I asked the Human Rights Commission how much they spend on legal intervention for people who lost their job due to vaccine mandates, then moved onto the topic of sex and gender.
The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) subscribes to the belief that sex can be changed after birth as recognised in law throughout Australia. The meaning of the words ‘man’, ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ will be argued at the Federal Court level with the assistance of the AHRC. I probed Dr Anna Cody, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, about the matter she is involved with as a “friend of the court”. The HRC has intervened in a recent Federal Court case known as “Tickle and Giggle” and will be assisting in this case, which will argue that ‘sex’, as in gender, isn’t real. The biological realities of sex appear to matter less than how people express their sexuality or gender identity. Dr Cody will assist the Federal Court to understand changes to the Sex Discrimination Act that occurred in 2013, to ascertain the validity of the changes under the Constitution and the Civil and Political Rights Convention.
Make no mistake, the sex and gender insanity is a direct attack on families, originating from foreign bodies like the corrupt World Health Organisation. One Nation will fight it every step of the way.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Croucher and your team, for being here. I’d like to get some information from you about your interventions and then discuss a particular case that I understand the Human Rights Commission is involved in. First, to the information, how much has the Australian Human Rights Commission spent on legal representations in immigration matters? You’ll have to take that on notice, I’m sure.
Prof. Croucher : Yes, I will take it on notice. In terms of ‘immigration matters’, I’m not sure what you mean by—
Senator ROBERTS: Advocacy for immigrants.
Prof. Croucher : Our general human rights work could include issues pertaining to immigration, but that would be very hard to particularise, because it’s part of a general mandate. In terms of involvement in external litigation, we have a little bit of intervention work that I can speak to, but it would be very hard to speak about particulars of the kind that you’re asking for. I don’t know that we can really help there.
Senator ROBERTS: We’d just like some indication of how much money is spent by the Human Rights Commission on supporting immigration matters.
Prof. Croucher : I can certainly take the question on notice, but with respect to the answer that we might be able to give, it’ll be fairly general, I would think. But we’ll do our best, Senator.
CHAIR: You can only answer what you’ve been asked.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s right.
Prof. Croucher : I’ll honour your question by taking it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: How much has it spent in total on legal matters?
Prof. Croucher : Again, if I can, I’ll take that on notice. I can give, as a specific example, the amount we spent on intervening in the recent High Court case, the NZYQ matter. I know that figure off the top of my head. But in terms of total engagement, over what period are you interested?
Senator ROBERTS: The last decade.
Prof. Croucher : The last decade. To the extent that we can, we will provide that information; otherwise, if I may suggest it, we might reflect a more contained period to give an example of an answer to that.
Senator ROBERTS: We’d just like to get an indication of the priorities, that’s all—in terms of the money and where it goes. If 10 years is ridiculously impossible, then use a shorter period. I just want to get some indication.
Prof. Croucher : An indication, yes. It’s not very much. I can give you that indication.
Senator ROBERTS: How many cases has the Australian Human Rights Commission intervened in or appeared in for an Australian who lost a job due to a vaccine mandate, a COVID injection mandate?
Prof. Croucher : We don’t appear for people in that way. We may seek to intervene or our commissioners may seek to act as amicus within their mandates, but we don’t act for people in that way.
Senator ROBERTS: How many have you intervened in?
Prof. Croucher : With respect to that particular topic, I don’t know of any, but, again, I will confirm that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s go to a case. Can you explain the commission’s intervention in the Federal Court case Tickle v Giggle to argue that sex—as in gendered sex—isn’t real? I’m told you’ve intervened in that.
Prof. Croucher : It’s the exercise of an amicus function of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner. Perhaps Commissioner Cody might like to speak to you directly about that.
Dr Cody : The role that the commission is playing in that matter is as amicus curiae.
Senator ROBERTS: What does that mean?
Dr Cody : It means friend of the court. Our role is to try to help the court understand some of the complex issues. Our role in intervening is to help understand the meaning of section 5B. It’s one of the first times that the Federal Court will be considering the changes to the Sex Discrimination Act that were introduced in 2013. There’s also a constitutional challenge as to whether or not it is valid under the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We’re intervening on those two issues.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How many letters after LGB does the commission recognise?
Dr Cody : We use a range of terms to refer to the communities. Sometimes we would refer to LGBTQIA+ because of the ways in which people refer to themselves. We also use the terms that are referred to in international discussions, which are sexual orientation, gender identity expression and ‘SC’, which for the moment escapes me but is another term that is used at an international level.
Senator ROBERTS: In the Human Rights Commission submission for Tickle v Giggle, apparently the commission has argued that sex is not a biological concept, nor does it refer to male or female. Is that correct?
Dr Cody : In our submissions, as in the Sex Discrimination Act itself, the terms ‘man’, ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ are not defined. We refer to the understanding of ‘woman’ which can be both the sex that is identified at birth but also through identification through birth certificates at all state and territory levels. A person can change their recognised sex through the birth certificate recognition.
Senator ROBERTS: So the Human Rights Commission believes that sex can be changed after birth.
Dr Cody : That is recognised in law around all of the states and territories in Australia.
Senator ROBERTS: Sex is not binary, limited to male or female—another intervention?
Dr Cody : That is an argument that will occur at the Federal Court—the meanings of the words ‘man’, ‘woman’ and ‘sex’.
Senator ROBERTS: To be considered female, it just needs to say ‘female’ on a birth certificate, which a male can do at any stage of life. That’s your view?
Dr Cody : No, that’s not the view of the commission. The submissions that we have made in the Federal Court and will argue when it comes to the full hearing of the case will be looking at how that is understood within the Sex Discrimination Act and the meaning that is ascribed. As I’ve referred to both, that includes, for a man or woman, the sex that you identified with at birth but also can be changed—or recognised—through the process of altering your birth certificate.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m quoting here. ‘At least as early as the 1990s, it has been accepted that sex is changeable.’ What happened before the 1990s?
Dr Cody : It was not recognised in law.
Senator ROBERTS: The words ‘female’ and ‘woman’ include men who claim to be women. You’ve validated that. Do you really believe these submissions are in line with the biological reality of sex and with most of Australians’ views? I take it you don’t, but that is the way the law sees it.
Dr Cody : My role as the Sex Discrimination Commissioner is to apply the Sex Discrimination Act and to intervene to assist the Australian community to achieve gender equality and also to achieve the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community. That is a part of our role acting as friend of the court in this case.
Senator ROBERTS: What changed in 1990?
Dr Cody : I think there was a growing understanding at an international level and also domestically of the range of ways in which people express their sexuality and also their gender identity.
Senator ROBERTS: So this is about expression, not science or body.
Dr Cody : I think it’s probably a combination. Bodies haven’t changed, no.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that sex operations, I’m told, offer only two options: male and female?
Dr Cody : I can’t help you with that question.
Senator ROBERTS: To me it seems like this is supporting an attack on family. I recognise that there can be same-sex couples having a perfectly good family, so I’m not criticising that, but this is breaking up the family. You said it came from overseas—internationally. Broader Australians don’t seem to see this as an issue. Why are we spending so much time on it?
Senator Chisholm: You’re the one spending time on it!
Senator ROBERTS: Correct—because so many people are now concerned, including Queenslanders.
Dr Cody : I think there are many people in the community for whom these are important issues, and it’s important that we can discuss them. Many in the LGBTQIA+ communities experience severe discrimination, so we need to ensure that everyone in our community can experience the full range of human rights.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much.
