Posts

Urgent Review Needed on Transgender Care for Children’s Safety

The COVID Inquiry Report highlighted the need for greater transparency in decision-making around pandemics.  The same criticism also applies to transgender care. Suppressing critical information has led to physical harm being committed to our children.

Australia must implement a moratorium on irreversible treatments for gender dysphoria and conduct a exhaustive and thorough public review of the science behind these practices.

Our kids deserve care based on data, not by the profits of the medical industry.

Photo credit: Gender Dysphoria Alliance

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/23/science/puberty-blockers-olson-kennedy.html

/7 Comments/by

A Bill to Correct Gender Definitions and Protect Women is Rejected!

,

I support Pauline’s Bill to correct the definitions of men and women under the Sex Discrimination Act. I highlighted that sometimes the law can be absurd, asserting that if someone identifies as female, they are legally recognised as such, regardless of physical evidence to the contrary.

I used my own height as an example: just because I claim to be 6 feet tall (when I’m actually 5 feet 4 inches) doesn’t make it true. This law is delusional.

I also raised concerns about men who identify as women invading spaces meant for biological females, such as public restrooms, as well as biological men competing against women in sports, like boxing, which leads to disgracefully, unfair matches. I want to clarify that my criticism isn’t directed at diverse lifestyles or same-sex relationships; rather, it’s about the infringement on women’s rights by those who misidentify their biological reality.

Transcript

This bill, the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Acknowledging Biological Reality) Bill 2024, needs to be sent to committee to ensure that sensible and reasonable discussion can address the inherent error that exists in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. It’s been said that sometimes the law is an ass—or an arse, some say! What this means is that sometimes a law is made, validly through parliament, that contains a blatant, obvious, overt, logically impossible, glaring factual error. There are many examples. The error in this case is that a mistaken concept from simply saying something, perhaps based on a mistaken belief, becomes a fact, but it’ll never become a fact because it is not the truth. 

The mistake made in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 is that if a person identifies as a particular gender such as female, despite biological evidence to the contrary, they should at law be considered female. This law is insane and delusional, and only normalises those persons with the illness called gender dysphoria when they should be receiving psychiatric care, support and loving compassion. I’m not talking about people who have a preference to partner with a person of the same gender, or those who prefer to dress in the style of a person of the opposite gender to which they were born. I’m not talking about those persons who are born with both male and female genitalia—true hermaphrodites, who are very few in number but nonetheless exist. For me to identify as being two metres tall does not make me that tall; that’s the way it is. Thinking it or saying it does not make it true. The Australian basketball team, the Boomers, is not going to select me to join the team. Passing a law that says I am two metres tall does not make it true. That’s the stupidity and falsehood of the effect of the current Sex Discrimination Act 1984—a true example of what George Orwell predicted could happen in a future chaotic world. 

The women’s rights movement took a massive leap backwards when Julia Gillard’s changes to discrimination law started. It made possible the extreme examples where definitions of what constitutes male and female became blurred. We’re now confronted with issues where a female enters a female-only space such as a public toilet and confronts a person claiming to be female who is visibly and biologically male. He is invading her space. She may well be fearful of her personal safety and privacy. That’s very important to consider. 

Women have fought hard for equal rights only to have pseudo-women, not biological women, attack women’s rights, wanting to access the privileges of women-only spaces and opportunities. The encroachment of pseudo-women into women’s sports events became a debacle at the recent Olympic Games, when a biological male claiming to be female battered women into submission to win a boxing gold medal. Battering women into submission is now a recognised sport because the International Olympic Committee is afraid to confront the truth. At the hands of the Greens and Labor, this insanity that defies and contradicts biology and defies science is overriding women’s rights. The biologically male boxer used his strength and physical male advantage to defeat all the true women opponents in the lead-up events. This has led to the world condemnation of the Olympic committee, and I note the International Boxing Federation bans biological males from competing against biological females, as do an increasing number of international sporting bodies. These are all real issues that this bill would address and would do so simply by reasserting biological definitions of what constitutes a male and a female. 

I support the amendment to move this bill to the committee for inquiry. The people of Australia need to have a say. Julia Gillard’s bill did not give the people a say. This Senate can rectify this. Let’s listen to the people. Let’s engage in honest inquiry, and I must point out Senator Hanson is a woman. 

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Roberts. I do remind you, when referring to former prime ministers, to use the correct title. The question is that Senator Hanson’s amendment to Senator Gallagher’s amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to. 

The Senate divided. [11:40] 

(The President—Senator Lines) 

/by

Government Doxxing Australian Companies Over Gender Pay

,

It’s ironic that Labor can suddenly define what a woman is when they want to talk about a gender pay gap.

By publicly sending out information on 5000 Australian companies and claiming they’ve failed to sufficiently pay women in comparison with men, the government has maliciously misrepresented the companies and is effectively doxxing them.

The devil is in the details on this issue. Once you look closely, the myth of a gender pay gap falls apart. The report doesn’t try to compare like for like.

We don’t want a cookie cutter society inflicted on us by ‘leftist’ government bureaucracies. Differences should be celebrated. Where individuals choose to work longer hours, or choose to raise a family, these are differences that should never be ironed out by publicly shaming companies into following the Environment, Social Governance goals of the United Nations.

We need to continue to support men and women in making those different choices, especially when it comes to building a family.

One Nation rejects the divisiveness of gender politics. We support stronger families and the freedom for men and women to make their own choices about work.

Transcript

It’s ironic the Labor government are seeking to rush laws on doxxing through this parliament when they’ve just committed one of Australia’s largest doxxings. The Workplace Gender Equality Agency published a list of 5,000 businesses across Australia and detailed the wages they pay their employees. Doxxing is the act of publicly providing identifiable information about an individual or organisation, usually with malicious intent. With the release of this report, these companies have been battered in national news headlines accusing them of huge gender pay gaps. The cries of the outrage brigade have been heard across the country. They claim that these evil companies have huge gender pay gaps and that the evil patriarchy is in full control, making sure no woman in Australia will ever get paid fairly. 

Make no mistake, the private information about these companies has been published for the purpose of whacking them around in national headlines; it’s easy to see. The Workplace Gender Equality Agency report is just a roundabout way of doxxing Australian companies, and taxpayers fund the agency $11 million a year to do it. I mentioned details at the beginning of my speech, yet the one thing that’s actually missing from the report is detail. The figures don’t make a fair comparison. 

Don’t let the headlines fool you; this report is not a measure of whether a man and a woman doing the same job at the same company are paid differently. That’s been illegal for decades. The report simply takes the median of total wages and compares them. No accounting is made for whether the men and women work in different jobs or whether they are in part-time jobs. There are no adjustments for overtime or seniority—the list of exclusions goes on and on. 

If a female air steward gets paid less than the male pilot up front, the Workplace Gender Equality Agency will say that that’s a gender pay gap at that airline. The Workplace Gender Equality Agency report is one of the most oversimplified, flawed, misleading uses of statistics we’ve seen from government, and that’s saying something! If we were to truly measure the impact of sexism on wages, we would look at men and women doing the same job at the same time for the same rate. A Harvard study entitled Why do women earn less than men? Evidence from bus and train operators did exactly that. Among men and women paid the exact same rates, they found the small wage difference was entirely due to the fact that men worked 83 per cent more overtime and were twice as likely to accept a shift on short notice. Fathers were more likely than childless men to want the extra cash from overtime. Fathers working harder to provide a better life for their children and their wives—that must be the ‘toxic masculinity’ the control side of politics, the so-called Left, complains about. In short, it comes down to choice. Men and women should always have the freedom to choose how they want to work or support their family. Given the option, they will choose differently. 

Norway is considered one of the most gender equal countries in the world, yet it has some of the most extreme policies with the intention of balancing out gender differences. Despite all of the incentives, Norway still has a 17 per cent wage gap, as the Workplace Gender Equality Agency would measure it, because women still choose jobs that allow them to take care of families. 

Of course, this agency report is the brainchild of the Labor government, bent on dividing women and men for political purposes. If we’re too busy fighting each other about a gender pay gap that doesn’t actually exist, then we’re not going to pay attention to the real issues the government is sneaking through this parliament every day. The idea that women are only useful if they abandon their children and return to the workforce to be a cog in the economy is one of the greatest scams of New Age feminism. Instead of pretending everyone fits into one cookie-cutter shape, we should be acknowledging and celebrating differences. We should be supporting men and women to make the choices they want to make. We should be reforming the tax system to recognise the work that the stay-at-home parent, whether man or woman, does to build a family for the benefit of this country and for themselves. Imagine if we used some of the $14 billion a year currently subsidising day care to instead support families at home. 

One Nation will always fight for stronger supported families and for men and women to choose the work they want. Unlike the $11-million-a-year Workplace Gender Equality Agency, we’ll always reject the divisiveness of gender politics, and we will always choose to celebrate our wonderful complementary differences. 

/2 Comments/by

Slow Start on Classification System Inquiry

,

I have been asking questions about books like ‘The Boys’ and ‘Welcome to Sex’ that expose young children to adult sexual concepts and behaviours. Even worse these books do so in a way that encourages and normalises child sexual behaviour. The rating system for printed works, like these graphic novels, has failed to keep pace with the appearance of the graphic novels more than 20 years ago.

A review of the classification system for written works was promised last year by the Mininster during a meeting with me and I am still waiting for that review to start. At the moment this adult cartoon content is legal to sell to a child of any age because of a loophole in the current system.

After these questions, I hope the Minister with call the review immediately. Sexual material of this nature must be at least rated MA14+, making it illegal to sell to children under 14.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing, Mr Sharp.  

Mr Sharp: Pleasure, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: In response to a question at October Senate estimates relating to the inquiry into the adequacy of the rating system, Senator Brown made this statement. I will quote: “Informal consultation with government stakeholders has commenced. Public consultation will occur early in 2024”. I subsequently received a response to my question on notice which provided the same information. It’s early in 2024 and the Classification Board website does not mention an inquiry. Has public consultation started? If not, when will it? 

Mr Sharp: Senator, I refer you to the department on that. We have been participating in the stage 1 reforms that have been passed. That legislation has been passed. The board has been consulted as part of that. Effectively, the preparation for the implementation of that is occurring. As for the stage 2, the board has no further information on when that will occur. I refer you to the department for further information. 

Senator ROBERTS: When is the review into the classification scheme going to start? Senator Brown said that it would be starting in early 2024. 

Mr Sharp: I don’t have that information, Senator. We are a key stakeholder, but that’s a decision for the minister and the department. 

Senator ROBERTS: So I have to ask the department? 

Mr Sharp: Yes, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: Senator Brown, you said it would start in early 2024. 

Senator Carol Brown: And it’s very early 2024. Are we talking about the second stage of the reform? 

Senator ROBERTS: The review into the classification system. 

Senator Carol Brown: The second stage of the reform will clarify the scheme’s purpose and scope and establish fit-for-purpose regulatory and governance arrangements and improve the responsiveness of the scheme to evolving community standards and expectations. I will have to take on notice any particular date. The departmental representative can answer. 

Mr Windeyer: I caught your question. Just to assist, yes, the intention is still that public consultation will kick off early this year. A precise date I don’t have, but that remains the intention. 

Senator ROBERTS: Are we talking a month or so? 

Mr Windeyer: I don’t want to put a time on it. Yes, the intention is still early this year to commence public consultation on the stage 2 reforms. 

Senator ROBERTS: In response to my question regarding the graphic novel Welcome to sex, which I described as targeted to 10-year-olds and up—the author in fact says it’s suitable for eight-year-olds and up—Ms Jolly, who I guess is your predecessor— 

Mr Sharp: Correct, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: responded, and I quote: Our understanding is that the book clearly states that it is targeted to teenagers from 13 up. Here is the book, which on the flyleaf identifies the reader as an ‘apprehensive 11-year-old’. Amazon still has the listing at 10 plus. I do note that Hardie Grant, the publishers, have removed reference to an age entirely, so we’re heading in the right direction. It is unhelpful, though, to potential purchasers and where other booksellers have it listed at 14 plus. Can you clarify, on notice please, Mr Sharp, what age is the Classification Board happy with— 10 plus or 14 plus—and why? 

Mr Sharp: Senator, it’s actually not the place of the board to predict what age something should be available other than through the classification process. We’ve had no applications for that book at this time and the board has not reviewed it. 

Senator ROBERTS: It’s now self-classification, I take it, since the legislation was passed. Is that correct? 

Mr Sharp: No, Senator. That’s not correct. The stage 1 reforms did not address anything to do with publications. Publications can either be submitted for classification by the publisher or they can be called in by the director if there’s a belief that it could possibly be a submittable publication. 

Senator ROBERTS: In other words, self-publication is one of the choices or submitted to the board? 

Mr Sharp: Well, it’s not self-classification, Senator. It is the publisher choosing to have the board classify it by making an application for that. Self-classification generally is referred to as them making a choice about what that classification is and publishing it in that way. Senator ROBERTS: I thought the publisher could classify it or ask the board to classify it. I thought that’s what you said. 

Mr Sharp: No. The publisher can put it forward as an application to be classified by the board, or the board can call it in separately. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for clarifying. There seems to be some backside covering going on with the publishers because they’ve started to shift the age upwards slightly. In the last estimates, in response to my question about the options available to the Classification Board for graphic novels, Ms Jolly, your predecessor said, and I quote: “I think the board’s submission to the Stevens review back in 2020 was that we felt there would be benefit in having some greater graduations in classifications”. The Stevens report did not make that recommendation at all. In fact, quoting from page 66 of his report, Mr Stevens said: “On balance, I do not consider that a compelling case has been made for an additional classification category in isolation of a more fundamental look at all the categories”. Mr Sharp and Senator Brown, will you assure the committee that your work in this imminent review will provide that in-depth look at available options that supports a legally binding intermediate classification such as MA14+ or MA15+? 

Mr Sharp: Well, Senator, it’s a good question. The board does not have any input into the scope of that review. However, I can say that on the public record the board in 2020 for the Stevens review made a submission and made recommendations around publications with the idea of harmonising and aligning all the guidelines—the film, computer game and the publication—so that they are more clear in their administering and for the public to understand. Within that, the board did note that it would make sense to abolish the existing unrestricted category 1 and category 2, which really is unclear to the public, and institute possibly an M, an R18+ or an X18+, which would align to those three categories and are well understood by the public within the film classification and computer games classification. That was part of the board’s submission in 2020. The board still has a position. 

Senator ROBERTS: We think the MA14+ or MA15+ are necessary because it’s not suitable for under 14s and it is suitable for 14s and up and 15s and up. That would fit in with your M. Is that correct? 

Mr Sharp: Well, not exactly, Senator. M is not recommended for persons under 15. MA is a legally restricted classification. 

Senator ROBERTS: What does that mean? 

Mr Sharp: It means that people under 15 years cannot purchase the publication and, similarly with a film, cannot view a film unless they have an adult doing that for them. It’s not that they cannot hold it, but they cannot purchase it or buy a ticket to it themselves. So the board’s previous submission was for an M, which is an equivalent to unrestricted. Currently, you may well be aware that unrestricted can also have an additional consumer advice of not recommended for persons under 15 years. R18 would be the equivalent of a category 1 currently, and there is X18. So the intention of the board in that submission, and our position today still, is to use classification designations that the public understands, recognises and trusts very well within the film classification area and the computer game classification area. 

Senator ROBERTS: So would that mean it would not be possible for a 14-year-old or under 14 to buy this? 

Mr Sharp: It would be strongly recommended that it’s not for that age group. But it would not be legally prohibited to do so. It would be advised that a parent make a decision around that. Parental guidance is part of that process. 

Senator ROBERTS: So you are heading in what would be the right direction for me. 

Mr Sharp: I’m pleased to hear that, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: But that’s what it sounds like. I’m just checking. 

Mr Sharp: I believe we’re on the same page. 

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t think under 14s should be able to get this, but let’s see what happens with your review, which is imminent. 

Mr Windeyer: Correct. 

Senator ROBERTS: We’ll ask in May. 

Senator Carol Brown: There will be more to say in due course, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Senator Brown. 

/by

Human Rights and Gender Dysphoria

,

I asked the Human Rights Commission how much they spend on legal intervention for people who lost their job due to vaccine mandates, then moved onto the topic of sex and gender.

The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) subscribes to the belief that sex can be changed after birth as recognised in law throughout Australia. The meaning of the words ‘man’, ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ will be argued at the Federal Court level with the assistance of the AHRC. I probed Dr Anna Cody, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, about the matter she is involved with as a “friend of the court”. The HRC has intervened in a recent Federal Court case known as “Tickle and Giggle” and will be assisting in this case, which will argue that ‘sex’, as in gender, isn’t real. The biological realities of sex appear to matter less than how people express their sexuality or gender identity. Dr Cody will assist the Federal Court to understand changes to the Sex Discrimination Act that occurred in 2013, to ascertain the validity of the changes under the Constitution and the Civil and Political Rights Convention.

Make no mistake, the sex and gender insanity is a direct attack on families, originating from foreign bodies like the corrupt World Health Organisation. One Nation will fight it every step of the way.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Croucher and your team, for being here. I’d like to get some information from you about your interventions and then discuss a particular case that I understand the Human Rights Commission is involved in. First, to the information, how much has the Australian Human Rights Commission spent on legal representations in immigration matters? You’ll have to take that on notice, I’m sure.

Prof. Croucher : Yes, I will take it on notice. In terms of ‘immigration matters’, I’m not sure what you mean by—

Senator ROBERTS: Advocacy for immigrants.

Prof. Croucher : Our general human rights work could include issues pertaining to immigration, but that would be very hard to particularise, because it’s part of a general mandate. In terms of involvement in external litigation, we have a little bit of intervention work that I can speak to, but it would be very hard to speak about particulars of the kind that you’re asking for. I don’t know that we can really help there.

Senator ROBERTS: We’d just like some indication of how much money is spent by the Human Rights Commission on supporting immigration matters.

Prof. Croucher : I can certainly take the question on notice, but with respect to the answer that we might be able to give, it’ll be fairly general, I would think. But we’ll do our best, Senator.

CHAIR: You can only answer what you’ve been asked.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s right.

Prof. Croucher : I’ll honour your question by taking it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: How much has it spent in total on legal matters?

Prof. Croucher : Again, if I can, I’ll take that on notice. I can give, as a specific example, the amount we spent on intervening in the recent High Court case, the NZYQ matter. I know that figure off the top of my head. But in terms of total engagement, over what period are you interested?

Senator ROBERTS: The last decade.

Prof. Croucher : The last decade. To the extent that we can, we will provide that information; otherwise, if I may suggest it, we might reflect a more contained period to give an example of an answer to that.

Senator ROBERTS: We’d just like to get an indication of the priorities, that’s all—in terms of the money and where it goes. If 10 years is ridiculously impossible, then use a shorter period. I just want to get some indication.

Prof. Croucher : An indication, yes. It’s not very much. I can give you that indication.

Senator ROBERTS: How many cases has the Australian Human Rights Commission intervened in or appeared in for an Australian who lost a job due to a vaccine mandate, a COVID injection mandate?

Prof. Croucher : We don’t appear for people in that way. We may seek to intervene or our commissioners may seek to act as amicus within their mandates, but we don’t act for people in that way.

Senator ROBERTS: How many have you intervened in?

Prof. Croucher : With respect to that particular topic, I don’t know of any, but, again, I will confirm that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s go to a case. Can you explain the commission’s intervention in the Federal Court case Tickle v Giggle to argue that sex—as in gendered sex—isn’t real? I’m told you’ve intervened in that.

Prof. Croucher : It’s the exercise of an amicus function of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner. Perhaps Commissioner Cody might like to speak to you directly about that.

Dr Cody : The role that the commission is playing in that matter is as amicus curiae.

Senator ROBERTS: What does that mean?

Dr Cody : It means friend of the court. Our role is to try to help the court understand some of the complex issues. Our role in intervening is to help understand the meaning of section 5B. It’s one of the first times that the Federal Court will be considering the changes to the Sex Discrimination Act that were introduced in 2013. There’s also a constitutional challenge as to whether or not it is valid under the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We’re intervening on those two issues.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How many letters after LGB does the commission recognise?

Dr Cody : We use a range of terms to refer to the communities. Sometimes we would refer to LGBTQIA+ because of the ways in which people refer to themselves. We also use the terms that are referred to in international discussions, which are sexual orientation, gender identity expression and ‘SC’, which for the moment escapes me but is another term that is used at an international level.

Senator ROBERTS: In the Human Rights Commission submission for Tickle v Giggle, apparently the commission has argued that sex is not a biological concept, nor does it refer to male or female. Is that correct?

Dr Cody : In our submissions, as in the Sex Discrimination Act itself, the terms ‘man’, ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ are not defined. We refer to the understanding of ‘woman’ which can be both the sex that is identified at birth but also through identification through birth certificates at all state and territory levels. A person can change their recognised sex through the birth certificate recognition.

Senator ROBERTS: So the Human Rights Commission believes that sex can be changed after birth.

Dr Cody : That is recognised in law around all of the states and territories in Australia.

Senator ROBERTS: Sex is not binary, limited to male or female—another intervention?

Dr Cody : That is an argument that will occur at the Federal Court—the meanings of the words ‘man’, ‘woman’ and ‘sex’.

Senator ROBERTS: To be considered female, it just needs to say ‘female’ on a birth certificate, which a male can do at any stage of life. That’s your view?

Dr Cody : No, that’s not the view of the commission. The submissions that we have made in the Federal Court and will argue when it comes to the full hearing of the case will be looking at how that is understood within the Sex Discrimination Act and the meaning that is ascribed. As I’ve referred to both, that includes, for a man or woman, the sex that you identified with at birth but also can be changed—or recognised—through the process of altering your birth certificate.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m quoting here. ‘At least as early as the 1990s, it has been accepted that sex is changeable.’ What happened before the 1990s?

Dr Cody : It was not recognised in law.

Senator ROBERTS: The words ‘female’ and ‘woman’ include men who claim to be women. You’ve validated that. Do you really believe these submissions are in line with the biological reality of sex and with most of Australians’ views? I take it you don’t, but that is the way the law sees it.

Dr Cody : My role as the Sex Discrimination Commissioner is to apply the Sex Discrimination Act and to intervene to assist the Australian community to achieve gender equality and also to achieve the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community. That is a part of our role acting as friend of the court in this case.

Senator ROBERTS: What changed in 1990?

Dr Cody : I think there was a growing understanding at an international level and also domestically of the range of ways in which people express their sexuality and also their gender identity.

Senator ROBERTS: So this is about expression, not science or body.

Dr Cody : I think it’s probably a combination. Bodies haven’t changed, no.

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that sex operations, I’m told, offer only two options: male and female?

Dr Cody : I can’t help you with that question.

Senator ROBERTS: To me it seems like this is supporting an attack on family. I recognise that there can be same-sex couples having a perfectly good family, so I’m not criticising that, but this is breaking up the family. You said it came from overseas—internationally. Broader Australians don’t seem to see this as an issue. Why are we spending so much time on it?

Senator Chisholm: You’re the one spending time on it!

Senator ROBERTS: Correct—because so many people are now concerned, including Queenslanders.

Dr Cody : I think there are many people in the community for whom these are important issues, and it’s important that we can discuss them. Many in the LGBTQIA+ communities experience severe discrimination, so we need to ensure that everyone in our community can experience the full range of human rights.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much.

/by

Australian Defence Force – Less Money on Gender Advisers, More on Ammo!

After questioning members of Defence during Senate Estimates, I spoke in the Senate Chamber in support of Senator Lambie’s Motion that the ADF recruitment and retention crisis is a national security issue.

With more leaving than joining our defence force, putting our ability to defend Australia at risk, there is no denying the ADF is in crisis. As Senator Lambie rightly pointed out, this is a national security issue. We need a ready, able and capable military force. It’s not enough to sit back and hope that the United States will come to our aid. We must ensure we are self-reliant in this country for our own defence.

Given his track record so far, it’s clear that until the Chief of the Defence Force, General Angus Campbell, is removed from his post, we will not have the defence force we once had. We must recognise our diggers for who they are – the people who care about our country and who are putting their heart and soul into defending this country.

Spend less money on “gender advisers” and more on ammo for training and diggers might just want to stick around.

Transcript

As a servant to the many fine people of Queensland and Australia, I speak on, and strongly support, Senator Lambie’s motion that the ADF recruitment and retention crisis is a national security issue. Senator Lambie, Senator Shoebridge and I spent a lot of time questioning Defence last week at Senate estimates. It was revealed at those h4earings that, despite all of Defence’s glossy recruitment brochures—as Senator Shoebridge accurately described them—there’s almost no mention of the fact that the headcount of defence personnel has gone backwards. There are more people leaving defence than joining, despite large recruitment and retention targets and huge expenditure. 

The responsibility for this utter failure sits squarely with Defence’s upper brass and with the politicians, for failing to keep them in line. The branch chiefs are all led—and I use that term loosely, when it comes to this man—by the Chief of the Defence Force, General Angus Campbell. He is paid more than $1 million a year at a time when defence personnel receive a real wage cut. It’s difficult to find a KPI or a metric that General Campbell hasn’t failed on in his time as head of the Defence Force: recruitment and retention goals—failed; Taipan helicopters—failed; the Hunter class future frigates—failed. There are questions over whether a medal that General Campbell wears on his chest today—the Distinguished Service Cross—was given to him legally. 

Over 100 active special forces soldiers have discharged from the force after General Campbell threw them under the bus at a press conference in 2020, tarring them with accusations of war crimes before a single charge had been laid. One of the most elite fighting forces in the world—the Special Air Service Regiment, or SASR—is reportedly facing a complete capability crisis as operators leave Defence because their supposed leaders don’t care about their welfare. The chair of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, Nick Kaldas, has been scathing of Defence and its leadership. He specifically called out the successive failure of governments, the Australian Defence Force and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs to adequately protect the mental health and wellbeing of those who serve our country. 

Our defence force is in crisis on many fronts. The ability to defend this country is at risk, and it’s a national security issue, as Senator Lambie rightly points out. We cannot just close our eyes and cross our fingers and hope that the United States will turn up and help us out. We need a ready, able and capable defence force as much as ever. Given his track record so far, it’s clear we won’t get one until the Chief of the Defence Force, General Angus Campbell, is removed from his post and until we start treating the diggers as the people they really are: the people who care about our country and who are putting their heart and soul into defending his country. 

/4 Comments/by

$200,000/y gender ambassador has no plans to give Saudi Arabia any tips

While the department doesn’t seem to know how much they’re paying employees, the newly appointed Gender Equality Ambassador is earning at least $200,000 a year to lecture Australia and predominately western countries about how bad we are to women.

Being an ambassador I wondered if she would be travelling to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or Pakistan to talk about their treatment of women, apparently it’s not on the agenda.
/5 Comments/by

Education, not indoctrination

Our children need to be armed with the critical thinking skills for a changing world. There’s no place for single-minded ideology in our curriculum. All viewpoints must be presented to students in a balanced manner.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I speak in support of Senator Hanson’s bill, the Australian Education Legislation Amendment (Prohibiting the Indoctrination of Children) Bill 2020. I support it because I have been the president of the board of a Montessori school. I’ve been on the advisory board of the International Montessori Council. I agree with the primacy of the family, the tripartite role between parents, teachers and child, in understanding education and supporting it. I want to correct something, though: the previous speaker seemed to have their imagination running wild, because he said, ‘These men come in here’. Well, Senator Hanson is a woman! She initiated this bill, and she’s a woman! During COVID, heavy-handed lockdowns forced children into learning from home, locked away from their friends and suffering through jerky attempts to teach through a Zoom screen. Of course parents were locked up at home with their children as well, listening to their classes in a way they never could before. Many were absolutely shocked as they heard the rubbish being taught to their children for the very first time. This bill tries to steer education back to the basics, to give our children critical thinking skills and to put the power back in parents’ hands to make sure that’s all they’re being taught.

In this bill, the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority would need to ensure that education provides a balanced presentation of opposing views on political, historical and scientific issues. Senator Hanson’s bill would require that, where opposing views exist, the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority is to ensure that the teaching profession is provided with the information, resources and support required to provide a balanced presentation to students. Wonderful! Federal funding would be conditional on states and territories requiring schools and their staff to provide a non-partisan education to students, while consulting with parents and guardians on the extent to which this has been achieved.

One Nation has been trying to keep this in check, with motions condemning the teaching of critical race theory and the curriculum’s erasing of history because it’s said to be too ‘white’ or Christian. There are lots of examples showing that stronger action is needed, and I commend Senator Antic and the others who spoke here today on that very point. There is, though, for example, the Parkdale Secondary College, where students were told to stand up if they were straight, white Christian males and be humiliated by the class because they were, ‘oppressors’. Without trial, they’re ‘oppressors’. Then there is Brauer College, where all the boys were forced to stand up at assembly and apologise to all of the girls on behalf of their gender. No specific crime was mentioned or identified for these boys to apologise for, except that they were the wrong gender. And only today One Nation New South Wales leader, Mark Latham, has drawn our attention to Mount Kuring-gai Public School. They are feeding fiction to students about history, forcing them to learn a play where Captain Cook arrives with the First Fleet in 1788 as a coloniser. For those who have forgotten history from their schooling, Captain Cook was long dead by the time of the First Fleet.

This bill is necessary to stop examples like this infecting our children, to return our teaching to the basics, to restore balance to the way topics are presented and to stop our schools from being indoctrination centres. This bill puts the teaching of balanced, critical analysis and parents in the driver’s seat of children’s education, as they should be.

/7 Comments/by

Medical Transitioning of minors is child abuse

Medically transitioning children is experimental. Long term benefits are not clear and detriments are mounting. Our children are not fodder for experimentation and advancing research outcomes for the medical profession.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I’m speaking to the answers Minister Gallagher provided—or, rather, failed to provide—to my questions on gender dysphoria treatment.

In avoiding the answer to my questions, the minister tried weakly to say, ‘Nothing to see here.’ Yet the world is waking up to the profoundly inhuman medical and psychological harms that children with gender dysphoria are experiencing when referred to gender clinics. The international trend is moving away from prescribing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to children under 18 years. Britain’s infamous—and the world’s largest—gender clinic, Tavistock, is now closing, following a review that found it failed vulnerable under 18s: it failed vulnerable under 18s! It follows the clinics in Finland, Sweden and France suspending the availability of puberty blockers and sex hormones to children unless under strict clinical trials.

How did we get to this place, where the power of ideology and trans activism is greater than the rightful duty and obligations of parents, and of the medical and legal professions to provide whole-of-person care for children with gender dysphoria? This woke ideological movement is suffering binary dysphoria. Apparently, for some, a binary world is not sufficiently colourful. Some parents are now forced to abrogate their parental responsibility to the power of the medical state. Fundamental facts are being ignored about children and child development. Fact: contrary to some views, sex is assigned at conception—not birth. We all know that adolescence is a highly challenging time, marked with a preoccupation of the discovery of self. It’s okay that a percentage of both genders don’t conform to traditional stereotypes. This doesn’t need correcting through irreversible medical treatments.

Ideologically-driven activists have intimidated the medical profession into silence and compliance with the affirmation model rather than making a stand for our children who are in distress during adolescence and who need holistic or whole-of-person care. When puberty blockers are administered we know, firstly, that a child cannot develop fertility—the latter stages of puberty do that—and, secondly, that they will not have full sexual function. Essentially, this child’s body becomes frozen in the early stages of puberty, with testosterone or oestrogen treatment adulterating the child and committing the child to a lifetime of hormones and drugs. It’s unknown what effect puberty blockers have on brain development, and only now is The Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne conducting research in this area. Too bad for all those children who have already passed through, and those currently receiving treatment. Endocrinologists traditionally treated diseases, yet in gender clinics they take perfectly healthy children with no diseases and inject them with puberty blockers to suppress normal hormone levels to treat, not an endocrine disease but the mental distress the child is experiencing.

How has this gone unchecked for so long? Why are these medical professionals not subject to disciplinary action for deliberately harming our children? What are governments doing while this is going on? Endocrinologists know the importance of puberty to the full development of a healthy human being. Today gender clinics give medical professionals a licence to offer up puberty as an option to children. The transgender lens has compromised the full care of our children. Gender clinics in Australia need to close and follow the lead of the Tavistock clinic in anchoring whole-person-care back to localised clinics within the mental health system.

Our children are making decisions that they can’t possibly understand—decisions with lifelong consequences. They are being sterilised and denied full sexual function, and their brain development is likely compromised. They are being made sick when they’re not physically sick. They are being denied the therapeutic support they need to help them with their distress. Instead of asking why there has been an explosion of girls presenting with gender dysphoria in Western countries, the medical profession has bowed down to the trans activists and grabbed the opportunity to create profits and research outcomes at the expense of our children—inhuman!

Adults in Australia’s gender clinics must not be allowed to hide behind a statement of operating to the standards of care. There is no care when the medical profession does not fully deal with the mental health issues that children are experiencing. There is no care when the medical professional takes physically healthy children and sends them on a pathway of drugs, infertility and arrested physical, sexual and neurological development for the rest of their lives. There is no care when state government legislation denies parents their rightful place in support of their children in distress. Our children are not fodder for experimentation and advancing research outcomes for the medical profession. Our children are not profit centres for pharmaceutical companies.

We are one community, we are one nation and this child abuse must stop now.

/1 Comment/by

Labor Government abandons children, languishes investigating medical transitioning of minors

Australian gender clinics are under fresh scrutiny and face calls for an independent review of their prescription of puberty blockers to teenagers after British clinic Tavistock was closed down over safety concerns. Further coverage in The Australian: ‘Calls to review transgender treatment for kids after British Tavistock Clinic is closed’ (paywall).

The Labor Government is either ignorant or negligent in not intervening in these practices in Australia.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (14:32): My question is to Senator Gallagher, representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. The Tavistock gender clinic in the UK, a leading provider of gender dysphoria services, will close in 2023. Britain’s National Health Service asked Dr Hilary Cass, past president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, to review the treatment of children with gender dysphoria. The Cass review found that Tavistock gender clinic has failed vulnerable children, and it recommended closing Tavistock. Finland, France and Sweden have taken the same decision for their gender clinics. Here in Australia, Melbourne’s Royal Children’s Hospital has many links with Tavistock. Minister, will you review Australia’s gender clinics to ensure that these clinics are not causing the same harm to vulnerable children that the Cass review found at Tavistock?

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:33): As the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, if there is further information I can provide after question time, I will do so. I would say that the Royal Children’s Hospital has an excellent reputation in paediatric care in Australia. It is staffed by world-renowned medical professionals providing first-rate care to younger citizens in the state and also around the country. I don’t have close knowledge of the services they would provide to children with gender dysphoria, but I have no doubt that they have the professional standards and the professional skills that are required to provide those young people and their families with first-level advice and health care. We have no information available to the government, to my knowledge, that we should see it any differently to that—that is, that where there are children who require health services they access them through a children’s hospital; that those services are accredited, there are professional standards in place and there are appropriate ethics and various advisory bodies that inform the delivery of those services; and that if there are concerns around them they are dealt with through the appropriate channels—not necessarily by politicians, who have particular views about certain things, but actually through the delivery of health services—as we do in a whole range of other areas of paediatric care.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (14:35): So you can’t say whether you will review? Evidence shows that the use of puberty blockers sterilises children, and the impact on brain development is unknown. The Royal Children’s Hospital is currently studying the impact of puberty blockers on children. We are literally offering a treatment we do not know is safe. Minister, when will the Australian government intervene and demand the closure of all gender clinics in Australia until gender treatment in children is proven to be safe, if ever?

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:36): The government has no intention to intervene and ban particular services, health services, that are supporting families and supporting children to access the type of care that they need for their individual situation. If there is further information I can provide—and I would say, as a former health minister, that health services in this country, and we are very fortunate, are heavily regulated. The professionals who provide health services are heavily regulated. There are professional bodies in place, there are complaints mechanisms, and there are a whole range of avenues, if there are concerns about any health service, that those would go through and be dealt with. They are not normally dealt with on the floor of a parliamentary chamber.

There are many families that need services. The Australian government is about providing health services, not taking them away. (Time expired)

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a second supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (14:37): Minister, One Nation listens to people and this is what we’re hearing, so we speak up for constituents. Minister, a child who has not even reached puberty is incapable of knowing their own mind. Doctors, and sometimes parents, are taking these decisions on the child’s behalf. Has the government considered the legal liability it is incurring for the government’s part in this medical malpractice?

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:43): Well, I don’t agree that it’s medical malpractice; nor do I agree with the proposition being put forward in the question, which is that there are professionals and parents making decisions that are harmful to young people. Perhaps, Senator Roberts, it might be good for you to go and ask the health professionals who are providing these services how they provide them and how they support young people, rather than just taking a particular view. I’ve always found that going in and asking questions and being open-minded—not necessarily just taking one individual’s view about it but actually learning from the health professionals—is useful.

I also think saying it’s medical malpractice goes too far. When we’re looking at the vulnerability of the young people and children who are needing this kind of support through the health system, we should be very sensitive in how we deal with it, and as a government we’re keen on making sure that we are able to provide health services to anyone who needs them, regardless of their circumstances.

/1 Comment/by