Andrew McLachlan

I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter, dated 20 March, from Senator Hanson:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for an inquiry into the rising number of children suffering from gender dysphoria in Australia and the increasing number of children being treated for gender dysphoria at gender clinics, to examine the causes and possible remedies for this trend and to ensure that children and their families receive appropriate support and care."

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.

Pauline Hanson

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for an inquiry into the rising number of children suffering from gender dysphoria in Australia and the increasing number of children being treated for gender dysphoria at gender clinics, to examine the causes and possible remedies for this trend and to ensure that children and their families receive appropriate support and care.

You'd be forgiven for thinking that a rapid tenfold increase in a condition that was causing Australian children to suffer would immediately lead to calls for urgent action and investigations into its causes and treatments, but this isn't the case with the condition known as gender dysphoria. It was revealed last year that more than 2,000 Australian children were enrolled in public adolescent gender clinics, almost 10 times the number in 2014. This figure did not capture the number of children being treated for gender dysphoria by GPs and private clinics, so it's likely the number is much higher. The number of children prescribed puberty-blocker treatments for gender dysphoria in 2021 was more than 600, up from only five in 2014, while there was also an eightfold increase in children receiving cross-sex hormone treatments over a similar period.

Why isn't this a matter of urgency? Why didn't the Senate support my notion last year to refer the alarming increase in Australian children suffering from this condition? Because the issue is completely wrapped up with the appalling politics of identity. This progressive form of politics holds that biological reality means absolutely nothing and that people can simply choose their gender at a whim, ever-changing the gender on their birth certificates. Rather than address the problem and debate the issue, the so-called progressives insist on deplatforming and silencing those who dare to go against the gender-affirmation narrative. This is because they realise there is no difference in encouraging teenagers with the same problems and confusion that teenagers have always had to deal with them by choosing a different gender.

It's this affirmation approach which was found to be the major problem in the wide-ranging Independent review into gender ident__ity services for children and young people commissioned by the United Kingdom's National Health Service in 2020. The review found a significant and sharp rise in referrals of children with gender dysphoria, similar to what is understood to be happening in Australia. It also found a major change in the case mix of referrals, from predominantly birth-registered males to predominantly birth-registered females. Most importantly, it found scarce and inconclusive evidence to support clinical decision-making—specifically, the gender-affirmation approach, which immediately resorts to the use of puberty-blocker and cross-sex hormone treatments. These treatments have been conclusively shown to cause lifelong negative health impacts, and it's destroying lives and families.

The story of UK teenager Keira Bell has come to serve as an example of how these confused, suffering children can be led to a life of misery by the gender-affirmation approach. At the age of only 15, she was referred to the Gender Identity Development Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust in London, where she was diagnosed with gender dysphoria. She was put on puberty blockers at age 16 and was getting testosterone shots at 17. At 20 she had a double mastectomy and had developed a more masculine build, a beard and a man's voice. However, by then, as an adult she realised her so-called gender dysphoria was only a symptom of her misery—not the cause, as she had been strongly encouraged to believe. But it's too late. The changes were irreversible. Keira joined a judicial review case against the clinic, which unanimously decided it had conducted what amounted to uncontrolled experiments on these poor confused kids who could not understand the implications of gender dysphoria treatments with life-altering consequences. The Tavistock clinic is now being closed, but what happened there is happening across the world and right here in Australia.

At the very least there must be an Australian inquiry into this issue to find the causes of this rapid increase in gender dysphoria and ensure the same kind of experimentation is not being practised on our children. Either you are genuinely concerned that our kids receive appropriate treatments and will support an inquiry into the issue, or you are more concerned about identity politics and will oppose it. I choose to stand up for our kids and I choose to stand up for the parents who actually came and walked the halls of this parliament to talk to each member here in this place, yet you did nothing to satisfy their needs and concerns to have a Senate inquiry into this to find out the real causes behind it, because you're too gutless to do it and stand up for these people, the poor children who are led down this path of destroying their lives. (Time expired)

Alex Antic

For any freethinking Australian it can be a challenge to navigate through the left-leaning propaganda when Australia's censorship industrial complex is pushing indoctrination to promote their own ideological agenda. In the last decade there has been a significant increase, in English-speaking countries, of adolescents identifying as transgender and pursuing medical and surgical interventions to transition. Many medical professions and parents have raised concerns about misdiagnosis and the potential harm caused by experimental treatments being offered as the only solution to gender dysphoria.

Historically, gender dysphoria was a rare condition that primarily affected prepubescent boys and adult men. However, the current trend shows an inverse pattern, with teenage girls making up approximately 70 per cent of the referrals to these gender clinics. Concerned parents of trans-identifying teenage girls often cite various factors such as peer influence, online communities, body and mental health issues and isolation as contributing factors to their child's decision to identify as trans. Under the guise of gender-affirming health care, treatments such as puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and even surgery are being used to alter a child's body to match their mental image of themselves. These treatments are irreversible and experimental and have been shown to cause significant harms in the form of infertility, impaired development and decreased bone density.

We're now seeing heartbreaking detransitioning stories being told—the sorts of stories which really should make any reasonable person stop and reconsider what is happening. We're seeing the closure of clinics like the Tavistock clinic in the United Kingdom. Australia needs its media and its political class to wake up urgently. It needs an urgent inquiry, and that's why I support this initiative.

Louise Pratt

The Senate dealt with this matter of an inquiry on this topic back in November. We didn't support such an inquiry then, and it should not be supported now. The timing of this debate does not escape me. This motion has been moved in the context of rallies held over the weekend and the week before, regarding and often hosting a controversial UK anti-trans activist, and her speaking appearances in Australia. They are views which, as we saw on the weekend, are backed by far-right extremists, some of whom were seen using a Nazi salute outside the Victorian parliament. These are not the Australian values I grew up with, they're not views we should be amplifying in our parliament and they don't deserve treatment as a matter of urgency in this place.

The debate before us on this emergency motion is not about ensuring appropriate inquiry, support and care, as the motion might suggest. It is about giving a platform to people with views that would harm an incredibly vulnerable, patient group and their families and loved ones. You only really need to look at the way these matters were debated in the context of the marriage equality postal survey and see how the identities of trans people were targeted back then.

It is not in the interests and safety of children to be debated in this way. We should not amplify these issues under the guise of seeking to improve access for trans and gender-diverse people to care. We should be supporting better access to care and better health outcomes for all Australians, including children, young people and their families. It has got to be a key priority for our Australian government, as it is.

Only a few weeks ago I walked over the Sydney Harbour Bridge with some 50,000 proud, peaceful, kind families and individuals from all over the world. Community members and allies walked with the LGBTQI+ community over the Sydney Harbour Bridge. That was a far cry from the small gatherings of protest we've seen around Australia in the last week.

The community is overwhelmingly against such an inquiry, as are the medical experts in this field. I remind this place that in 2020 the Royal Australasian College of Physicians provided advice to the then Minister for Health on the treatment of gender dysphoria in Australia and that advice, supported by paediatricians, endocrinologists and groups with specialist research in bioethics, recommended against such an inquiry. They noted that it would not increase the scientific evidence available regarding gender dysphoria but would further harm vulnerable patients and their families by subjecting them to debate in this place. Every time these kinds of motions come up in this place you see responses from parents whose children notice such debates. They are alarmed at the impact that such debates have, as their very personal identity is debated in this way in this place.

We know of course that the clinical treatment of children and adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria is a complex and evolving area. We do need long-term evidence to inform treatment protocols. This is well understood by researchers and clinicians who are working to expand the evidence base based on best practice and care, an evidence base that will be supported by Labor's $26 million Medical Research Future Fund. (Time expired)

Janet Rice

Usually when irrelevant right-wing senators use the Senate to put forward offensive ideas I don't engage. I don't like to give them the satisfaction of knowing how much they've provoked me or to risk giving more airtime to their bigoted views, but this weekend in Melbourne we saw what can happen when transphobia goes unchecked, so I'm calling this motion what it is. It's a dog whistle to the anti-trans demonstrators who organised the rally in Melbourne on Saturday and who use their platform to vilify trans people and incite hate; it's a dog whistle to the Neo-Nazis who supported the rally and who stood on the steps of the Victorian parliament giving Nazi salutes and it's a dog whistle to the police who used excessive force and assaulted peaceful trans people and allies, while allowing transphobic demonstrators and Neo-Nazis to organise.

What happened on Saturday shows the ideological similarities between anti-trans campaigners and the far right: both groups are targeting marginalised members of our community and stoking fear, hatred and violence towards them. It's clear that far right groups are using transphobic campaigns to recruit people to their own extremism. But we know that they are also racist and antisemitic. So I say to all trans and gender-diverse people, as well as Jewish people and people of colour who are still reeling from the weekend: I'm sorry. You don't deserve what happened then, and you don't deserve the ongoing attacks on your very identity that are being waged in this parliament. Gender diversity does not need to be 'remedied'. Trans and gender-diverse people need to be loved and celebrated.

So to all the trans kids and young people out there: I want you to know that I and the Greens have got your back and I will go into bat for you at any chance I get. You deserve to be celebrated. You deserve to be safe to be yourself. You deserve all the good things in the world because you are magnificent.

We must do more than call out transphobia. We need to work together to actively dismantle it, because trans rights are non-negotiable.

Helen Polley

Before I call the next speaker, I'm just reminding senators in the chamber that it's disrespectful to interject. In a debate like this, we should show some restraint. With the interjections, I had some difficulty hearing Senator Rice's contribution. So I remind senators: if you're going to stay in the chamber, show some respect. Senator Walsh.

Long debate text truncated.

Glenn Sterle

The question now is that UAP amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1849 moved together, by leave, by Senator Babet be agreed to.

Deborah O'Neill

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Babet be agreed to.

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Victorian Senator Jane Hume (Liberal), which means it failed.

Motion text

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Senate to reaffirm its commitment to the Coalition's Personal Income Tax Plan that upon full implementation will mean around 95 per cent of taxpayers are expected to face a marginal tax rate of no more than 30 per cent, which Australians need now more than ever thanks to faster bracket creep and greater pressures under Labor's cost of living crisis.

The majority voted against opposition amendment (1) on sheet 1807, which means it failed. This amendment would have granted the minister additional powers to cancel visas.

What did the amendment do?

Victorian Senator James Paterson (Liberal), who introduced the amendment, explained that:

... we believe this is also an opportunity to even further extend the protections that Australians have against people on visas who commit violent offences. Consistent with the bill that was debated in the House in February last year, the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2021, introduced by the former government and supported at the time by the then Labor opposition, we believe that the minister should have additional powers. It will not be compulsory for the minister to exercise these powers; it will be up to the judgement of the minister. But it will widen the scope of the minister's power to protect Australians from people who commit very serious crimes but receive shorter sentences than are currently captured by the act.

The majority voted against an amendment introduced by Pauline Hanson's One Nation party, which means it failed.

Amendment text

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 11 (after line 19), after section 53L, insert:

53LA When gas market code regulations take effect

(1) This section applies to regulations made for the purposes of section 53L.

(2) If neither House of Parliament passes a resolution disallowing the regulations or a provision of the regulations, the regulations take effect:

(a) on the day immediately after the last day upon which such a resolution could have been passed; or

(b) if a later day is specified in the regulations—on that later day.

(3) If either House of Parliament passes a resolution disallowing a provision of the regulations, the remaining provisions of the regulations take effect:

(a) on the day immediately after the last day upon which a resolution disallowing the regulations or a provision of the regulations could have been passed; or

(b) if a later day is specified in the regulations—on that later day.

(4) To avoid doubt, if either House of Parliament passes a resolution disallowing the regulations, the regulations do not take effect.

The majority voted against an amendment. It would have added the words below to the usual second reading motion, which is "That this bill be now read a second time" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). It was introduced by West Australian Senator Michaelia Cash (Liberal).

Amendment text

At the end of the motion, add ", and Schedule 1 of the bill be referred to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 7 February 2023".

The majority voted against an amendment that would have added the words below to an original motion, which means the original motion will remain unchanged. The amendment was introduced by Tasmanian Senator Jonathon Duniam (Liberal).

Original motion

That the report from the committee be adopted.

This means that the changes agreed to by the committee would be agreed to and adopted by the Senate.

Amendment text

At the end of the motion, add “, but the Senate is of the opinion that if this bill is passed, the Government should ensure that:

(a) any drug intended for the use of ending human life requires the approval of the Therapeutic Goods Administration, by seeking to amend the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 so that there is no capacity for exemptions from the provisions of Parts 3-2 and 3-2A of the Act to be granted in relation to such drugs; and

(b) the importation of any drug intended for the use of ending human life is prohibited and that no regulation is made under the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 to provide for the granting of a licence or permission to import any such drug”.

Why are the major parties split on how to vote?

This was a free vote (also known as a conscience vote), which means our senators voted according to their own beliefs rather than voting along party lines.

The majority voted against amendments introduced by Northern Territory Jacinta Nampijinpa Price (Country Liberal Party), which means they failed.

What do the amendments do?

Senator Nampijinpa Price explained that:

The purpose of the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022 is to amend the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 and the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 to remove the provisions currently preventing the territories from passing legislation which would allow for voluntary assisted dying. The bill would not legalise that in either of the territories but rather would allow the legislative assemblies of the ACT and the NT to pass laws allowing for VAD. Despite what the Labor Northern Territory and federal House of Representatives members have portrayed of me publicly, I do support the bill and am doing my job—which they should note how to better do themselves—in making a bad bill better for the Territory. I'll say this again: I absolutely support the rights of Territorians. The proposed amendments, drafted by the parliamentary clerk, have been developed to ensure that the exact restraints that are currently operative in state law are applied in the Territory, because we have some of the most vulnerable communities and people in Australia.

Why are the major parties split on how to vote?

This was a free vote (also known as a conscience vote), which means our senators voted according to their own beliefs rather than voting along party lines.

Amendment text

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 4 and 5), omit the item, substitute:

1 Subsections 23(1A) and (1B)

Repeal the subsections, substitute:

(1A) The Assembly has no power to make laws permitting or having the effect of permitting (whether subject to conditions or not) the form of intentional killing of another called euthanasia (which includes mercy killing), or the assisting of a person to terminate the person's life, in circumstances where:

(a) the person whose life is to be terminated is under 18 years of age; or

(b) the euthanasia is performed or the assistance is provided solely on the ground that the person whose life is to be terminated has:

(i) a disability (within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992); or

(ii) a mental impairment (within the meaning of the Criminal Code).

(1B) Subsection (1A) does not limit the power of the Assembly to make laws with respect to:

(a) the withdrawal or withholding of medical or surgical measures for prolonging the life of a patient, but not so as to permit the intentional killing of a person who is under 18 years of age; and

(b) medical treatment in the provision of palliative care to a dying patient, but not so as to permit the intentional killing of a person who is under 18 years of age; and

(c) the appointment of an agent by a patient who is authorised to make decisions about the withdrawal or withholding of treatment; and

(d) the repealing of legal sanctions against attempted suicide.

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 7 and 8), omit the item, substitute:

2 Section 50A

Repeal the section, substitute:

50A Law s concerning euthanasia

(1) Subject to this section the power of the Legislative Assembly conferred by section 6 in relation to the making of laws does not extend to the making of laws which permit or have the effect of permitting (whether subject to conditions or not) the form of intentional killing of another called euthanasia (which includes mercy killing), or the assisting of a person to terminate the person's life, in circumstances where:

(a) the person whose life is to be terminated is under 18 years of age; or

(b) the euthanasia is performed or the assistance is provided solely on the ground that the person whose life is to be terminated has:

(i) a disability (within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992); or

(ii) a mental impairment (within the meaning of the Criminal Code).

(2) Subsection (1) does not limit the power of the Legislative Assembly to make laws with respect to:

(a) the withdrawal or withholding of medical or surgical measures for prolonging the life of a patient, but not so as to permit the intentional killing of a person who is under 18 years of age; and

(b) medical treatment in the provision of palliative care to a dying patient, but not so as to permit the intentional killing of a person who is under 18 years of age; and

(c) the appointment of an agent by a patient who is authorised to make decisions about the withdrawal or withholding of treatment; and

(d) the repealing of legal sanctions against attempted suicide.

The majority voted against amendments introduced by Queensland Senator Malcolm Roberts (One Nation), which means they failed.

Rebellion

The Coalition was split on this vote, with South Australian Senator Alex Antic (Liberal) and Queensland Senators Gerard Renick (Liberal) and Matthew Canavan (Liberal National Party) voting "Yes" against the rest of the Liberal and National parties, who voted "No".

What were the amendments?

Senator Roberts explained that:

In proposing this bill, the government says the bill aims to secure jobs. My amendments on sheet 1768 go to the heart of ensuring job security and protecting workers' rights. To ensure job security, my amendments on sheet 1768 ensure that unjustified vaccine discrimination is stamped out in employment.

The original bill inserts breastfeeding, intersex status and gender identity as attributes that the Fair Work Act protects from discrimination. These amendments copy that approach and simply add COVID-19 vaccination as an attribute protected from discrimination. The protection is still subject to the limits imposed on the other discrimination grounds in the Fair Work Act. An employer, for example, will not be in breach of the antidiscrimination grounds where the employer can prove, as they should have to, that it is a genuine and reasonable requirement of the position. These amendments are reasonable. In their approach, they are not radical because they use and simply extend the existing mechanisms in the Fair Work Act.

Amendment text

(1) Schedule 1, item 426, page 116 (before line 10), before the definition of gender identity, insert:

COVID-19 vaccination status means the status of a person relating to whether, and to what extent, the person has been vaccinated against the coronavirus known as COVID-19 (including any subsequent variants of that virus).

(2) Schedule 1, item 427, page 116 (line 17), after "intersex status,", insert "COVID-19 vaccination status,".

(3) Schedule 1, item 429, page 117 (line 3), after "intersex status,", insert "COVID-19 vaccination status,".

(4) Schedule 1, item 432, page 118 (line 3), after "intersex status,", insert "COVID-19 vaccination status,".

(5) Schedule 1, page 118 (after line 3), after item 432, insert:

432A Paragraph 351(2)(a)

Before "not unlawful", insert "for action taken other than because of a person's COVID-19 vaccination status—".

(6) Schedule 1, item 433, page 118 (line 6), after "intersex status,", insert "COVID-19 vaccination status,".

(7) Schedule 1, item 436, page 118 (line 23), after "intersex status,", insert "COVID-19 vaccination status,".

(8) Schedule 1, item 437, page 119 (line 23), omit "or intersex status,", substitute ", intersex status or COVID-19 vaccination status".