories across. Their children's lives have been destroyed. They have lost control of their children, and you will not give them this. Labor voted against it last time, and the Greens fully voted against this as well. So did some on the crossbench.

Oh, yes, and your comment, Senator McKim, is exactly the same, and you will do exactly the same again in pushing your own agenda. You don't care about the children of this nation, you don't care about the families, and these people want to have a voice and a say. There is no problem with having an investigation. You might have your own issues. No-one is saying to you that you can't stop your children from having puberty blockers and the rest of it. But give the parents an opportunity to have their say and tell us the impact it's had on their lives. There is nothing wrong with giving people a say on this. It appals me that you do not understand. You are not here to be a voice of the people of this nation who are crying out for something to be done about this. They want to be heard—that is all they want—so just give them the opportunity to have this Senate inquiry so that they can actually be heard and then make up your minds. Let the report come down, and then put it to the whole parliament. There's nothing wrong with asking for that for these people calling on us to do this.

The whole country is going woke, and it is just ridiculous the way we are going. Many people ring me up and say: 'What the hell is happening? Is it in the water in the Canberra bubble? What is on the minds of these politicians that they can't understand what is happening out here in our communities to our children, in our schools in what we teach the kids, in what we are telling the young ones and all the rest of it?' Keep your LGBTIQ to yourself behind your own bloody closed doors. Leave the children alone. They don't have a right to be put through your sense of what you want to say through the teachers and everyone. Leave the children alone. This is to do with things happening in their own homes, not you pushing your own agenda on innocent children's minds for what they should be or whether they are a girl or a boy. I have never heard of anything so disgusting in all my life as what is happening in our schools now to our young innocent children. I call on the chamber: please consider this motion. It is not a bill. It is about giving the people of Australia the opportunity to have their say.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All Australians deserve access to the health care that they need, including children, young people and their families. And it is important that each child and family, including transgender and gender diverse children, have access to the care and support that they need for the best possible health outcome now and in the future. Many of the matters contained in these proposed terms of reference are a matter for state and territory governments. The governance of hospitals is a prime example. Additionally, many of the matters contained in these proposed terms of reference question the expertise of clinicians who in treating their patients utilise their clinical judgement to provide appropriate support and care.

But I think we can see, from the comments made just now, that this motion is not about ensuring appropriate support and care. It is instead about establishing a platform that will inevitably be used by people with extreme views who would do harm to a vulnerable patient group, their families and their loved ones. These children need care and support, not a parliamentary inquiry. This view is shared by the community as well as medical experts in this field. As was noted back in November in response to a similar motion, advice has been received from the royal Australian college of physicians which said that a national inquiry 'would not increase the scientific evidence available regarding gender dysphoria but would further harm vulnerable patients and their families'.

We are talking about a population that experiences very high levels of suicidality; up to one in two have attempted suicide. The politicisation of their health care is not beneficial to anyone. The Senate dealt with the matter of an inquiry on this topic in November last year and again in March of this year as an MPI. It is clear that the Senate does not support an inquiry. The government will oppose this motion, and I urge the Senate to reject it.

Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank Senator McAllister for her very considered words on this very sensitive issue. And I will be brief. I just want to put on the record, though, why my colleagues and I will actually be supporting this motion, and it's not for all of the reasons that Senator Hanson has explained; it's about understanding the committee process in this place and that the committee this would be referred to is actually chaired, as I understand it, by Senator Rice from the Greens.

I want to put on the record my understanding and support for this small and vulnerable community. Indeed, I know people from this community who live in regional areas and have additional challenges, such as access to support services and these specialist clinicians. I support an inquiry to help in the education process as well so that people understand some of the points that Senator McAllister raised. But I also want to reassure people that in Australia we do provide holistic clinical services to young people and we do listen to their families, because Australia is different. My understanding of the current situation is that families and parents are still very much involved and part of the process, and maybe we need to highlight that a little bit more because there is a lot of misinformation on these issues.

I also want to reassure not just families and the wider community at large but also myself that we don't have issues like those that have been discovered in other nations. I will quote from the Cass review, which was commissioned in September 2020, into the Tavistock clinic in the United Kingdom. I am fully aware that, yes, the clinic was initially due to be closed by a court, but then that ruling was overturned by a superior court. I acknowledge that. But the UK government has now determined that Tavistock, as a standalone clinic by itself, is going to close in a transitioned manner, that two clinics will then open up—one in the north, one in the south—and that a lot of the issues identified in the Cass report must be acknowledged and actually addressed with the new clinics. Dr Cass found that, once patients are identified as having gender related distress, other healthcare issues they have—such as being neurodivergent—can sometimes be overlooked. I believe through an inquiry I can reassure myself and we can reassure the wider community that that isn't happening in Australia and that we are ensuring that our young people who come forward with gender distress actually get the full range of supports—that they get to talk to psychologists, get assessed, talk to specialist GPs and fully understand the risks and the positive benefits of the choices that they are making—and their parents are with them all the way.

I know that, for the gender-diverse kids who live in the regions and the families of those children, this is not an issue they take lightly. This is not an issue where someone just wakes up in the morning. This is something that families work through. It is a journey. It is a long process. The trans kids I know are absolutely remarkable. They are brave, they are strong and they are proud people. I applaud them, but I also know that they have had a lot of family support and a lot of medical and specialist support. I just think that, by supporting this inquiry, we'll actually enable a lot of those stories to come out as well. So my colleagues and I will be supporting this inquiry, but we will also accept the will of the Senate.

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against this motion. This divisive, cynical and hateful exercise ignores reality and it throws mud onto kids, their families and members of the LGBTQIA+ community. We have seen, time and time again, the hateful minority that beats the drums of transphobia outclassed and outnumbered. They have no home in this parliament, and they have no home in the Australian community.

Access to health care for young people who are suffering gender dysphoria and an increase in them accessing those services is a good thing. It means that young people are getting the medical care and support that they need. We know that young people who suffer gender dysphoria are at extremely high risk of suicide. Why would we want to stop those young people from accessing good-quality medical care that keeps them safe? I didn't hear a story before about a family torn apart by a young person accessing gender-affirming treatment. What I heard was a horrible story about a young person who was seeking treatment whose family couldn't or wouldn't accept them for who they were.

We don't need an inquiry for young people and their families to get the information that they need about this type of health care. That is a matter for the young person, their family and their doctors. If we adhere to the principle 'do no harm' then we won't subject young people who are suffering from gender dysphoria to an inquiry that will give space for people who are filled with hate and bigotry to politicise them and who they are.

I stand here with the Greens because we believe that better things are possible. We believe that this community cares about other people and that, outside this place, people have genuine empathy for and care about the experience of others. We believe that better things are possible, because there is no future in hate. We will continue to fight for and defend those marginalised by this rhetoric that only seeks to divide. We know that the majority of Australians support trans people and support trans kids. As allies, the Greens will continue to stand up and show up for trans kids and trans people of all ages. In the face of this hatred, trans campaigners and allies still outnumber the bigots. Trans kids unequivocally deserve our love and support. As a teacher, I know kids. I appreciate their wit and their humour. I understand their fears and their anxieties. I know that they can and should be trusted. We must continue to affirm and celebrate trans kids, ensuring that they feel loved, supported and safe in our schools, our workplaces, our parliaments and our community.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just for the awareness of the Senate, I won't make a long contribution. I just want to acknowledge the very genuine care and concern from all those that have raised contributions on this issue so far because it is a sensitive matter and I respect that. I respect that on this matter there are differing views across the chamber.

On our side, we are having a conscience vote on this. I thought it was appropriate that I declare my reasons for voting the way that I will be. I will be supporting this reference because it is simply just a reference. I think the terms that have been put out by Senator Hanson are reasonable. There are significant issues in this area. I think it's worthwhile taking a look at it. It is not subject matter that I'm in any way an expert on. I certainly don't profess that. I don't have a health background. While I was a youth worker many years ago, I wasn't a youth worker working in this particular space. But I think there are some serious issues that are occurring.

I'm particularly interested in the inquiry, if it goes ahead, taking a look at the evidence from overseas and particularly the United Kingdom and European countries that seem to have a more cautious approach to this issue. I think if we are a mature body we should be able to have an inquiry into this issue and deal with it in a way that is beneficial to children.

I am concerned by what does seem to be a real rise in the number of children that are presenting with gender dysphoria. I'm not sure, necessarily, of the origins of that. But in the reports that I've seen for even my own home state of Western Australia the number of hospitalisations related to this matter has gone up rather exponentially. So I think it's worthy of us to have a mature investigation into this.

It is simply just a reference; there is not a value judgement necessarily placed on it by way of the words in the terms of this particular reference. It would be a reference that I would like to participate in as a participating senator to learn and certainly get evidence that could go towards assisting the community. So I commend it to the Senate and hope that we can support this reference into a very, very important issue that does seem to be on the rise.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Trans and gender-diverse young people need our love, they need our care and they need access to the health support that they need in their lives. This reference, if it went ahead, would be an opportunity to continue to demonise trans and gender-diverse young people, and that is the last thing that they need. In 2020, then health minister Greg Hunt asked for and received advice from the Royal Australasian College of Physicians regarding the care and treatment of trans and gender-diverse children and adolescents, including those seeking medical intervention. The advice from the experts was that gender-affirming health care for trans and gender-diverse young people should be a national priority and that withholding or limiting access to care and treatment would be unethical and would have serious impacts on the health and wellbeing of young people.

It supported the principles underlying the current guidelines—that is, what was being done at that moment was appropriate and, as long as we had continuing investment to meet the needs, that the treatment of trans and gender-diverse young people was being supported. Advice was given under a proposal at that stage that there should be an inquiry, and they essentially said there was no need for an inquiry. What is needed is more resources to accommodate and to treat and appropriately care for the number of trans and gender-diverse young people who are presenting for treatment, absolutely. The number of trans and gender-diverse young people who are presenting for treatment has increased, as more young people are aware of the fact that they are trans or gender diverse or non-binary, or they're questioning their gender.

Go back 50 years and consider how many people in the Australian community identified as being same-sex attracted. It was very few because of the demonisation of people who were gay, lesbian or bisexual, and so anybody who felt that way felt that they had to hide it away from everyone. No way would people come out and be open to their families, to their friends, to their community, and so, not surprisingly, the number who identified as same-sex attracted was tiny. I now want to take you forward to when my wife, Penny, who sadly passed away 3½ years ago, transitioned. At that stage, which was in the early 2000s, while she was exploring her gender identity, she knew next to no-one who was transgender or gender diverse. Her experience up until then—and she was in her mid-40s by that stage—was that she was the only person like herself in the world, essentially. There were a few individuals she knew of, but there was a sense that this was really, really weird. She had suffered her whole life, questioning her gender identity, being put in a box and not being able to be the person she was. It was at that stage that information about trans issues was becoming more accessible with the rise of the internet, and so she discovered that there were actually quite a lot of other people like her. She then managed to explore her gender identity. She transitioned and she flourished—she absolutely flourished.

The rise in the number of young people seeking support is a reflection of the fact that people now know that this is a thing, and that, if they are questioning their gender identity and they want to affirm their gender as not their biological sex, that is possible and that they will be happier people for it. There was a 2022 study, so just last year, that found that access to gender-affirming care was associated with improved mental health outcomes among trans and gender-diverse young people. Access to gender-affirming care, including puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones, was associated with 60 per cent lower odds of moderate or severe depression and 73 per cent lower odds of suicidality over a 12 month follow-up. In short, when young people are able to access the health care they need, their lives are improved because of it.

This referral that we have before us today is coming from a position that demonises trans and gender-diverse people. It is coming from a position that it is a really negative thing that there's an increase in the number of trans and gender-diverse people, and I reject that entirely. I am saddened by the level of hatred and vitriol that is still there towards trans and gender-diverse young people. This is the stuff that does the harm. This is the stuff that makes people feel that they are not welcome. This is the stuff that makes people feel that society does not want them and they have got to hide their true identity, and some of them think that life is not worth living. We do not need another inquiry that is just going to come from this frame of negative attack on trans and gender-diverse people. It would be incredibly damaging, and even though I welcome the contributions that say it will come to my committee so everything is going to be okay, that's not going to be the case. It would be a platform for the bigots, a platform for hate, a platform for harming for so any people, and that is not what is needed. What is needed is to have the health care and the support to show trans and gender-diverse people that they are loved, that they are accepted by society, that their identities are absolutely valid and that they should be celebrated. The Greens want that to occur. We want to work with everyone in this place to realise the importance of that and to realise the value to young people, in particular, of being able to be the people that they really know that they are.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I support Senator Hanson's motion to refer the issue of treatment options for young people with gender dysphoria to an inquiry. It's a simple fact that the model of gender affirmation is completely experimental, and that's at best. More likely, it's mutilation and debasement of children. Gender affirmation treatment is putting children who feel confusion about their gender at a young age on the pathway to life-altering hormone blockers and irreversible surgery. It's butchery when children need something else.

People seem to have difficulty accepting this, but some feelings of confusion are completely normal as teenagers make their way through puberty and experience many new changes to their bodies. Left alone or dealt with by counselling and therapy—and love, in the severe cases—these feelings almost always resolve themselves. That is fact. Children need love, compassion, support and respect.

I have a relative who had gender dysphoria much of her life. She contemplated gender surgery. She decided to start the process. She made the decision, and, before doing so, she decided she would not adopt chemicals or surgery. She and her doctor wife came to accept her dysphoria. They are now proud parents of a lovely young child, and we accept and love her regardless of her decision. I have a friend who did change gender the opposite way, from male to female—another lovely person. These people need to be accepted, but children need support, counselling and love, not chemicals and scalpels.

As I said, the alternative to this gender affirmation is leaving kids to work through their issues lovingly, with support, counselling and therapy. The alternative is gender affirmation. Gender affirmation involves telling children that sex is just an arbitrary concept—that's a lie—and that you can choose to be a boy or a girl whenever you want; with a click of the fingers, you can change teams with little to no consequence. Introducing this idea around the time of puberty and of other feelings of confusion is a dangerous, risky cocktail. Right at the time children are feeling most confused, they're told that nothing is real and that everything will be fixed if they simply switch teams. The gender affirmation witchdoctors won't tell children that fully committing to pretending to be a boy or a girl, if they weren't born that way, simply isn't simple. Basic biology gets in the way.

The only way to try and eventually effect this change is through a potent, permanent and dangerous cocktail of drugs, they are told, often prescribed off label in addition to permanent, irreversible surgery to lop off bits of people's bodies. Gender affirmation advocates claim these treatments are reversible. That is a lie. Many children who were pressured into the gender affirmation pathway are coming to regret those choices as adults. De-transitioners are a growing community of adults who now find they will never fully embody their target gender yet are unable to return to the gender they were born due to the irreversible effects of gender affirmation drugs and surgeries. Instead, they're left dependent on expensive cocktails of gender hormone drugs for the rest of their lives.

The real winner out of the gender affirmation pathway is big pharma, being delivered waves upon waves of medication-dependent consumers for life. It's worth billions of dollars, despite the small number of people. The victims of the gender affirmation pathway, though, are left destitute, with no accountability for the outcomes that extremists in the gender cult pushed onto them from an adolescent age—extremists like senators in this chamber—for whatever reason.

It's important to keep in mind the issue that's trying to be fixed here: feelings of confusion or stress in children going through adolescence. There's no longitudinal evidence that the gender affirmation pathway leading to gender reassignment fixes the core issue. There's much evidence that it does not and that it does enormous harm. In fact, the transgender community is at the highest risk of suicide of nearly any community in the world. Why? Because so many young people come to regret their change and are trapped—trapped for life, in being unable to change back to their birth gender, which they've come to accept. They are trapped for life, unable to have children themselves, unable to live a normal life and regretting their decision for the rest of their life because they made their decision as an impressionable child. Whether they're simply predisposed to psychological distress or that distress is created or compounded by the failed gender affirmation pathway is difficult to say. What can be said, however, is that if reassignment surgeries and drugs are meant to be a cure for psychological distress in children, they have absolutely and obviously failed. They're failing many, many children.

The truth is that putting children on the gender affirmation pathway is a pathway to butchering people for no healthy clinical outcome. Many medical whistleblowers have raised these concerns. I'll say that again: many medical whistleblowers have raised these concerns, yet have been shouted down by the powerful big pharma and transgender cult that holds power at the moment. The United Kingdom has seen this problem and lived this problem. After whistleblowers blew the lid on medical abuse happening at Tavistock gender clinic, the entire clinic was shut down—the entire clinic that was once held up on a pillar and treated as a god. Now it's facing class action suits and people are recognising the hideous crimes that they have committed.

At the very least, these issues need to be referred to a committee for inquiry. Those who support the gender affirmation pathway shouldn't be afraid of the truth through an inquiry. What's wrong with knowledge? If I'm wrong, then an inquiry will prove you right. Of what are you lot afraid? Greens use labels. Labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the dishonest or the fearful. They support big pharma. Please stop demonising children with gender dysphoria and those who have a different view. I suspect the gender cult knows that the truth is not on their side and that's why they're running scared of looking underneath the hood on this issue—an issue affecting children.

One Nation will stand against sending children down a path of drug dependency and body mutilation to appease the gender cult. I'm never caught up in gender, race or national heritage. Every human, regardless of skin colour, for example, and regardless of heritage, has red blood running through their veins—every single human. We are one. I am very, very pro-human. Send this to an inquiry and get to the facts and find out what will actually help children. Until then, leave our kids alone.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to make a few brief remarks. The fundamental issue that is at the heart of a matter like this is the wellbeing of children and young people. It must be of paramount concern. The motion before this chamber proposing an inquiry deals, in particular, with children and young people with gender dysphoria.

'Gender dysphoria' is acknowledged by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians as a term used to describe the distress experienced by a person due to incongruence between their gender identity and sex assigned at birth. The College of Physicians notes that it is generally diagnosed at clinical interview rather than self-defined. We are talking very specifically here about a category of children and young people who are diagnosed with a distress, and a distress that is further recognised by the College of Physicians as being one where:

Children and adolescents with gender dysphoria are a very vulnerable population, experiencing stigma and extremely high rates of depression, self-harm, attempted suicide and suicide.

This is why these issues should be handled with the utmost care and sensitivity.

I appreciate that some people, those who genuinely approach these issues with pure intentions, can absolutely come to different conclusions about the proposal that is before this Senate. I respect those who come to it with the purest of motivations and intentions, but I do also urge them to think very carefully about whether this proposal for a public inquiry of this nature is the right approach to handle a matter of such extreme and serious sensitivity.

I have seen motions of this nature come to the chamber before, over recent years. They have done so on numerous occasions. Again, I acknowledge that many who have voted for them have done so with the best of intentions. But I have been clearly guided by the position taken by the health minister of the previous government, Greg Hunt. Minister Hunt was very clear in his view that we needed to approach these issues with caution, with sensitivity and with concern to ensure that the actions of parliament or government did not cause further harm to a highly vulnerable population. I am clear in my view that the risks associated with the type of parliamentary inquiry proposed would outweigh any benefits of undertaking such an inquiry. I am sure—as with any field of science and medical study and research for which there is a growing body of knowledge, but from limited beginnings—that there is still much to be learned in this space and that there are still improvements to be made in the type of clinical guidance that can be provided and the type of treatments that are offered. It is essential that medical practitioners and those responsible for setting clinical guidance are absolutely consistent and persistent in the approach they take to ensuring that the type of support provided to children and young people with gender dysphoria is best practice according to the knowledge available at all times.

When former minister Hunt considered these matters and asked the Royal Australasian College of Physicians for advice, they came back very clearly identifying what they saw as being important ways forward for support. They indicated that, firstly, the Australian government should work with states and territories to improve access to and consistency of care both within and across jurisdictions. They identified deficits in relation to rural and regional access to appropriate support and care. They acknowledged there were differences in some states and territories and that ensuring that jurisdictions across Australia were pursuing best-practice outcomes was an important undertaking. Secondly, they suggested that the government consider coordinating and providing funding for research on the long-term outcomes associated with the care and treatment of gender dysphoria. This is an entirely logical recommendation and suggestion—noting, as I said, that evidence is certainly not at a point where people could say it is concluded, but, frankly, nor could you say that about most areas of medical research and treatment, where we are always striving to see and achieve advances in relation to those areas of treatment and research. The third recommendation of the RACP was to facilitate the development of evidence based information aligned to current guidelines, to be made available to all patients and to all families to ensure support for fully informed consent and engagement in relation to these matters.

These are important principles that I would urge the current government to ensure that it is working with health ministers from around the country to act upon and to deliver upon, because it's important that the Australian standards of care and treatment guidelines for trans and gender-diverse children and adolescents are at the highest practice possible; that they do provide for the best interests of those children and young people; that they do support outcomes that ensure their wellbeing for the future; and that, in doing that, they are cautious and careful to ensure that, whether it is treatment or non-treatment that occurs, whether there is action or inaction, all of those steps are undertaken in the best interests of those young Australians, of those young people, and their health—physical health and mental health and wellbeing.

I expect that there will be further changes in relation to the guidance of such treatment time and time again in years to come as, indeed, medical science, research and evidence evolve and change. But I do not believe that a committee of senators, however well intentioned some who might participate in that inquiry would be, are the best people to try to define those treatments or those approaches. I believe our medical practitioners, our researchers and our scientists are best placed to do that, under the same type of guidance, policies and settings that we apply to the treatment of many other—any other—types of issues that people face in their lives.

I particularly note, given the vulnerabilities that young people face—the vulnerabilities, in particular, that those with gender dysphoria face—the advice of the RACP:

The RACP notes that there are substantial dangers posed by some of the proposals that have been put forward during the recent public debate on this issue, such as holding a national inquiry into the issue.

The RACP went on and said very bluntly and directly:

A national inquiry would not increase the scientific evidence available regarding gender dysphoria but would further harm vulnerable patients and their families through increased media and public attention.

That should be a guiding statement for all of us. Will passing this motion increase the scientific evidence available regarding gender dysphoria? No, it will not. But could the publicity that comes with such an inquiry see some of the most vulnerable Australians face significant additional stress in their lives—stress that all too often leads to worse mental health outcomes, to suicide attempts and, ultimately, to suicide? Yes, potentially, it could. That is what should guide us in terms of the approach to this motion.

We should hold the colleges of medicine and we should hold our researchers—we should hold all—to a very high standard. There are means to ensure that they are scrutinised, that our health officials are scrutinised, through the regular processes of this chamber. There are means for committees to seek private briefings and information without necessarily needing to initiate an inquiry but to actually go and seek that information and advice for their scrutiny and knowledge and to inform their deliberations simply as a committee. But, as the RACP said in their advice to Minister Hunt at the time, considerations of care and treatment of medical conditions should be based on medical evidence and advice from medical and other health professionals, who have specific expertise in the condition in question.

Members of this chamber do not have specific expertise in the condition in question. We come to public policy issues variously well intentioned, with some sometimes seeking to achieve publicity or other outcomes too. But, on an issue like this, with the sensitivity attached to it, we should heed the warnings that are given. I encourage senators to do as I will do, which will be to vote against this motion. This is not because I do not recognise that there are concerns in parts of society—I do recognise those concerns—and not because I believe that everything is perfect in relation to the treatment of gender dysphoria at present—I'm sure it is not—but because I believe that, through enhanced knowledge and research, we will see continued improvements. But I do not believe that the type of scrutiny proposed through this committee inquiry referral would provide for improved outcomes. I am convinced that it could risk the lives of some young Australians. Therefore, I will be opposing this motion.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've listened to some of the speeches in support of this motion. I've listened to Senator Hanson's speech. I've listened to Senator Roberts's speech. I've listened to other speeches from that side—not all of them, but most of them. I think some of them were actually made in good faith, and I want to acknowledge that. I'll address first those that I think were made in good faith, and say that, very clearly, if we were to proceed with this proposal, it would undoubtedly cause a lot of harm to a lot of people who deserve our love and support rather than us voting in this place to provide a platform for hatred and bigotry and harm. Make no mistake, that is exactly what those who are supporting this proposal would be voting for.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order, Senator Hanson?

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That language that you used there, 'hatred and bigotry' and all the rest of it, I think is a reflection on me, having moved this motion.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was no direct reflection. It certainly could be inferred, but it wasn't direct, so I can't pull up Senator McKim on that. But I will ask him to consider the impact of his words, given that this chamber is a place where people with different views should be able to present those views without being attacked or imputations being made, and then the chamber can vote. That is how democracy works.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, there is no doubt in my mind that, if the Senate was to agree with the proposal put forward by Senator Hanson, the effect of that would be to provide a platform for hatred and bigotry, and that would absolutely, without any question, result in significant harm to people who actually deserve our support and our love and our care and deserve to have us join them in a celebration of who they are as humans.

I haven't reflected at all on Senator Hanson, but I will come to Senator Hanson's arguments in a minute, and I'm glad she's here to listen to them. Before I do that, I want to say a couple of things quite clearly. Trans men are men. Trans women are women. Trans rights are human rights. Trans people need our love, our acceptance and our support, and they need us to celebrate with them who they are as human beings. I want to talk about my amazing stepson, Jasper Lees, who is a young trans man. I want to allow Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts, who for some reason is sitting there smirking at me right now, to share a bit of Jasper's journey—

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKim, you cannot make comments on other senators in that way.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was my privilege to be able to share a part of his journey with him—his transition with him. It was one of the most amazing learning experiences of my life, and I really want to thank Jasper for allowing me to share so closely with him that time in his life. Recently, Jasper wrote an article that was published by the Guardian, and I just want to place a couple of things that he said in that article on the record here in the Senate today. He said this:

There were two options for me as I grew up and had no choice but to accept my identity—I could die or find a way to live as Jasper.

'I could die or find a way to live as Jasper.' He said:

I did not want to die but I was terrified of how difficult transition would be. No two gender-diverse people trek the same transition path—

and that's one of the offensive things we've had to hear today—as if all trans people can somehow be lumped into a homogenous group, rather than being a rich and diverse cross-section of humanity, which is what they actually are. Jasper went on to say:

Waking up from general anaesthetic afterward is, and probably always will be, the happiest I have ever felt.

And I know that that's true. I know that it's true because I was able to share that with him—

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKim, reluctant as I am to interrupt what is obviously such a personal speech, the time is 7.30.