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

Education, not Indoctrination!

,

The State Governments constantly come begging to the Commonwealth for money for schools which are State Government responsibility. This money inevitably ends up going towards ‘woke’ agendas, such as those promoted by Queensland Premier Steven Miles.

Drag queen story times, welcome to country and gender affirmation in schools is ridiculous and taxpayers shouldn’t be funding such programs.

I have long called for education to be about the basics: Education NOT Indoctrination!

Transcript

The schooling resource standard, or SRS, estimates the amount of public funding that schools need to meet their students’ educational needs. As of 2024, the Commonwealth is responsible for providing 20 per cent of public schools funding and, in line with this arrangement, states are required to take on 75 per cent, leaving a five per cent gap. The Commonwealth wears extra loadings for medium and small schools, which is estimated to cost the federal government $600 million in 2024 alone, as well as other student based loadings. 

This scheme was agreed upon between the federal, state and territory governments under the National School Reform Agreement. Australia is a federation of states, and education is a state responsibility. Not only are the states failing to meet their 75 per cent target; they’re demanding that the federal government tip in more money for an additional five per cent. It is hypocrisy for the Victorian education minister, Ben Carroll, to suggest that the federal government should cut its funding to non-government schools to make up for it. The Commonwealth is already paying its fair share and meeting its target as outlined in the schooling resource standard, and the states are not paying their fair share—their agreed share. The states have even declined the offer of the federal government taking on an additional 2.5 per cent to help in closing the gap. They are asking for the full five per cent. How can the states ask for anything when they’re not even meeting their own target? 

It’s worth noting that, in Australia, states and territories are responsible for the majority of public school funding, to which in 2024 alone the Commonwealth government is contributing $11.2 billion. Contrary to union bosses’ claims, the federal government over the past decade has taken on a greater share of the responsibility of funding schools. In fact, in 2013-14, states were responsible for 87 per cent of public school funding. Today that share is 12 per cent lower. It’s not the Commonwealth’s job to make up for the states’ fiscal illiteracy and mismanagement or the states’ pursuit of woke agenda. Look at Steven Miles, the Premier of Queensland. He is driving an agenda that includes gender bending and kiddies talk. 

Senator Allman-Payne interjecting— 

Senator ROBERTS: Senator Allman-Payne was talking about human relations. This is bending our children. That’s what we’re paying for. We should not be paying for that. Reading kids drag queens’ story times in schools—ridiculous! It’s left to the parent to defend their children and come in and stop it. One Nation stands on the fundamental idea that education is a state responsibility. We support Senator Tyrrell’s matter of public importance, and we thank her for it. 

/1 Comment/by

Labor’s LGBTIQA+ Agenda for Kids

,

At the same time Prime Minister Albanese is floating a proposal to ban children under 16 on social media, the Victorian ALP is promoting an LGBTIQA+ agenda to children 5 years old and up.  This includes using libraries to carry “educational” books like ‘Welcome to Sex’, which are in fact sex instruction manuals. 

Additionally, the guidelines promote drag queen story time and involve asking 5-year-olds about their preferred pronouns. Even more concerning, library staff are instructed to actively inquire about the children’s pronouns and even if known, offer them the opportunity to discuss their gender preference. At 5 years of age! 

When the Prime Minister talks of keeping children safe, he clearly isn’t talking about keeping them safe from groomers who want to introduce adult concepts to young children in ways that can only lead to confusion. 

In this speech, I review the literature on transgender surgery and highlight how this agenda is harming children with no medical benefits. 

Transcript

I note that staff in libraries across Victoria have been given a new LGBTQIA+ instruction called the ‘rainbow libraries toolkit’, which requires libraries to ask the gender and pronouns of children as young as five. Five! The Allan Labor government launched the toolkit. It advises library staff that adding books on gender diversity to their collections and promoting the drag queen story events to children will make them more LGBTQIA+ friendly. The toolkit advises library staff not to assume the gender pronouns of primary school age children. The explanation for this is: 

It is also important to recognise that, especially for young people, gender identity and sexuality can shift or evolve over time. 

Children in particular may want to experiment with different gender expressions through dressing up, and we can support them by avoiding mapping our expectations of gender onto them. 

Library staff are told that even if they are “familiar” with a child who visits their library, they should “leave room for them to express a change in their identity”, including by prompting them if they still go by the same pronouns. 

Checking in casually about their pronouns (“Do you still prefer he/him pronouns?”‘; “Do you still go by Sam, or is there something else you’d like me to use?”) … 

What the hell is going on? When these books—written for children, supposedly—are opened, it’s easy to see that they’re actually instruction manuals for sex. Who puts gender propaganda into libraries for primary school age children to access? Who runs drag queen shows for children? Who talks to children as young as five about their gender identity? Groomers do. The Australian Labor Party does. Who knew that the ‘P’ in ‘ALP’ stands for ‘perverts’? 

The inevitable outcome of this childhood grooming will be an increase in gender dysphoria in children, leading to increased pharmaceutical interventions. Here is what we know about the drugs used in gender dysphoria, commonly called puberty blockers. According to the TGA product assessment for leuprolide, the purpose of the approval is for the treatment of cancer. The drug reduces the production of hormones on which cancer feeds—fair enough, for adults. This reduction in hormones causes ‘atrophy of the reproductive organs’. What are the side effects? DAEN case 816594, 26 July 2024, female age nine years: side effects included pain and fat necrosis. Fat necrosis, according to the Cleveland Clinic in America, is the death of fat tissue in the breast or other organs. The damaged fat may be replaced with a cyst or scar tissue—nice! DAEN shows that there have been 42 reports of adverse events from leuprolide among children aged 10 or less. Less than half of the reports include age, so the real figure will be much higher. 

This drug cost taxpayers $271 for a low-dose and $1,370 for a high-dose prescription. At a time when taxpayers are struggling with the cost of living, why is the Albanese Labor government choosing to spend taxpayers’ money on this? The propaganda around this very expensive drug is that these changes are not permanent, and the transgender lobby repeat this as a mantra. It’s a lie. The condition that is reversible is precocious puberty, where a child goes into puberty at a very young age. Puberty blockers do indeed prevent that child from going into puberty, until they are removed from the drug, usually at around 11 years of age. The extension of that safety data to any child is the great lie of childhood transgender experimentation. There is no proof that these drugs are safe for a child who is not suffering the raised hormone levels associated with precocious puberty. 

This is not my opinion; Britain’s National Health Service has changed their guidance on children and puberty blockers, preventing their use for the gender dysphoria on the basis that: ‘Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria. The effects of bone density in children whose central precocious puberty is arrested with puberty blockers are considered unknown, as they have not been studied.’ Why the hell not? Why are these things handed out like confetti and like candy when we don’t know their long-term health impacts? That is not responsible. It’s criminal. It’s inhumane. 

A groundbreaking documentary from the state-run television channel in Sweden has revealed a shocking case of bone damage in one child, Leo. He’s one of 13 children treated at the Karolinska University Hospital who are known to have suffered catastrophic injuries from puberty blockers. Their ailments include liver damage, mental health problems, skeletal damage and a failure to grow. From that investigation: 

Leo is in pain most of the time. His back hurts badly when he stands up or walks. It is a hard life for a teenager, and he has no idea if the agony will ever go away. 

And: 

He has spinal fractures and a condition called osteopenia, which weakens the bones, making them more liable to break. It is a disease that you often see in people aged 60 or 70 and is almost impossible to reverse.’ 

The overwhelming evidence is that this atrophy, this damage to the reproductive organs of children, is permanent. We are administering this to children under 10, and it’s sterilising them. It’s this evidence that has seen 25 American states ban the pharmaceutical mutilation of children. 

Likewise, the transgender lobby will tell you that a cross-gender-identifying child has a greater risk of suicide without puberty blockers. A comprehensive literature review published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society found said there was no statistical signal that suicides increase or decrease from pharmaceutical gender intervention. So, before the Munchausen-by-proxy brigade and the lining-their-pockets brigade come after me, I suggest you take a long, hard look at yourselves. In Senate estimates hearings I asked the TGA if they had conducted safety testing and approved these drugs for use in children, and I was advised they had. I have a motion in the list for tomorrow calling for the release of that data, which is not on the TGA website. 

In good conscience, One Nation cannot support the continued harming of our children for a condition that can be treated successfully with counselling and love. One Nation will continue to defend the family and children from the perversions of the Labor Party and, bizarrely, from Victorian librarians. 

Tonight I ask whether this Senate can have confidence in the integrity and competency of investigations of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC. It was only a few months ago that the Senate Economics References Committee handed down a scandalous inquiry report which documented how ASIC has comprehensively failed the Australian people. Now further information has come to light which shows ASIC has once again failed to protect everyday Australians. This failure is ASIC’s criminal investigation into a precious metal dealership, ABC Bullion, that occurred between July 2022 and August 2023. 

Over the course of 13 months, ASIC spent approximately $300,000 to investigate serious allegations regarding ABC Bullion’s storage services, including whether the physical gold and silver bullion of Australian investors was missing. ASIC closed its investigation on 10 August 2023, stating it would take no further action. This is a decision I disagree with on the basis of information I have at hand, and it’s troubling that current Prime Minister Anthony Albanese took the unprecedented step of holding a national press conference with the directors of ABC Bullion and its parent company, Pallion group, and providing them an explicit personal endorsement. This press conference occurred while the ASIC investigation into possible fraud was underway. 

Pallion is Australia’s third-largest private company, and I’m sure that carries weight with ASIC and the office of the Prime Minister. This endorsement was despite the Australian Taxation Office’s highly publicised pursuit of Pallion over the past decade. This tax office investigation cost millions of dollars and covered alleged involvement in an elaborate GST fraud scheme and an illegal phoenixing activity. This saw the tax office succeed in a legal bid to appoint liquidators to the phoenix Pallion group while continuing to pursue the current Pallion entity. The Prime Minister endorsed a company that was under two separate government investigations, from ASIC and the ATO, both of which should rightly have been known to the office of the Prime Minister. 

Why would the Prime Minister endorse a company under two government investigations? Recently, independent investigators have found more troubling information about the millions ABC are charging mum-and-dad investors to hold bullion in their secure facility in Marrickville. Firstly, ASIC did not physically inspect any ABC Bullion or Pallion group facility for 9½ months, providing ample opportunity for the Prime Minister’s mates to physically alter the evidence. 

Secondly, on 31 July 2022, a mere 3½ weeks after the ASIC investigators tipped off ABC Bullion that it was under investigation, ABC Bullion moved an undisclosed quantity of physical bullion from a tiny room in the Sydney CBD to an industrial building located in Marrickville. This building did not then, and does not now, have a valid occupation certificate, meaning that ABC Bullion and its sister company, Pallion Equipment, have been, under New South Wales law, illegally occupying a building for more than two years. In the past month Inner West Council has officially declared this occupation to be, in their words, ‘unlawful’. 

Thirdly, this unlawful occupation was never disclosed to ABC Bullion’s insurers, despite it being required under law. Such nondisclosure provides the insurer with a legal right to void any insurance contract, thus exposing investors to significant risk without their knowledge. 

In summary, ASIC investigated the Prime Minister’s mates and gave them a clean bill of health, even though easily identifiable illegal activity was occurring under their nose. (Time expired) 

/7 Comments/by

Babies Born Alive Left to Die!

,

I strongly support the Senate Urgency Motion in favour of saving the lives of babies born alive after a failed abortion. For the past six years, I have spoken in the Senate while wearing a lapel pin that depicts the tiny feet of a 10-week-old infant, a symbol of the innocent lives at stake. In Queensland, 328 babies were born alive and left to die over the last 10 years. Under the Queensland Criminal Code, this is clearly a crime.

While there are legal protections for medical practitioners who induce stillbirths, those protections end when a child is born alive. Yesterday, during a hearing in the Queensland Parliament, brave maternity nurse Louise Adsett gave heartbreaking details of the tragic fate awaiting many beautiful newborn Australians in Queensland maternity wards. These babies are left to cry until they die.

Louise shared the story of nurses who, with compassion, held these babies as they took their last breaths, surrounding them with love in their final moments rather than leaving them alone in a cold and hard stainless steel environment. There is no legal grey area here—allowing a child born alive to die in Queensland is a crime, and that crime is murder.  I thank Senator Babet for introducing this Motion.

To the Queensland Police, my message is simple: “Do your bloody job!” 

These babies deserve better; they deserve the same fundamental right to life that all human beings have.

Transcript

I strongly support this motion from Senator Babet in favour of saving the lives of babies born alive. For 6 years I’ve spoken in the Senate while wearing a lapel pin which depicts an infant’s feet at 10 weeks of age. 

My opposition to abortion comes from my humanity and my role as a father and grandfather. 

Sadly Queensland’s Termination of Pregnancy Act 2018 allows for unrestricted access to abortion up to 22 weeks. After that point two doctors must be convinced the abortion is in the mother’s best interests. Doctors who make their living signing off on abortions. 

As Rhodes Scholar and leading researcher Professor Joanna Howe has found, between 2010 and 2020, 4,929 babies were killed after 20 weeks, and until birth. In Queensland, of these babies, 328 were born alive and left to die. 

Last week I was pleased to attend a protest on the Federation Lawn that was a memorial to the 5,000 babies born alive when aborted around Australia. The memorial was 5000 pairs of baby’s booties in the shape of a cross. Babies who were thrown aside and left on a cold stainless steel slab to die. Alone. Nearly 50% of these were perfectly healthy. Nothing wrong with them. Why were they induced and delivered stillborn instead of alive and placed for adoption? 

Under the QLD Criminal Code the current law is clear. This is a crime. Section 292 provides that a child becomes a human being after being born and proceeds in a living state from the body of its mother, whether it has breathed or not, and whether it has had independent circulation or not. 

Section 302 defines murder as by someone who: intends to cause death, which is the case with these 328 babies; or causes death by an act, omission or reckless indifference to human life; 

Currently the penalty for murder in Queensland is life. How ironic. There are protections for medical practitioners who induce the still birth of a child. That protection stops when the child is born alive. 

Queensland MP Bobbie Katter has introduced a bill to ensure the rights of babies born alive. Under the bill, the duty of a registered health practitioner to provide medical care and treatment to a person born as a result of a termination would be “no different” from their duty to anybody else. This means babies would be given care allowing them to survive where possible, while babies unable to survive would instead be given palliative care. 

In yesterday’s hearing into this bill courageous maternity nurse Louise Adsett described in heartbreaking detail the fate that has awaited so many beautiful young Australians in QLD maternity wards. Babies left to cry themselves to death. Alone. Louise described nurses holding babies that have been marked for death until they drew their last breath, a breath surrounded with love, not cold, hard stainless steel. 

There’s no legal grey area here, allowing a child born alive to die in Queensland is a crime, and that crime is murder. 

To the QLD Police I have this simple message: DO YOUR BLOODY JOB. 

Failure to prosecute the first murder has led to 327 more human beings losing their lives and that’s on you. 

The preamble of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) explicitly recognizes the unborn’s right to life. This is a matter that can be legislated federally and if the States will not police their own laws then the Federal Government must intervene. 

I have yet to hear an abortionist successfully explain at what point in the development of a child it ceases to be a collection of cells and becomes a baby. Until you can show a physiological point before which the child is just a bunch of cells, and after which the child is a living being, I will continue to defend every life and oppose abortion. Except abortion when the mother’s life is in danger. If these practitioners were proud of their actions, they would not be changing the name of their trade from abortion to reproductive care. There’s no reproduction and there’s no care for the child. As least be honest with yourselves, this is not care. This is designed to dehumanise mothers and fathers, dehumanise society and harden the hearts of our community. Neither can this be described as women’s health, the health of the mother is the same no matter if the baby is put up for adoption or murdered. Woman’s health does not apparently include the health of one-half of these aborted babies who themselves will grow into women. 

My office has received over 1000 emails and calls today from Queenslanders who are horrified at this practice. So much so I feel the need to remind everyone that while God loves everyone, God punishes killing. 

These human babies deserve better. Babies deserve to have the same rights as have all human beings. And foremost amongst these is the right to life. 

How They Voted

The Motion

Matter of UrgencyDownload
/13 Comments/by

Australia’s Moral Obligation to End Child Labour

One Nation is dedicated to supporting families not only within Australia but also abroad. The persistent issue of child labour perpetuates the cycle of poverty, as children are deprived of education and are forced to work in impoverished conditions throughout their lives.

Currently, products manufactured through child labor are readily available in Australia. My proposed bill aims to eradicate this by imposing fines and, ultimately, prohibiting the sale of products associated with child labor in their supply chains.

The Customs Amendment (Preventing Child Labour) Bill 2023 is currently before a Senate Inquiry. I urge you to send in your submissions on this crucial matter.

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/ChildLabour/Submissions

Later this year, I will bring this bill to a vote, emphasising our commitment to combatting child labour and upholding human rights standards.

Australian has a moral obligation to end child labour. Together, we can make a meaningful difference in the lives of countless children forced into this horrific conditions.

Explanatory Memorandum

Explanatory MemorandumDownload

The Bill

BillDownload

Child labour hinders a child’s physical and educational development. It reinforces the vicious circle of poverty and affects children across the developing world. No child should have to sacrifice their childhood to work.

I’m proud to announce that I will be introducing my Bill, The Custom’s Amendment (Preventing Child Labour) Bill 2023, at the next sitting. This Bill introduces escalating penalties on products with child labour in their supply, leading eventually to a complete ban. Using a stepwise approach gives offending suppliers time to move away from employing children to employing adults instead. Imposing an immediate ban on these suppliers would be disastrous to the economies of the countries involved. These children would be in school and their parents in jobs if wealthier nations had not turned a blind eye for so long to the problem.

It’s Australia’s moral obligation to help end the cycle of child labour.

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I proudly advise the Senate that on the next sitting day I’ll introduce One Nation’s Customs Amendment (Preventing Child Labour) Bill 2023. There have been many attempts to ban products with child labour in their supply chains—all have failed. The reasons were always the same. Including adult slave labour and child labour in the same Bill ensures failure. These are two different problems needing two different solutions. Adult slave labour is a contentious issue which has always failed on the definition of slave labour. It’s best dealt with politically. Child labour, on the other hand, has a clear definition from the International Labour Organization. If a child misses school, or would miss school if school were available, in order to engage in work, that’s child labour.

My Bill imposes escalating penalties on products with child labour in their supply chain, leading eventually to a complete ban. This approach gives companies time to fix their supply chain, and it allows ethical companies time to ramp up production and meet increased demand. It gives offending suppliers time to move from employing children to instead employing adults from the same area. However, a knee-jerk solution to immediately ban products with child labour in their supply chain would be disastrous for the economies of the countries hosting industries currently using child labour. This is why governments in these countries have had little appetite to address the issue. These children would be in school and their parents in a job if it were not for rich Western countries looking the other way because everyone loves cheap electronics, clothing and coffee. I ask all senators for their support when the Bill is brought to a vote early next year. I would welcome discussion with the minister on a government led solution.

/1 Comment/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

Let Australians Have Their Say on Gender Transition

Last sitting I was pleased to co-sponsor the Childhood Gender Transition Prohibition Bill 2023 from Senator Antic which seeks to prevent children from being surgically or chemically harmed in the name of gender identity. The Senate Committee that selects new legislation for inquiry refused to recommend this bill for a public inquiry. Senator Antic moved a motion to amend their report to require an inquiry.

The Greens opposed this amendment because they are clearly afraid of the truth coming out about child mutilation in the name of gender dysphoria. Labor opposed it in the name of wokism which is the cult they slavishly follow to avoid standing up for civil rights, decency and human values.

Why Senators Lambie, Tyrell and Pocock voted against sending our bill to a committee inquiry is anyone’s guess. It is very disappointing to see however, along with noting that so many of the Libs were out to lunch to avoid making a choice.

As I said in this speech, this is not about transphobia. It is about a child’s future and parental rights. By ensuring someone has reached the age of 18 before making such a final and irreversible decision about their future, they can avoid a lot of potential heartache and regret.

We don’t expect a child to know what they want to be when they grow up. Why would we let them decide they want to be the opposite sex?

Transcript

I speak in support of Senator Antic’s amendment. The Senate has portfolio committees to inquire into legislation for a good reason. Every committee is, from time to time, asked to inquire into a bill that raises issues of significance, as this bill does. The conventions and procedures of a committee inquiry are well suited to handing controversial issues such as this. Such inquiries are conducted all the time, because they’re essential to the legislative process. The Senate is open to denying a bill due process, so the question must be asked, why? What is it about this issue that has the Greens on the rampage, the ALP in hiding and the globalist wing of the Liberals rushing to cross the floor to avoid talking about it. 

Childhood gender surgery, whether physical or chemical, is not an insignificant matter. It is life changing, often life ending and irreversible. When young gender transitioners realise that it is irreversible and they regret their decision, that can often lead to them choosing suicide, to end their life. Billions of dollars of taxpayer money is involved. More importantly, the lives and health of tens of thousands of Australian children are at risk. There’s no room to vote this matter on feelings or fear. We need to get the facts. Gendered identity surgery on children relates to their physical health and to life itself. 

I appreciate that there are those even on the conservative side who refuse to question childhood gender surgery. That’s their right. Australians are increasingly asking why there is a cover up. Who are you protecting? I have received representatives from constituents from many different states approaching this issue from many different perspectives. Whenever One Nation has brought these perspectives to this place we have been shut down. That is not democracy. That is not the exercise of Senate powers without fear or favour; it is the complete opposite. It is control and shutting down. It is censorship. I have promised my constituents I will bring their perspectives to this place, and I will never take a step back from doing that fairly and honestly. 

The public have turned against causing chemical and physical mutilation and harm to children in the name of gender identity. The Senate will have to deal with this issue in the near future, so let us do it now. Let us get on with the job. Send this bill to a committee and let Australia contribute to the debate. Let parents have their say. Let victims of childhood transition have their say. And, yes, let trans people have their say. I point out, that all that is done by this bill that I co-sponsor with Senator Antic and Senator Babet is found mainly in section 8. It prohibits doctors prescribing surgery or puberty blockers to people under the age of 18. That’s all it does. A health practitioner— 

The PRESIDENT: Senator McKim on a point of order? 

Senator McKim: The point of order is relevance. The question before the chamber does not go to the substance of the bill. It goes to whether or not the bill should be referred to a committee. I ask that Senator Roberts be relevant to the question. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator McKim, these are broad-ranging discussions. Senator Roberts is being absolutely on point to the amendments before the chamber. 

Senator ROBERTS: Section 8, clause 1 reads: 

A health practitioner must not knowingly provide gender clinical interventions to a minor that are intended to transition the minor’s biological sex as determined by the child’s sex organs, chromosomes, and endogenous profiles. 

There are then details of the medical procedures and the prohibition of prescription drugs that achieve the same purpose except for the medical treatment of disorders of sexual development. Section 12 restricts the expenditure of Commonwealth money—taxpayers’ money—on treatment. 

A committee improves bills, a committee scrutinises bills and a committee, above all, gives an opportunity for the people of Australia to have their say. I know many trans people. I’m pleased to meet them and proud to have them as friends. I communicate with some of them regularly. This is not about transphobia; this is about making sure that people have the right to have a say in this bill, which is absolutely essential. I commend Senator Antic’s amendment to the Senate. 

/4 Comments/by

Australia’s Moral Obligation to End Child Labour

Child labour hinders a child’s physical and educational development. It reinforces the vicious circle of poverty and affects children across the developing world. No child should have to sacrifice their childhood to work.

I’m proud to announce that I will be introducing my Bill, The Custom’s Amendment (Preventing Child Labour) Bill 2023, at the next sitting. This Bill introduces escalating penalties on products with child labour in their supply, leading eventually to a complete ban. Using a stepwise approach gives offending suppliers time to move away from employing children to employing adults instead. Imposing an immediate ban on these suppliers would be disastrous to the economies of the countries involved. These children would be in school and their parents in jobs if wealthier nations had not turned a blind eye for so long to the problem.

It’s Australia’s moral obligation to help end the cycle of child labour.

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I proudly advise the Senate that on the next sitting day I’ll introduce One Nation’s Customs Amendment (Preventing Child Labour) Bill 2023. There have been many attempts to ban products with child labour in their supply chains—all have failed. The reasons were always the same. Including adult slave labour and child labour in the same Bill ensures failure. These are two different problems needing two different solutions. Adult slave labour is a contentious issue which has always failed on the definition of slave labour. It’s best dealt with politically. Child labour, on the other hand, has a clear definition from the International Labour Organization. If a child misses school, or would miss school if school were available, in order to engage in work, that’s child labour.

My Bill imposes escalating penalties on products with child labour in their supply chain, leading eventually to a complete ban. This approach gives companies time to fix their supply chain, and it allows ethical companies time to ramp up production and meet increased demand. It gives offending suppliers time to move from employing children to instead employing adults from the same area. However, a knee-jerk solution to immediately ban products with child labour in their supply chain would be disastrous for the economies of the countries hosting industries currently using child labour. This is why governments in these countries have had little appetite to address the issue. These children would be in school and their parents in a job if it were not for rich Western countries looking the other way because everyone loves cheap electronics, clothing and coffee. I ask all senators for their support when the Bill is brought to a vote early next year. I would welcome discussion with the minister on a government led solution.

/2 Comments/by

Slow Progress on Protecting Kids from Graphic Sex Books

I asked the Classification Board about publications that are considered obscene material for children and whether the rating system available to the board to make an accurate rating is allowing such material to slip through the classification cracks.

I have for some time been campaigning on the powers the Classification Board has to stop kids having access to graphic novels that are nothing more than pornography.

After having my concerns deflected at the last Estimates, I was pleased to find the Classification Board does agree that there is a need to expand the range of options they have for the classification of graphic novels for children.

At the moment the choice is either to not classify the publication that allows any child to access it in a store or library, or R, meaning the publication can only be displayed in a plastic wrapper and sold to adults. The rating in the middle is M, which means 15 and up, however this is only an advisory rating and does not serve to limit children accessing the publication in any way.

I am pleased to see the Classification Board is now seeking to add a further, legally binding restriction on these publications.

I am concerned the time frame seems to be open-ended and will continue to pursue the Minister and the Classification Board to get this loophole closed sooner rather than later.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: First question—thank you for being here; that’s the first thing. I’ve asked the Classification Board before about publications that must be considered obscene material for children. Last time it
was the books The Boys and Gender Queer. Since then, the publisher, Hardie Grant, has released Welcome to Sex, which is targeted at 10-year-olds, and the author said actually eight and up. The distinction between eight and 10 is academic. This book was on the shelves of retailers like Target, where a child of any age could purchase it. My question now is the same as it was last Senate estimates. Does the Classification Board have a rating system available to it for graphic novels that allows the board to make an accurate rating, or do you need something between anyone being able to access a publication and R—restricted for sale to adults, in plastic wrapping? Do you need an intermediate classification?

Ms Jolly: As you’ve outlined, the options available for the Classification Board are restricted publications of different types, but they’re restricting publications for over 18-year-olds or freely available. The other option we have is to produce consumer advice, which is not legally restrictive, which advises that the material is not suitable for people under 15.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you need an intermediate classification, then?

Ms Jolly: I think the board’s submission to the Stevens review back in 2020 was that we felt that there would be benefit in having some greater—

Senator ROBERTS: Another category.

Ms Jolly: gradations in classifications.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. Your answer’s really clear. Minister, in my meeting with Minister Rowland, I was advised that a review of the classification system would be commenced shortly. Has that
review commenced?

Senator Carol Brown: The review is being taken in two stages. Stage 1, of course, you would understand, included the piece of legislation that was passed recently in the parliament and received royal assent on 14
September, and that will commence next year, in March 2024. The stage 2 reforms aim to bring the scheme into alignment with the modern media environment, particularly the treatment of online content. Do you want me to tell you what those reforms go to?

Senator ROBERTS: I really just want to know: is it looking into options available for written publications?

Senator Carol Brown: This is a result of the 2020 review of Australian classification regulation, the Stevens review, which was handed to government in 2020 and released in 2023, and one of the things that it is looking at is to ensure that the classification criteria are evidence based and responsive to evolving community standards and expectations.

Senator ROBERTS: Is it looking into the options available for written publications—another classification, for example?

Senator Carol Brown: The review is quite broad, and it will refine the purpose and scope of the National Classification Scheme, so it will establish—

Senator ROBERTS: The review has commenced?

Senator Carol Brown: Informal consultation with government stakeholders has commenced. Public consultation will occur early in 2024.

Senator ROBERTS: So it is looking into options available for written publications. The public will get the opportunity to comment early in 2024. What is the time frame for recommendations?

Senator Carol Brown: I might hand to the deputy secretary to give you some time lines—if that’s what you’re after?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, please.

Mr Windeyer: I don’t think I can give you a date for conclusion at this point. I’m happy to take on notice to see if we’ve got some more precise time lines developed at this point, but the key point is: we’ve started
preliminary consultations with some internal-to-government stakeholders. Public consultation will commence early next year. But I don’t have a set date for the conclusion of the review.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take that on notice.

Mr Windeyer: I’m happy to take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/3 Comments/by

What Part of the School Curriculum is Drag Queen Storytime?

,

I asked the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) whether Drag Queen story times are part of the curriculum.

Initially the answer was a firm NO from David de Carvalho, before circling back and side-stepping the issue by saying he was processing the question.

I asked what control or influence the national curriculum has over state schools and was told there is some freedom to adapt and adopt before implementing the curriculum.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here. We have a number of constituents—quite a few—who are very concerned about the story I’m going to tell you about. Can you please advise me which part, if any—because the ABC got it wrong last time—of the Australian Curriculum relates to drag queen storytime? Right, thank you. We have schools that are hosting drag queen storytimes where they’re getting drag queens in to read stories to children. It’s happening on the Sunshine Coast and in other parts of Queensland. It’s done on school time, so we thought that surely it has to relate the curriculum for them to do that. That’s why I’m asking in that section. My second question—because you’ve denied it, which I thought would be correct—is: what control or influence does the national curriculum have on state schools?

Mr de Carvalho: I’m not sure I denied your question; I was waiting for the full extent of it.

Senator ROBERTS: You indicated quite clearly that it doesn’t exist in the curriculum.

Mr de Carvalho: I indicated, I guess, that I was trying to process the question with a view to giving you a sensible answer. I may ask Ms Foster to contribute there. What was the second part of your question?

Senator ROBERTS: What influence does the national curriculum have over state schools, and is there any compulsion to follow the national curriculum? What are the responsibilities?

Mr de Carvalho: There is an agreement that states and territories will implement the Australian Curriculum, but each of them does that in a slightly different way. The terminology that we use in relation to this is that states and territories are free to ‘adopt and adapt’ the curriculum to suit their local circumstances. That is the agreement, and different states and territories are in different parts of the plan to implement the Australian Curriculum. They’re going through and looking at it and determining to what extent they can adopt it fully. Some states’ curriculums are very close to the Australian Curriculum, and other states adapt it slightly before implementing it.

Senator ROBERTS: Is it done on a state-by-state basis, or are individual schools free to go wherever they want?

Mr de Carvalho: We have three sectors in the country. Jurisdictions—certainly in the state school systems—tend to take a uniform approach for their jurisdiction. Different jurisdictions have different mechanisms for adopting and adapting the curriculum. For example, in Victoria there is the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority; in Queensland you have the Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority; and New South Wales has the New South Wales Education Standards Authority. These are the bodies in those major jurisdictions which have a close look at the Australian Curriculum and then determine how, if at all, it should be adapted for those jurisdictions. WA have their School Curriculum and Standards Authority, and they also undertake that adaptation approach. The other jurisdictions tend to be closer—Queensland is closer, as are Tasmania, South Australia and Northern Territory—in terms of their implementation.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/5 Comments/by