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

I move:

(1) That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent this resolution having effect.

(2) That the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Acknowledging Biological Reality) Bill 2024 be restored to the Notice Paper and consideration of the bill resume at the first reading stage.

(3) That the bill be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 November 2025.

I think this is a debate that we need to have. It is concerning many Australians—what is happening in our country. You hear all the time, as to what is happening in our educational system, that people are actually being told they can choose whether they want to be a boy or a girl. Let's be logical about it and let's talk common sense for a change, instead of the load of rubbish that's going around.

Biological reality is: male and female—the essential basis for procreation. Let me tell you, procreation is about having children. I've never known of a man to deliver a baby yet. I don't think they can. You're not equipped for it, mate, okay? You don't have the equipment to be able to have a baby.

There are these people out there who think that one minute in their mind they can say, 'Oh no, I'm really a biological male, but now I want to be a female,' and then we have to include them in all this about stillbirths. They think that they should be consulted because they're transgender. They're moving from being a biological male to a female, so they've got to have an opinion about stillbirth. Oh, give me a break, will you!

People born male cannot bear children. It's determined by the chromosomes and it's determined by DNA. It doesn't matter how much you might think you want to be a female, you cannot and never will be a female. It doesn't matter how many bits and pieces you have cut off. It doesn't matter what you add—how many sex hormones, how many puberty blockers—you will never ever be a female. That's it.

The whole basis of this whole thing is that the science is clear and it doesn't care about activists' fantasies about fluidity or identity. Science is science. You're quite happy to talk about science when it comes to climate change, but you're not quite happy to talk about science when it comes to gender fluidity.

What is also happening is that we're risking the fairness in women's sports. You have these men that are saying, 'Oh, look, I'm a female today. I want to join and get into female sports.' I watched a video of rollerskaters, and one was clearly a male, and he's in these women's sport and he's nudging them and he's pushing them around. Biological males have the strength; they have the muscles; they actually are built differently to the females. Why are we allowing this to happen? As Janet Albrechtsen has said, 'How can a person know about another person's sex or gender identity if the law plots an ambiguous scale?' And that's what's happened, and that's where we see the problem now with Tickle v Giggle at the moment. This is just ridiculous, this 'gender related identity' and also this highly subjective definition of gender identity, which is:

Gender identity means the gender-related identity, appearance or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of a person.

That's whether by way of medical intervention or not, with or without regard to the person's designated sex at birth. We are allowing people to change their birth certificates and you can actually choose whether you want to be a male or female. You are causing so many psychological problems with the kids coming through that they do not know. In our educational system now you are saying you cannot use 'him' or 'her'; it has to be 'them' and 'they'. That is what you are doing through this government department as well. That's what you are pushing. You are causing so much psychological damage with what you do with people. If you don't know if you are male or female then you have a real problem and I think you should book into a psychologist and see what the problem is.

For people here in this parliament to allow this to happen is a real shame. We had a 1,000 per cent increase in children being treated at public gender clinics between 2014 and 2021. You sacked Jillian Spencer, who is a psychologist. You want to sack people who speak out about this. You don't want me speaking on the floor of parliament and telling people. You're saying, 'Let's just cover it up and not have anyone speak about this.' This has to be debated. It has to be discussed. You have to have common sense, because you're destroying kids out there and their little minds. You're playing with them. They are either male or female, and that's the way it should be.

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

We know exactly what Senator Hanson is up to here. What she is seeking to do through this motion is to provide a platform to allow parliamentary privilege to be used as cover for transphobic people who want to punch down on transgender people and, in particular, on transgender children. I remind the Senate that Senator Hanson twice tried in the previous parliament to have this bill read for a first time. The Senate, on both occasions, refused to allow this bill to be read for a first time. I want to say this to people who are listening. The Senate deciding not to even allow a bill to be read for a first time is a vanishingly rare occurrence. It is reserved for bills that are particularly obnoxious and that the Senate determines should not even be tabled in this place, let alone debated.

Let's be clear about this. This is a bill that would remove protections on the basis of gender identity from the Sex Discrimination Act. It is undoubtedly a transphobic piece of legislation. It seeks to use the lives and the wellbeing of transgender people in this country, including transgender children in this country, as political pawns in a divisive, far-right agenda. Senator Hanson wants to fight the culture wars, doing so in the full knowledge that this will harm some of the most vulnerable people in our country, including children. It is a disgrace that we are even having to debate this matter today.

I want Senator Hanson to know something here. This is according to the LGBTIQ+ Health Australia snapshot of mental health and suicide prevention statistics for LBGTIQ+ people. Trans people aged 14 to 25 are 15 times more likely to try to kill themselves, to attempt suicide, than the general population. They're 15 times more likely, and you want to weaponise them in your disgraceful culture wars. Well, the Australian Greens are not going to have a bar of it. Around one in two—half—of trans and gender-diverse people aged 14 to 25 report that they have attempted suicide in their lifetime. Trans people aged 18 and over are 6½ times more likely to self-harm compared to the general population.

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

You are so sick.

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

You want to talk about sick? I'll tell you what is sick. You are sick in trying to introduce a bill that you know will harm a section of our community that deserves our love and our support, not to be used as cannon fodder in your despicable culture war.

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator McKim, please direct your comments through the chair.

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

Alright. I say this to Senator Hanson: instead of using her public platform to divide Australians and to harm people who need our love and support, and instead of using her time marching with Neo-Nazis, like she did on the weekend, she should focus her energies on creating an Australia that is safe and inclusive.

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

I want a withdrawal there. I did not march with Neo-Nazis, and I won't have a reference to it. I want it withdrawn.

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson, what's the point of order?

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

The point of order is that a reference was made to me marching with Neo-Nazis on the weekend. It did not happen.

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand the point of order. Thank you, Senator Hanson. I'm going to take advice on this from the Clerk in relation to the appropriate next step.

On advice from the Clerk, it's probably a debating point, but, in the interests of moving the overall argument forward, Senator McKim, if you would withdraw that last remark and continue with your remarks, please.

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

Well, Acting Deputy President, I don't believe that I've impugned Senator Hanson's motivations, if that's the point of order. I simply stated a fact. On that basis, I'm going to ask respectfully, Acting Deputy President, if you would consult with the President on this. If it's the President's ruling once she has reviewed the Hansard, I will withdraw. But I don't believe, on the basis of what I said, that there is a necessity for me to withdraw, given Senator Hanson has not explained what standing order she believes I've contravened. I will ask that you consult with the President on that, please, Acting Deputy President.

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the interests of moving this forward, I will consult with the President on that. Senator McKim, if you will proceed with your remarks—but perhaps don't repeat that remark until that ruling is finalised.

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

I certainly will not. I will conclude my remarks here. I want to say very clearly that the Australian Greens proudly stand with transgender Australians. We proudly stand with transgender children in this country. We will always stand with them and support them against anything that is divisive or that seeks to demonise them. I want to say to trans people in this country, no matter how old they are, no matter where they come from, no matter their cultural backgrounds—and there are many—that we have their backs in here. They are loved. They are supported. We hear you. We see you. You have a right to exist. You have every human right in this country that everyone else does. The Australian Greens will always stand with trans people, because trans rights are human rights.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Acting Deputy President Ghosh, I first acknowledge the way in which you handled that very difficult discussion. I'll be very brief. As the coalition said in relation to the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Acknowledging Biological Reality) Bill 2024 last year when it was negatived at first reading, and in relation to another similar bill more recently: while the Senate has the opportunity to reject a bill at the first reading stage, in practice the first reading is almost always passed without opposition and is regarded as a purely formal stage.

The coalition supports these normal procedures, as we have with many Greens, Labor or crossbench bills that we strongly opposed. The normal process enables bills to be fairly considered and debated by the Senate before a substantive decision is taken. It should only be deviated from in the most extreme of circumstances, lest we deny the right of senators to even have matters debated. As in all cases, a vote on the first reading should not be taken as a position on the substantive legislation. Similarly, a vote supporting an inquiry into a bill should not be taken as endorsing or rejecting that bill—rather, it simply affords senators the opportunity to consider the merits of legislation and form their position on the basis of evidence.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Consistent with the view that the government has taken previously in relation to this, on a previous motion from Senator Hanson, the Senate should not be used as a vehicle for propagating hateful or harmful speech that hurts decent young Australians and decent people. The indecency of the propositions that have just been put by Senator Hanson reaffirms my confidence in the judgement the government took in terms of the position that we are adopting here.

The truth is that, reckless to people's welfare, indifferent and callous to people's welfare, Senator Hanson will continue putting up this propaganda. For the government's part, we will not have the Senate or the offices of individual senators used for the harmful and indecent behaviour that has just been engaged in once again. On that basis, I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Hanson be agreed to. As a division has been called for but it is after 6.30 pm, the division will be deferred until tomorrow.