Alex Antic (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Childhood Gender Transition Prohibition Bill 2023 be referred to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 June 2024.

The Childhood Gender Transition Prohibition Bill 2023 was introduced into this place last year. It is a bill which seeks to prohibit health practitioners from knowingly providing gender clinical interventions to a minor that are intended to transition the minor's biological sex. What that actually looks like in practice is the process of cross-sex hormones, puberty blockers and the processes of castration, vasectomy, hysterectomy, metoidioplasty, some names I cannot even pronounce, phalloplasty, vaginoplasty or mastectomy on children. The fact that we are here today in 2024 even discussing these matters is quite astonishing. What the bill intends to do is seek to implement Australia's obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which seeks to prevent all forms of physical or mental violence, injury, abuse, neglect, negligent treatment and the like on children.

If we look to the bill itself, it appears in several parts, which are as follows. The first operative part of the bill would seek to provide prohibitions on medical practitioners from involving themselves in these particular prescriptions, surgeries or cross-sex hormones. The second part of the bill seeks to provide obligations upon the medical regulatory body to provide sanctions to medical practitioners who knowingly do that. The bill also seeks to limit or prohibit Commonwealth funding for these clinics in their entirety.

Over the past decade or so there has been a drastic increase in the number of children and teenagers voicing confusion about their gender. It's a term known as gender dysphoria. The year before last, the Daily Telegraph reported, through a freedom of information request, the frightening statistic that there were 2,067 young people attending public gender clinics in Australia in the previous year, 2021, which was almost 10 times the number in 2014, when there were only 211 children. We are talking about children. The number of under-18s being prescribed puberty suppressing drugs, coincidentally, shot up from five in 2014 to 624 in 2019. The increase in the number of young people seeking such treatment is not only related to Australia. We've all heard of the fallout from the Tavistock Centre and the number of gender dysphoria treatments in their under-18s, which had been skyrocketing prior to the clinic closing.

What is tragic in this scenario, however, is the wave of what are now known as detransitioners, children who in later life regret decisions that were made, decisions that were perhaps ill-advised or where there were other ways of dealing with them, such as through mental health care or counselling of any form. The lesson learnt from these various jurisdictions is clear: the proliferation of these drugs and surgeries will ultimately lead to an epidemic of detransitioners.

The fact that we are not talking about this in this country is staggering. We have seen several attempts in this chamber—one by me, I think one recently by One Nation and one earlier—to simply get this matter to a hearing.

This is a bill before the Australian Senate. It is deserving of a hearing. This is a very complicated and very difficult area. Even the experts agree with that. The experts agree that it actually isn't easy to find, read and understand all the information. Researchers at Westmead Hospital concluded that one of the biggest challenges for clinicians working with children who present for assessment of gender dysphoria is the effect of the polarised sociopolitical discourses in their daily clinical practice.

So, if there was ever a matter that required the caring gaze of a Senate hearing, it is this. I can almost hear the voices from the other side of the chamber, however, and our friends in the Greens. I know, because I've heard it several times already before—that this will simply traumatise children and place enormous pressure on families. We're talking about serious medical intervention in the lives of children. In most states in this country—in all states, I would say—we don't allow children to drink under the age of 18, to get tattoos when they're under 18 or to drive a car until they're 16. Yet here in Australia children as young as three years of age are being offered this kind of intervention. It is absolutely shameful. It is shameful that there isn't more protection for these children, many of whom will go on to regret what they have been involved in. It is even more shameful that the people in this chamber continually refuse to allow this matter to be properly debated as it should, in the confines and the surrounds of a Senate committee.

This is a complicated matter. We could go on and on. I will say that I expect that this will be put to a vote. I implore those in this chamber to take a different look at what we are proposing here. This is perfectly reasonable, as is the procedural request for this matter to be simply taken to a hearing, and I ask that this motion be supported.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We understand that this motion and the putting forward of this senator's bill, the Childhood Gender Transition Prohibition Bill 2023, and the request for it to go to an inquiry is put forward by those opposite couched in reasonable terms and using what sounds like reasonable language. But we know that the motivation for this is to have a public debate about some very serious issues that could have a very serious impact on some very vulnerable young people. And I want that to be made very clear. That is what we are talking about in this place. This bill is a stunt, and this inquiry would be a stunt as well. It demonstrates yet again that Peter Dutton and the LNP are absolutely hell-bent on division and—

The:

A point of order?

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Green just said that this motion is a stunt. That's imputing motive and against standing order 193.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Green, please be measured. That was an imputing of improper motive. Disagree with it, but—

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy President, if it assists the chamber, I will be as measured as I possibly can in what is a pretty inflammatory debate that's been brought forward by the senators opposite. I certainly will consider that.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To be fair to Senator Rennick: no language has been inflammatory in this particular debate.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But that's the crux of this, right?—that the language is put forward as reasonable and not inflammatory, but we understand what this is aimed at. We understand who this is aimed at. And we understand what the impacts of this will be.

I want to be very clear that health care should be between patients, their families and their doctors, and the treatment of trans and gender-diverse people, for the young person, is a matter for the young person, their families and their doctors. Children under 18 in Australia can only access transgender health care with the consent of both of their parents or through a court order. Clinical guidelines stipulate that children accessing gender affirmation treatment should be treated by a multidisciplinary team of expert clinicians, including mental health practitioners. This treatment occurs largely within hospitals under the jurisdiction of states and territories.

As government senators have outlined in response to previous attempts to refer this to inquiry, advice has been received from the Royal Australasian College of Physicians that 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 know this. We know that an inquiry of this kind would cause further harm to people who are already vulnerable.

The ABC released statistics today, and maybe the senators opposite and those on the crossbench haven't had a chance to see these statistics. They say that more than one in four trans people aged 16 to 85 have seriously thought about taking their own life at some point in their lifetime, and that's compared to one in six people who are not transgender. We are talking about a public debate about people's lives that should be confined to discussions with their health care.

This motion shows again that the Liberal Party are moving more towards right-wing populist policies rather than fact based policies that bring people together, increase wages or protect people at work. That's not what they're interested in. Peter Dutton and the LNP are all about this negativity, and they have zero plan for anything else. That's why they always put politics above helping other people.

I also say this to the senators on the crossbench who will consider this motion but not understand the context of what this motion means to other people outside of this place. This is not only the week of the Sydney Mardi Gras, a moment when the LGBTQI community celebrates but also commemorates the lives that have been lost and the laws that have been changed to decriminalise the lives that we live, but it is a week when the queer community, particularly in Sydney, is mourning the unnecessary and tragic loss of life of Jesse Baird and Luke Davies. To move this motion this week is deeply insulting. I fear these Liberal Party senators and the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, know the context and moved this motion today anyway. I urge those senators on the crossbench to acknowledge this and to stand up against this unnecessary division. I invite those Liberal senators who share these views to ensure that this motion is not moved any further. At the end of the day, we want to protect young people, and that's not what this inquiry would do. It would actually cause harm, when harm is not needed.

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

I will keep my remarks brief. I rise to support Senator Antic's motion. The Childhood Gender Transition Prohibition Bill 2023 is worthy of examination. It needs to be looked at. I think it's entirely appropriate, when bills are brought before the Senate, that they go before Senate committee inquiries. The committee is chaired by Senator Rice, who I am sure would oversee this inquiry with sensitivity, and so I wholeheartedly support—

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Marielle Smith.

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

Sorry; it's chaired by Senator Marielle Smith. Thank you, Senator Dean Smith.

The point is that we can be a mature body. We should be a mature body. When issues as important as this are brought forward, we should look at them. So I rise in support of Senator Antic's motion. The issue, of course, is deeply sensitive for some Australians. However, it must be addressed and debated without the threat of the rise of the cancel culture using emotive language that will cut across and deal with what is otherwise a very sensitive issue that parents and children are facing.

I personally struggle to understand how this issue is even up for discussion, yet here we are. We have children that are being referred to services and medical treatment that is, in many cases, irreversible. As Senator Antic was saying, a child can't vote, can't get a tattoo, is not legally allowed to drink, is not legally allowed to smoke, yet we have a situation where children are prescribed this treatment.

There's concern that there aren't the necessary checks and balances to ensure that the protection of those children is paramount. I think it is absolutely right that this Senate has a look at the framework that surrounds this whole issue to make sure that children aren't being exploited or referred to services and medical practices that would ultimately have a long-term impact upon their lives.

I understand that there are some that don't feel comfortable with this. I appreciate that there are some that don't feel comfortable with this. But the reality is that we are talking about the long-term impact upon children and the long-term impact upon our society, and we're seeing a deterioration of standards. I think it's highly appropriate that this parliament have a look at this issue. I believe that we can have a debate. I understand that Senator Green brought in some arguments. She even impugned a motive in regard to how this motion was first put together. I think we, as a parliament and as a Senate, can have a sensitive and mature look at this important issue.

It is an issue that is raised by many people within my state of Western Australia. I get quite a lot of correspondence from people that are very concerned about this. We're seeing the huge rise in extra litigation that's now occurring, particularly in the United States, against doctors and practitioners who have been part of a child's transition—later on in life, they're now suing the doctors. What sort of environment do we want to have here in this country? As I said, I think it's entirely appropriate that we take a look at this issue. I trust that the Senate can do that in a respectful way, and it is something that I would wholeheartedly support.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pratt, I've committed to going to the Australian Greens because they haven't put their position on the record.

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

I move:

That the question be now put.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There can be no debate on this, so I'm going to put the question that the question be put. I understand that a division is required. At this point in time, we cannot have divisions, although we can have divisions in relation to the bills that are going to come on in a minute, so we're now going to move to the taxation bills.

(Quorum formed)