Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the 14th report of 2023 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 14 OF 2023

16 November 2023

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Senator Anne Urquhart (Government Whip, Chair)

Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip)

Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip)

Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip)

Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)

Senator Ralph Babet

Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher Senator Matt O'Sullivan

Senator David Pocock Senator Paul Scarr Senator Lidia Thorpe Senator Tammy Tyrrell Senator David Van

Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 15 November 2023 at 7.08 pm

2. The committee recommends that—

(a) the provisions of the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023, the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 2023, the Primary Industries (Services) Levies Bill 2023, the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2023, the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Bill 2023, and the Primary Industries (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 5 February 2024 (see appendix 1 for statements of reasons for referral); and

(b) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 and the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 April 2024 (see appendix 2 for statements of reasons for referral).

3. The committee recommends that the following bill not be referred to committees:

4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:

5. The committee considered the following bill but was unable to reach agreement:

(Anne Urquhart)

Chair

16 November 2023

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023 Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 2023

Primary Industries (Services) Levies Bill 2023

Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2023

Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Bill 2023

Primary Industries (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To further scrutinise and understand the matters raised within the proposed pieces of legislation.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Stakeholders including the Agriculture industry and other interested parties.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

December 2023—February 2024

Possible reporting date:

5 February 2024

(signed)

Print name: Wendy Askew

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023 (and associated Bills)

Reasons for referra1/prindpal issues for consideration:

Scrutiny of specific provisions

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Department

Primary industry stakeholders Biosecurity stakeholders and experts

Primary industry research and development stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Late January (if needed) Possible reporting date: 5 February

(signed)·

Nick McKim

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023

Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To understand and scrutinize the Bill further.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Various stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

January 2024

Possible reporting date:

26 April 2024

(signed)

Wendy Askew

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023

Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Defence, the Australian Submarine Agency; current regulators (particularly ARPANSA); Australian Shipbuilding Federation of Unions; DFAT; ANSTO.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

26 April 2024

(signed)

A.E. Urquhart:

I move:

That the report be adopted.

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

I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the Childhood Gender Transition Prohibition Bill 2023, the bill be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 31 May 2024".

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

I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and the Childhood Gender Transition Prohibition Bill 2023 not be referred to a committee".

The Australian Greens are not going to have a bar of the opposition setting up a committee inquiry that will provide a bunch of transphobes with a platform, under parliamentary privilege, to attack transgender people. We are not going to have a bar of transgender kids and transgender folks being attacked by a bunch of right-wing transphobes. That is exactly what Senator Antic, and I'm sure Senator Roberts—

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

Senator McKim, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts, on a point of order?

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

On a point of order: those remarks from Senator McKim are inappropriate under standing order 193, particularly in regard to him making a personal reflection.

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

Senator Roberts, there wasn't a personal reflection, but I am going to ask that Senator McKim be considerate of his language, because it was sailing close to the wind.

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

Trans folks in our community put up with an awful lot. They are attacked on a daily basis. They are attacked for who they are as humans. Their very existence as people is called into doubt by extremist fascists who are transphobes. The amount of rubbish that you see just on social media, on an unprotected platform, is appalling. We are not going to facilitate providing parliamentary privilege to those kinds of people. Trans rights are human rights.

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

Senator McKim, please resume your seat. Senator O'Sullivan on a point of order?

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

Yes. It is very clear from that last comment who Senator McKim is referring to. Therefore I ask that you ask him to withdraw.

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

Senator O'Sullivan, it is not clear. I will ask Senator McKim if he wishes to clarify.

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

Well, if the hat fits, Senator O'Sullivan can put it on if he wants to.

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

Senator McKim, resume your seat. I ask that this debate be respectful. That is not respectful, and I would ask you to withdraw that comment.

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

I withdraw that comment. I will clarify my comments: I'm aiming my comments at transphobes; that's who I'm aiming them at. I'm making the point that trans rights are human rights. Trans men are men, and trans women are women. That is the position of the Australian Greens. We will fight for that position on every front that is opened to us, at every opportunity that is provided to us to do that. We will ensure that we do everything we can to protect trans people from the vicious, disgraceful acts they are subjected to every day, and that includes by doing everything we can to make sure that this bill is not referred to a committee which will provide parliamentary privilege to the very transphobes we are talking about.

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

():  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—

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

Senator McKim on a point of order?

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wasn't going to contribute to this debate, but, following Senator McKim's intervention, I think it's very important to put on the record that Senator McKim refused to engage in any of the actual details that are included in this bill. Senator McKim—through you, Madam President—gave a speech around very broad generalisations of rights without in any way tackling the major issue that Senator Antic is bringing to this chamber, which is a matter of political controversy around the world. That is the simple question of whether minors—children—should be able to receive life-altering surgery or pharmaceuticals before the age of consent. That's all it is. I think that is a perfectly legitimate question to ask, because there is no more important thing we can do in this chamber than to protect children.

We have to be very clear here. I will just briefly go through some of the details of what is actually happening at the moment, rather than making accusations that different senators are reprehensible, deplorable people. What is actually happening right now is that young children in Australia are receiving pharmaceutical interventions that have not been approved or assessed for the use they're being put to. In particular, there's a chemical called Lupron, which is a TGA-approved drug for testicular cancer. It's been approved for use mainly by adult men who are afflicted with testicular cancer. It has not been approved or assessed by the TGA for use by children. There has been no assessment of that, yet in gender transition clinics in our country it is being used for minors. That is allowed to be done because it's an off-label use. It's being prescribed within the TGA's approved limits, but it's an off-label use.

Some observant senators might remember that there's been some controversy about off-label uses in recent years. People who had the temerity to use ivermectin for COVID, for example, were completely and utterly abused, with people saying that it was absurd and that it hadn't been tested for COVID. Here we have a drug that has not been assessed or tested for use in minors but is allowed, with little oversight, to be used on minors in Australia. Given the grave risks involved in it being applied to minors, I think it is only right and proper that we have an assessment of whether or not this is the right path to go down. There are no refunds for the children that might be afflicted by these pharmaceutical or surgical interventions. It's very hard for anyone to reverse the changes that are inflicted by these chemical interventions. I would have thought the Greens political party, more than any others, would understand the notion of the precautionary principle. Surely we should be very cautious about rolling out these types of interventions when we do not know what their long-term ramifications are because they haven't been assessed by a proper medical trial yet. They are being used in an effectively unregulated fashion.

Finally, there is nothing unique about our parliament or Australia looking at these issues in depth, given the controversies we've seen overseas. Many would know about the Tavistock clinic in the UK, which has been shut down by UK authorities because of the evidence that damaging and life-altering surgeries and other interventions were conducted on children. There was a long assessment of that institution in the UK, and, following that, it was shut down. Unfortunately, because this debate is being hijacked by those who prefer insults to debate, we are not having a similar assessment of the ramifications of what is occurring in our country on this issue. This bill gives us an opportunity to do that. I would encourage other senators to vote for this. Whatever views you have, what is there to hide here? Why are we trying to hide away from any parliamentary assessment or oversight the impacts on our children? It is far time we conduct this inquiry. I commend Senator Antic for bringing this to the chamber, and I hope that we can have an inquiry into a matter that is affecting the lives of children in this country.

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

I want to make a very brief contribution. I want to associate myself with the comments that Senator Canavan has just made and to make this point in addition: this is simply a referral to a committee. Senator McKim raises some concerns about it opening itself up to hurtful and hateful adverse reflections that presumably could come from submitters to that inquiry. The committee has processes and the powers to deal with submissions that would cause harm to people.

I think it is entirely appropriate for this issue to be referred to this committee to be looked at and to be examined. I note that the Greens actually chair this particular committee, the Community Affairs Legislation Committee. That committee has the capability to be able to deal with adverse reflections and, of course, provide protection if it was necessary. I think this is a sensible reference of a bill. It's an important bill that's worthy of debate, and this motion should be supported by the Senate.

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

I commend Senator Antic and Senator Roberts for bringing this to the chamber. I've tried on three separate occasions to have a hearing into this, an inquiry into it, and it was blocked every time. The fact is that it is exactly right.

I commend the Greens for standing up and fighting for koalas and fish, salmon, and different things. But we're talking about humans here. We're talking about our children—about protecting them and their rights as well.

We have seen in television interviews and even on Insight, when they did a story on this, what happened to children—absolutely distraught, sorry that they went through this whole process. We've seen it, as Senator Canavan said, with Tavistock, and we've seen it around the world. This has become a business at the expense of children's lives being destroyed, and that's what we need to consider.

Why I pushed my notice of motion to have an inquiry on this is that a group of mothers, half-a-dozen mothers, went knocking on the doors of members of parliament and senators to explain to them why it was important to have an inquiry into this. These are mothers, parents, who have seen their children go through this process and become—what can I say? They don't lead normal lives anymore. One mother said that her daughter now, who is 21, is in her bedroom for three months at a time. She will not come out of her bedroom. The mother has to leave her food at the door. She doesn't want anyone to see her because she's changed from a female to a male after taking these puberty blockers, the hormones that she needed to change. She's now got hair on her chest and hair on her face, and she's balding. She is absolutely distraught. It's destroyed her life. She said, 'All we need is to let people hear our story and understand what is happening in our community.'

Another reason why it's important now is that the Labor Party just passed their family law, and, under family law now, you can give all rights to the custodial parent, so the other parent no longer has a right or say in the health or wellbeing of the child. Parents have lost their rights here as well. You've given control of it to only one parent.

I just feel that this is so important. People in the gallery are listening to the debate here. Australians, our job here is to give people the right to have a voice. If it goes to an inquiry, then we can hear what the people have to say and make an assessment of that and how we best deal with this. People are sick and tired of being shut out—that they don't have a say. It's important that we do this. And I am disgusted by those on the coalition side who have not voted on this or who stay out of the chamber because they do not want it to be seen how they vote on this. It is not about an individual. This is about doing what's right.

In the criminal amendment bill the government wants passed today, they are worried about the drugs coming in from China through vaping. They're worried about the drugs that children may be taking through vaping. What about the irreversible drugs that are being given to children? Puberty blockers are irreversible, and that's what people won't admit. They don't want to say that. That's why it's so important to have this inquiry. I'll tell people: this has become a money-making business. In America, there was only one clinic. Now there are 300 across the whole country. It's estimated to be a $200 billion industry, at the expense of our children. That's what needs to be discussed here.

If you really worry about lives and about drugs, let the inquiry happen. What are you hiding? What are the Greens hiding? Why don't they stand up for Australians on this? Why don't they stand up for the children? That's what this is about. I cannot understand Labor's stance on this and why they are so opposed to the people having a voice. That's what it's about: the people having a voice. I will appeal to those on the coalition side, those half a dozen who haven't voted or who voted against this as well. Put it in an inquiry. Let the people be heard. It's no skin off your nose. That's what our job is. You must stand up for everyone in this nation. So I call on people. Let the people have their say. The people should be heard. You know what? Outside this chamber, we went to a referendum on that. The people had their say. We allowed the people to have their say as far as the Voice went, but we're not allowing the people to have their say— (Time expired)

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

I rise to speak in support of referring the Childhood Gender Transition Prohibition Bill 2023 for inquiry by a committee. We have an age of consent in this country for drinking, smoking, driving and voting, because we acknowledge that children are too young to make decisions. The impacts of gender-changing surgery for a child can last a lifetime. I think it's incredibly hypocritical that we have rules for our children to protect them yet we don't have rules and regulations on this and we do not want to scrutinise why we allow these changes to occur on a permanent basis.

The other reason why I think it's very important to look at this is the right of parents and how much say they have in regard to decisions that their children make. I've been contacted myself, as I know fellow senators have been contacted, by many parents who are distraught about the changes that have been inflicted upon their children, some of whom later decide that they made the wrong decision. I think we need to give them a voice as well.

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

There are two amendments before the chair. I'm going to deal with the amendment moved by Senator McKim. Senator Antic, are you seeking clarification?

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

I am, just by way of procedure. I think I moved mine first, so I wonder whether you might take mine first.

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

It's an amendment to your amendment, which was what I was explaining to the chamber, so I am required to put it first. Senator Canavan?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, President. I wouldn't normally do this, but given that this is, I think, going to be voted on along conscience lines, I don't actually have the amendments in front of me. It's not here.

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

I can read both amendments, Senator Canavan, if that assists. I'll get the Clerk to read both amendments.

The Clerk: Senator Antic moved:

At the end of the motion, add: "and, in respect of the Childhood Gender Transition Prohibition Bill 2023, the bill be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 31 May 2024".

Senator McKim's amendment would have the effect of substituting for the words 'be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 31 May 2024' 'not be referred to a committee'.

The question is that the amendment to Senator Antic's amendment, as moved by Senator McKim, be agreed to.

A division having been called for and the bells being rung—

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could I seek some clarification? I apologise for not getting to this before the vote, but I just had a look at Odgers', and an amendment cannot be moved if it is a direct negative to the motion. My understanding is that Senator Antic's motion was to refer this to a committee. Senator McKim's amendment—which I only got just before the vote, so I apologise for my timing—was not to refer it to a committee. To me it seems that's a pretty open-and-shut clear case of being a direct negative and therefore the amendment should be ruled out of order.

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

I'm advised that an amendment can't be a direct negative to an amendment which has already been passed, but the longstanding tradition regarding the Selection of Bills Committee is that amendments which haven't been passed and which may appear to be contradictory can be put. So the question is that the amendment, as moved by Senator McKim, be agreed to.

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

I shall now put Senator Antic's amendment as amended by Senator McKim's amendment. The question is that Senator Antic's amendment, as amended by Senator McKim's amendment, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.