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

I seek leave to move a motion to provide for the first reading of the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Acknowledging Biological Reality) Bill 2024, as circulated.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in my name, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to provide that a motion for the first reading of the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Acknowledging Biological Reality) Bill 2024 may be moved immediately.

I've been denied the right to actually introduce this bill. For the first reading speech, I was denied the right. That is very unusual in this place. Labor and the Greens have taken the highly unusual step of voting down a bill at its first reading that sought to reinforce the biological definitions of 'man' and 'woman'. This is a rare and alarming move that undermines our democratic process. By refusing the chance to debate this bill, Labor and the Greens are not only silencing important discussions but also disregarding the voices of Australians who support One Nation's position on upholding biological reality.

It's hard to find examples of bills being defeated at the first reading. One such example is the Government Preference Prohibition Bill 1914, which was defeated at its first reading, triggering the first double dissolution in Australian history. In 1957, 14 bills related to banking reforms, including the Reserve Bank Bill and the Commonwealth Banks Bill, were also rejected at their first reading.

I acknowledge that Senator Waters had legislation blocked at its first reading in the last parliament; however, her bill was a narrow proposal for a parliamentary inquiry into whether Christian Porter, a government minister at the time, should remain in his role. Our belief was that allegations of this nature belonged in the courts and not in parliament. There were serious concerns that this bill was using parliamentary privilege to make potentially defamatory claims against a government minister in an inappropriate manner.

I will also point out that this is not the only example of my legislation being blocked at first reading. My Acts Interpretation Amendment (Aboriginality) Bill 2023, which is legislation to resolve outstanding issues around the definition of 'Aboriginality', has also been blocked at the first reading. In this instance, the coalition assisted Labor and the Greens. This is something I believe is a mistake, and I will be seeking to address it at a later date. I point out here that it's highly unusual for first readings to be stopped, and that's what the Senate has done on two of my bills. We, as senators elected to this parliament, have a right to introduce bills we believe are important to the Australian people; you can't even debate it.

As I keep saying, you are the worst government we've ever seen. With the assistance mainly of David Pocock and a couple of the other crossbenchers, you shut down debate in this parliament. You're not open and honest. There's no accountability whatsoever. It is not up to you to decide whether sex discrimination should be debated or not; it should go ahead. There is due process in this place. This is why we are all elected to this parliament, regardless of our political persuasions. We should have the right to discuss these issues. It's not based on what you think is right or not right. It should be discussed and debated. When I tried to bring in bills about puberty blockers, gender dysphoria and sex hormones, you chose not to allow for an inquiry to happen based on your own principles. That's not representing the Australian people in this place.

Then you turn around and call me racist or say that I am discriminating against people. You are discriminating against every woman out there who is crying out because every time men may decide they want to be female—put a dress on, put some make-up on, put some high heels on or do whatever they want to and think that they're female—women are getting a slap in the face. They are not females; biologically, they are not females. You are born either male or female. I can understand that some people are trapped in a body they don't want to belong to. But you can't disrupt society as a whole when the majority of people in this country claim to be either male or female. You are allowing them to impinge on women's rights in their private spaces, in change rooms, in sporting events, when there are only a small minority of people that claim to be that. Women have fought for their rights in this country for so long, but you're denying them their rights. Who are you to decide that without open and honest debate?

Biological sex is important in how we deal with this. I have feminists out there who say: 'I've never supported Pauline Hanson, but, cripes, I've got to support her on this one. She's right in what she says.' What are you so afraid of? Is it purely for the votes? Is it for your own political games here? Look at common sense. Listen to the Australian people. They want debate on this. They want answers. They want common sense to prevail in this parliament. They don't want to be shut down. You have no right to do it to the Australian people. Stop shutting me down every time I raise something you don't like.

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

Last week, when Senator Hanson introduced the bill to which she refers in this motion, my colleague Senator Duniam made a statement to the Senate, which I wish to quote in full in the context of the debate we are currently having:

While the Senate has the opportunity to reject a bill at the first reading stage, in practice the first reading is almost always passed without opposition and is regarded as a purely formal stage. The coalition supports these normal procedures, as we have with many Greens, Labor and other crossbench bills—

that we strongly opposed.

The normal process enables bills to be fairly considered and debated by the Senate before a substantive decision is taken, and it should only be deviated from in the most extreme of circumstances lest we deny the right of senators to even have matters debated. As in all cases, a vote on the first reading should not be taken as a position on the substantive legislation, especially where a bill has not had the opportunity to be subject of a normal internal process.

It was with concern that a first reading was denied last week in relation to this bill. I say that not because the coalition has a formal position on this bill—I say that, indeed, as somebody who, very clearly at a personal level, abhors the weaponisation of issues that affect, particularly, vulnerable young transgender or other individuals across Australia. However, it is important to ensure that this parliament is able to function and that issues that are considered in parliaments around the world—that have been the subject of consideration by, for example, both conservative and Labour governments in the United Kingdom—are able to be considered in this parliament. This parliament ought to have the same abilities for people to bring forward issues at least for consideration under the normal standards and procedures. It will become an increasingly difficult and dangerous precedent if parties that can muster the numbers deny the first reading of a bill.

The structure and process that we have in this parliament for bills to be considered on three substantive votes are important. There is the first reading—simply enabling a bill to then sit on the Notice Paper and for senators to have the opportunity to use that time to consider it, often for it to be referred to a committee, but not always, and for that time to be an important point of understanding the content of a bill before a substantive or meaningful vote is taken. The second reading is the customary substantive and meaningful vote on the overall principle of a bill, but oftentimes senators choose to grant a second reading subject to potential amendments being considered and ultimately reserve their position on the third reading.

Each of these steps plays an important role in the way we go about our business in this place. If we enter an environment where those who can muster the numbers routinely deny a first reading on issues, it will make it harder for senators to do their job. It will particularly make it harder for those on the crossbench to do their job and also potentially for those in opposition, now or in the future, to do their job, as well as any who could be the victim of being silenced in terms of having their bills enter into that formal process of parliamentary consideration.

So we will be voting to grant that first reading, for that opportunity for the first reading to be had—not because we have taken a position in relation to the substantive nature of the bill itself but because we have a principled position in relation to the way the parliament should conduct its affairs and its business and the way the rights of individual senators to bring bills forward should be respected and subject to routine processes and consideration, rather than having those routine processes subverted through an early rejection at the first reading stage.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we just heard from Senator Birmingham was a quisling concession to far-right extremism by the party that used to represent the centre right of Australian politics. It is now unrecognisable to real Liberals now—an outfit that is just an appendage of One Nation and of the right-wing extremism that is out there in the community. It was a mealy-mouthed abrogation of Senator Birmingham's role as a leader of the Liberal Party and conservative politics in this place. It was giving the game away to far-right extremism and what goes on in the cesspool of social media that is out there doing so much damage to normal Australian democracy. It's the weird stuff that's going on there in social media that has taken hold of the imagination of Liberals and Nationals out there.

I agree in one respect in relation to Senator Birmingham's outline—that it should not be a normal thing in here to deny a first reading of a piece of legislation, that we should not do it normally.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We should never do it.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But it does mean that we should do it when it matters and when it's a reaffirmation of this Senate's role. Senator Hughes says we should never do it. It wouldn't take very long, would it, to get to the kinds of propositions that each of us think should not be the subject of these kinds of pretend pieces of legislation?

It's not really a piece of legislation. It's not really a bill. Really, it is an opportunity to propagate far-right propaganda. That's what this is. It is an attempt to weasel a way into the outrage debate by hurting little kids. That's what this really is. That's what this is really about. I think Senator Hanson has a point of order.

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

I want Senator Ayres to withdraw that implication, saying that it's not a bill. It is a bill, and it has every right to be introduced into the parliament.

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

That's a debating point. But, Senator Ayres, I ask you just to be measured in this debate. It's not assisting the chamber, and you are sailing close to the wind.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm happy to withdraw it, if that assists, and to listen to your advice carefully, Deputy President.

This discussion, really, is not about the kinds of propositions that One Nation advances in terms of these issues. I think we've all given up on them being a place of moderation, of the national interest and of the interests of ordinary families. But it is a test of what passes for what used to be the centre-right party in Australian politics but is now more extreme than it has ever been and more far-right than it has ever been. These questions of gender identity are questions that are deeply personal for individuals, particularly children. What is required by this is where words hurt and words matter. It's done with deliberate forethought and understanding of the consequences that this has for ordinary people and ordinary families out there. It is utterly damaging, and it ought to stop.

What should this Senate be focusing on this week? We have a bill in here that will mean 10,000 more low-income Australians will be able to buy their own homes. The Future Made in Australia Bill, which should be dealt with in this place, will mean that we will rebuild Australian manufacturing. What does the party of the supposed centre-right of Australian politics want to spend this week on? This stuff. It ought to stop, and you ought to focus on what actually matters for ordinary Australians.

Steph Hodgins-May (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We voted down this bill on the first reading because we knew it was hateful and transphobic. This is done extremely rarely, but we have a duty of care to the trans community. Senator Hanson's was not a genuine attempt to legislate; it was a thinly veiled attempt to attack our trans community. And would we do it again? Yes, we would. Why? It is because we know that antitrans rhetoric causes lasting harm to trans and gender-diverse people by stoking the flames of transphobia and hate.

Trans and gender-diverse communities are strong and resilient, but we know that they face disproportionate levels of harassment, abuse and even violence because of views like these. Our LGBTIQA+ communities should be supported and cared for, not used as a political football by people, like Senator Hanson, who would prefer to deny their very existence.

I saw my speech last week was shared on social media and brought out thousands and thousands of people's vitriol and attacks. But do you know what? It strengthens my resolve and the resolve of the Greens to get up in this place and represent the views of the diverse, rich trans community, who are sick of this disgusting rhetoric, this disgusting level of debate, as is the broader Australian community. It's a disgraceful act of political disgust—it's just disgusting.

All people have fundamental human rights and are entitled to equal protection under the law without any discrimination, including on the basis of sex, sexual or romantic orientation, gender identity or sex characteristics. To all the trans kids and young people out there, I want you to know that I and the Greens have your back. We will go in to bat for you at any chance we have. You deserve to be celebrated. You deserve to be safe and to be yourself. You deserve all good things in the world because you are magnificent.

We must do more to call out transphobia. We need to work together to actively dismantle it because trans rights are non-negotiable. I said it last week, and I'll say it again: they are non-negotiable. We must work towards a safer world for the trans and gender-diverse community. They must feel safe, respected and valued, living their lives treated as equals and free from discrimination. The Greens will always stand in solidarity with the trans community against hatred and bigotry and against Senator Hanson's awful attacks.

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

Labor and the Liberal and National parties said the practice is to allow first readings. That's correct. Yet, after saying that, the Labor Party contradicted it and joined with their mates, the Greens, again and again and again. Odgers', the authority, says that it's a parliamentary formality. It's rarely contravened.

What's happening is that the Labor Party, the Greens and some crossbenchers are shutting down the voice of the representatives of the people. You're silencing not just the Senate; you're silencing the people. Now we have Senator Ayres declaring that this is not a bill. Why don't we just suspend the Senate and let Senator Ayres take over instead? Shutting down the voice of a representative of the people is silencing the people. Aussies believe in a fair go. Aussies believe in democracy; Labor and the Greens clearly do not.

Let's not beat around the bush. We all know what this is about. It's about suppressing Senator Hanson because she resonates with Australians. She listens, and she resonates with Australians. This is the latest in many attempts to gag her and to shut her down. The first started when One Nation in 1998 got 23 per cent of the vote overnight in Queensland in the state election, and the Liberals and Labor went into a panic. They infiltrated her party to bring down the branches. They hammered her raw, new state MPs. Liberal and Labor, federally and state, concocted legislation to falsely jail her. She was jailed but released on appeal, the only political prisoner in this country's history. Then she was falsely denigrated as a racist when she's never uttered a racist word in her life. The worst thing Aussies can do is call a woman a racist. That's the worst thing they can do to a woman. Why? I'll tell you why. It's because it stops people being proud of voting, so they're quiet and don't then vote for One Nation. But people are waking. Look at social media, listen to people on the streets and listen to people in the regions.

I want to thank Senator Ayres for putting on his display, because this is being broadcast and the people at home will be watching it. The name of Senator Hanson's party—our party—says it all: One Nation. The Greens cannot debate her position on merit. They have no data and no logical argument. People can see this, and awareness is spreading.

Why don't the Greens and Labor use the opportunity to debate her bill, get their facts on the table and put their views forward? That's what you're supposed to do. You're supposed to represent the people. If you've got a transgender community, go ahead and spread that. The Greens are not putting forward a logical argument. People can see this, and that's why the One Nation vote is increasing.

Let's have a look at biological gender. That's the only gender. Let's have a rational debate. Let's send the bill to a committee to have a rational inquiry. Let the people of Australia speak to this bill. What are you protecting? It's the suicides. When children disfigure their bodies and chemically stunt their mental and social development and then, when they sadly learn that it's not reversible, they suicide. That's what you're doing. Women's rights are smashed in physical sports. They are deprived of years of training—

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

The minister is on a point of order. Minister?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Roberts needs to make his comments and remarks through the chair and not act in such an aggressive way towards other senators.

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

Senator Roberts, please address your comments through me.

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

What about men being in dressing rooms for girls and playing rugby league in a sport for women? Censorship and lies are a form of control. Always, beneath control, there is fear. Labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the incompetent, the dishonest and the fearful. Of what are you afraid? Open debate. People in Australia are not afraid of open debate.

We have respect for the parliament. Senator Hanson rarely calls out; I never call out, because this parliament stands for the people. That's why I don't call out. In recent years, people have had enough of your gutlessness. When you target Pauline Hanson, her support and popularity rises. Thank you so much. Parliament is for people's voices to be heard. When people's representatives are silenced, it hurts the people. We need debate.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll make some comments in the time left. One, we don't support the suspension, because we have a program to get to, and there are many other ways, forms and times in the program where senators can raise issues, like the one Senator Hanson is raising today. We would like to get back to our housing bill, which this Senate debated all day yesterday. We have a small window of time today to debate that, so that's the first point.

Two, we did take the rare step of not agreeing with the first reading. It is a rare step. In my time in this place, we have used it one other time, in response to a bill that Senator Anning tried to introduce. For us on this side of the chamber, the reason we took that decision—and we did think about it carefully—was the debate that would happen in this place if a bill like that was introduced. I think the performance from Senator Roberts just confirmed that the decision we took last week was right. Senator Roberts called for a rational debate and then gave a speech like that. There is no rational debate, Senator Roberts, on this. There are many other places Senator Hanson and you can speak about the matters that are contained in a bill that Senator Hanson seeks to introduce. But we draw the line at that bill being the subject of debate in this chamber, where we are leaders in our communities and leaders of the country.

And you may scoff, and you may put it on your social media so that we get inundated with all the hate and abuse that comes with that. That's fine. We disagree on bills all the time in this place. They're on policy, and that's fine. This is a vibrant democracy. But when you have bills that seek to harm people, including young people, we will draw the line. That is a red line for us. We do not apologise. We know how vulnerable the gender-diverse community is. We know how they struggle. We do not think the Senate is a qualified place for that debate. That debate should be had at home, with friends and with health professionals that seek to guide some of those difficult decisions for young people in this country. They are qualified. An irrational debate in this place that seeks to hurt and undermine young people—we will draw the line there.

This is not about disallowing free speech or shutting down democracy. People introduce bills in this place all the time. For every private member's bill that comes in, if it isn't from our side we will disagree with it. That's what they're being pulled in for. We have to draw a line in this chamber that says, 'No, we're not going to let this parliament and everybody in it share their views on your personal choice.' That is the reason why we took this decision.

We agree with many of the comments from Senator Birmingham about the rights, policy and practice, convention, Odgers' and all the rest. Indeed we agree with almost everything he said. We allow bills to come into this place all the time, many of which we would disagree with. But when it concerns people, and when it's such a deeply personal and divisive debate that you seek to bring into this chamber, don't pretend it's otherwise and don't pretend that it's just a matter of policy interest for you; it's not. That's not how the debate about the gender diverse community goes in this country—we know that. The parliament should protect the communities that we represent. Every person should be protected in this place, and that's why we took the decision that we took last week. That's why we have denied leave for it today.

But we are not trying to stop Senator Hanson from speaking or raising issues. She is a senator and a leader. You have the forms of this place in which to do that, and you do it. You represent the interests that you seek to bring into this chamber. You seek to bring in a bill and have that bill debated—have it open for hours of discussion in this place—and we say no. We say that's not right. We think that, for young people in particular, the Senate should stand up on something like this and say no—and we have to win a majority of votes. It's not as though you're being shut down without the will of the chamber; the chamber has to support that. They did last week, and I hope the chamber will oppose the suspension this morning and oppose the bill being brought on.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for the debate has expired. The question is that the suspension motion moved by Senator Hanson be agreed to.