Posts

Equality Means Fairness – Not Quotas

,

At Senate Estimates, I raised key questions about workplace gender equality and family policy. I asked the Workplace Gender Equality Agency to state executive salaries — the head earns $313,000.

I highlighted to them that the agency itself has a gender pay gap in favour of women — women earn $111,746 vs men $106,141, and that 17 women hold executive roles compared to just 2 men.

My message: Equality should mean fairness and choice — not ideology or quotas.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. My questions are entirely to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency. Can everyone who is executive level or senior executive service at the desk state their salary please.  

Ms Wooldridge: I, as the accountable authority, have a remuneration tribunal determination, with a total remuneration of $313,000.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. What is a woman? It’s not a trick question.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is the agency in charge of workplace gender—  

CHAIR: No, this is a political experience here that none of us want to listen to.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m going to be getting into figures in a minute, so I need to be sure. What is a woman?  

Ms Wooldridge: I’ll refer to our act, which does define a woman. This is the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012, and it says: woman means a member of the female sex irrespective of age.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does a man who identifies as a woman count in your statistics for women—in looking at your staffing statistics, for example?  

Ms Wooldridge: I’ve defined a woman as per the act, and we apply the act in terms of the operation of our agency and our reporting.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does that mean a man who identifies as a woman is not a woman in your staff classifications?  

Ms Wooldridge: Senator, once again, I’ll refer you to the definition under the act.  

Senator ROBERTS: In your application of that definition, is a man who claims to be a woman, identifies as a woman, listed as male or female?  

Ms Wooldridge: Perhaps it would assist to clarify that, in terms of reporting to the agency, the employers who are relevant employers—with 100 or more employees—are required to report to us every year. They are asked, for their employees, who are men and who are women. We also collect, voluntarily, data for people who identify as non-binary. So employers have those three categories on which they can report their employee data to us.  

Senator ROBERTS: Men, women and non-binary? Okay, thank you. In response to question on notice 97, you’ve reported the salary for women and men employed in your department. By the way, that figure shows that the average salary for women in your department is $111,746 and the average salary for men is $106,141. That’s a five per cent pay difference, so you have a pay gap against men.  

Ms Wooldridge: We have a gender pay gap that’s negative. That’s right.  

Senator WHITEAKER: Chair, on a point of order, I’m just not sure how the question is relevant to the work of the department.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re not sure?  

Senator WHITEAKER: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is the Workplace Gender Equality Agency.  

CHAIR: Yes, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m checking to make sure they’re working—  

CHAIR: I do have a level of sympathy with Senator Whiteaker’s frustration here at what appears to be heading down an overtly political and somewhat offensive pathway. Ms Wooldridge, I would encourage you to only answer the questions that you feel to be relevant to your agency and relevant to Senate estimates.  

Senator ROBERTS: Chair, what is offensive about the question I just asked? This woman is in charge of informing—  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we all know where you’re going.  

Senator ROBERTS: Oh, do you? Okay, up to you.  

Ms Wooldridge: So, yes, we have a negative gender pay gap. Eight per cent of employers that report to us have a negative gender pay gap, which reflects an average total remuneration slightly higher or higher for women than men. But we do know that the vast majority of employers in Australia do have a gender pay gap in favour of men, which is a positive gender pay gap. That’s a normal calculation that we make for employers in Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: You have 38 full-time workers and three part-time; 29 female, 11 male and one nonbinary. With your gender pay gap favouring women, doesn’t it show how ridiculous the entire concept of trying to equalise aggregate wage is?  

Ms Wooldridge: We’ve discussed before the definition of the gender pay gap. We believe that it’s a very valid measure as a proxy for gender equality. It’s used very effectively; it’s used internationally—around the world. Each individual employer has a different result, and we encourage them to reflect on their results and look at how the gender pay gap can be narrowed to ensure we have a greater equality in our workplaces.  

Senator ROBERTS: Reading your staffing breakdown, from the question on notice, you had 17 women employed at executive level or higher. I understand executive level starts at $120,000 a year. There are 17 women employed at that level and above and only two men. Is that your definition of gender equality.  

CHAIR: That could only be said by a man, right?  

Senator ROBERTS: I happen to have been educated by my mother.  

Senator Wong: Unless Ms Wooldridge wants to, I might just respond briefly, Senator. I understand you have a view about this agency. You’re entitled to that. We disagree with it.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is my view, Senator Wong?  

Senator Wong: Alright, maybe you don’t have a view. I was inferring it from your questions. But could I say this: I think the proposition that, because in this one agency there are more women on high salaries than men, the gender pay gap is not relevant is a very odd one. We have ABS statistics which still show a gender pay gap of 11½ per cent. WGEA statistics, which use different methodology—I think that was the evidence before—show it in excess of 20 per cent. It’s not the only way in which we look at equality, but it does tell us something. It tells us that our daughters are likely to earn less than our sons. That’s not merit based, and there are reasons for that. Some of those reasons may be valid and some of them may not. So it is one of the ways in which we try to improve the economic equality of our society, and I would argue it’s of benefit to everybody. Yes, it benefits women, but I think it is of benefit to all of us if we work to remove those barriers to the full participation of women and men in the workplace.  

Senator ROBERTS: I would agree with you. I do agree with you, Senator Wong. In fact, I’ll pay you a compliment; I hope it’s well received. You are one of the outstanding performers in the Senate. I don’t agree with some of your policies, statements and values, but you’re one of the outstanding performers. You’re not equal to everyone else in the Senate; you’re far superior to many. That’s no doubt.  

Senator Wong: I don’t know quite what to do with this, Senator Roberts. This is probably not good for either of us!  

Senator ROBERTS: No, it’s certainly good for me, because we compliment people when they deserve it, and you deserve that recognition. My mother told me the sad mistake is for women to claim they’re equal, because in many ways women are far, superior to men—far, far superior. That’s on the record.  

Senator Wong: There you go.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we need to wrap up.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s not just because my party leader’s a female.  

CHAIR: I will just advise you that we’re going to break for lunch in two minutes, Senator Roberts. Those two minutes are all yours.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. The replacement family rate is on average 2.2 babies per couple. That inevitably leads to women being out of work for pregnancy just so we don’t go extinct in our species. What adjustment do you make to calculations to account for the fact that we do need to have babies and it’s a good thing, or Australia goes extinct?  

Ms Wooldridge: The gender pay gap is calculated by looking at average salaries between men and women in an employer, in an industry or in the nation as a whole. One of the things we do know, though, is that a very significant portion of the gender pay gap is attributable to the time women take out of the workforce to care for family and responsibilities.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.  

Ms Wooldridge: So the gender pay gap is reflective of that, but there are many things that employers can do to minimise the impact of that time out of the workplace in order to encourage women who need to, or want to, to be able to engage with work as well as manage caring responsibilities.  

Senator ROBERTS: Acknowledging what you just said, Ms Woolridge, isn’t it true that, for the gender pay gap to be completely erased, we have to either stop women having babies or have them work the day before and the day they give birth?  

Ms Wooldridge: I disagree with you, Senator. In fact, there are many employers who do have zero gender pay gap and who are able to create that equal and fair experience at work. But we do acknowledge that, yes, there are some aspects of the gender pay gap that are attributable to the time out of the workforce, and I think we’re aspiring to minimise the gender pay gap so that those inequalities at work are removed and people do have an equal experience.  

Senator ROBERTS: Last question, Chair.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we are going to wrap up now, because we’re already running late. I can come back to you after the break if required.  

Senator Wong: We’d be happy with one more question.  

CHAIR: Just one?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. It’s for the minister, and I thank you, Minister. Mothering is the nation’s most important job. The critical years for formation of both character and intellect are from birth to six, and the mother shapes that enormously. Granted, for some couples, the mother works and the father stays home or whatever. That’s a choice. Women and men deserve choice. The tax system eliminates choice, and mass immigration drives down wages. What are your view on income splitting as a policy to adopt?  

Senator Wong: That is probably not for this group, but the government is supportive of a progressive taxation system. We are also supportive of putting in place policies that contribute to stronger families and parenting. You have seen support for parents. You’ve seen what we’ve done in the areas of health, child care and education.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, from a personal perspective, as a single mother, I had an extraordinarily flexible employer. I must say it does make a fundamental difference to your life to have an employer who understands the value of giving you space to bring up your children and equally deliver on your responsibilities at work.  

Senator ROBERTS: Of course, and an enlightened employer hires people of all kinds of backgrounds for that very reason. 

/by

Questioning the Commissioners

,
Putting biological reality and mass migration under scrutiny

Australia has a Sex Discrimination Commissioner who isn’t sure what we mean by ‘biological men’ and a Race Discrimination Commissioner who refuses to attribute unprecedented levels of mass migration to the housing crisis and cost-of-living nightmare.

Both these individuals are paid roughly $400,000 + super.

At last week’s Senate Estimates I was able to question these commissioners on their recent dealings as part of my role holding the bureaucracy to account to you, the taxpayer.

What I heard in response was not only frustrating, it begs very serious questions about their standard of work.

‘What do you mean by biological males?’ – Dr Anna Cody, Sex Discrimination Commissioner

Here are some highlights from my questioning of Dr Anna Cody, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner in the context of the Giggle vs Tickle case and, more generally, the interference of sex-based protections in law through the inclusion of trans individuals.

Roberts: So, what sort of chromosomes does she [transwoman Roxanne Tickle] have – XX or XY?

Cody: I can’t answer that, Senator.

Roberts: You can’t?

Cody: No, I can’t answer that.

Roberts: Wow. [headshake]

Roberts: On my reading of what you’ve said in Giggle vs Tickle, the position on biological males in female spaces seems pretty clear at the Human Rights Commission. Could you explain?

Cody: What would you like me to explain, sorry Senator?

Roberts: What your position is.

Cody: On which issue?

Roberts: The position on biological males in female spaces – could you please explain the Human Rights Commission – your position on that?

Cody: What do you mean by biological males, Senator?

Roberts: Can someone who was born on XY chromosomes change to XX chromosomes? A male change to female?

Cody: I don’t believe so, but I’m not a scientist.

Roberts: Would you agree that a piece of legislation can’t change a person’s sex? If born a man they are a man. If they are born with XY chromosomes they’re a man and they stay a man?

Cody: No, I would not a agree.

Roberts: You don’t agree?

Cody: No.

Roberts: You talked about XX / XY you didn’t really know the answer. How can you make a decision on sex?

Cody: The issue that I’m saying around me not being able to identify whether someone has XX or XY is because I haven’t tested them. I’m not a scientist. That’s not my area of expertise.

Roberts: If a person was born male, that’s XY. Born female is XX.

Cody: Not always, Senator.

Roberts: No?

Cody: No.

Roberts: Someone who was born a man – a boy – has XY chromosomes, cannot change to have XX – is that correct?

Cody: If they are born – if their chromosomes are XY then their chromosomes, I don’t believe they can change, but as I repeat, I’m not a scientist, so I haven’t studied whether or not they can change.

Roberts: So, you’re not a scientist, how do you know which side to take in a court case?

Cody: Um, I’m not taking a side within a court case, our role is as amicus so that is to provide a clarification – help to the court in understanding the legal issues that are in dispute.

Roberts: So, how can you clarify if you don’t understand?

Cody: The – the – what – I – I – understand the law, what I don’t understand is the science around the XX / XY unless the evidence is before the court.

Astonishing! This is reminiscent of the Department of Health taking on ‘notice’ the definition of a woman.

The situation was not much better with the Race Discrimination Commissioner, Giridharan Sivaraman. Previously the former Chair of Multicultural Australia and Member of the Queensland Multicultural Advisory Council, he seemed particularly reluctant to address the economic, social, and cultural impact of mass migration.

Roberts: Is questioning the migration intake numbers racist?

Sivaraman: In of itself? It doesn’t have to be. No. It’s a question of what’s associated with that and whether certain groups get targeted.

Roberts: Okay, thank you. Mr Sivaraman, there are currently 4 million people in this country – our country – who aren’t Australian citizens – are not Australian citizens – taking up beds while Australians are homeless. Record homelessness – after years of unprecedented levels of mass migration. We have been at record numbers for multiple years in a row. That’s not saying anything disparaging about those people who have arrived. That’s just a fact. It is just a mathematical fact that if we continue to accept arrivals at the rate we are, our schools, hospitals, dams, transport, and housing are going to become even more overwhelmed than they are. That’s a fact. Is anyone who acknowledges that fact a racist?

Sivaraman: Um, Senator, I think the first issue is to simply to – connect – in a very linear way migration to the various problems that you’ve described would not be accurate. The problems that you’ve-

Roberts: What is inaccurate about it, Mr Sivaraman?

Sivaraman: The problems that you’ve alluded to like housing, the cost of living – are complicated problems with many different sources. Migration is one of the many different factors that may or may not contribute to those issues. Directly linking them is something that I wouldn’t agree with. And it’s that simplification that often then leads to the scapegoating of migrants, Senator, and I think that can be problematic.

Roberts: Could you tell me how I’m scapegoating migrants when I am one, and can you tell me how it’s simplifying the issue?

Sivaraman: Because it is a simplification of an issue if you directly say that there is only one cause for the significant problems.

Roberts: I didn’t say there was only one cause – it’s just a significant factor.

Sivaraman: Even that in itself is a simplification, Senator, that it could be any number of factors that contribute to those issues.

In both cases, the commissioners reject simplicity.

The biological norms which underpin human gender are simple. ‘Progressive politics’ is the first movement in history to regress ideologically to such a point that it struggles with the definition of men and women. This self-inflicted ‘confusion’ has jeopardised the protection of women, made a mockery of women’s sport, and a laughing stock out of what was once the greatest civilisation on Earth.

Australia’s first female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has a lot to answer for on this topic. After all, it was under her watch that the amendments were made to the Act. Consider the irony of a female leader making Australia less safe for women.

Meanwhile, the undeniable reality of mass migration is a simple mathematical principle that creates a complex forest of problems downstream of the initial mistake. These additional issues are being used to talk-around the primary cause even though the average Aussie on the street has a clear view of what went wrong. Ask them. They know.

I have found that simplicity is often rejected because it allows us to identify the policy error at the heart of these tragedies befalling Australian society.

If we know which policy is causing the problem, we know who wrote it, who voted for it, and how to fix it.

In these cases, we have sex discrimination policies that have been erroneously modified to remove accurate biological qualifications of sex to suit the trending ideological movement of the day, rather than upholding the protection of biologically segregated spaces – as was their intention.

For migration, the problem is the Big Australia Ponzi scheme being run by Labor (and the Coalition in the past) to cook the economic books and obscure the per capita backwards economic trend taking place. Doing so would mean admitting that migrants are being used to prop up political parties, bureaucratic structures, and the interests of developers while the immediate needs and rights of Australian citizens are torn to shreds.

Yes, we can still ask questions about these topics – but the quality of the answers we receive speaks volumes about the ingrained nature of the bureaucratic double-speak quagmire we need to dismantle before real change can be made.

Questioning the commissioners by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Putting biological reality and mass migration under scrutiny

Read on Substack
/3 Comments/by

Protecting Women’s Rights

, ,

On Tuesday morning, 2 September, One Nation senators signed a pledge to protect women’s rights.

Identifying as a women can’t mean biological women suddenly have their rights taken away from them.

One Nation is the only party who isn’t afraid to define what a woman is.

Media ReleaseDownload
/1 Comment/by

Woke Gender Cult Caught Out!

,

The evidence is in – protect our children from being given life-changing drugs and surgeries and make a ban on gender affirmation permanent and national, not just for a year.

Newspaper Article

/8 Comments/by

Children Deserve Care and Love – Not Life Changing Surgeries

,

The Australian Human Rights Commission has previously argued for minors to be given life changing surgeries and puberty blockers under the ‘gender affirmation’ model. They claimed these treatments could be reversed, weren’t risky and were supported by science: none of these are true.

The UK Cass review has completely discredited ‘gender affirmation’ for children. It’s time for the taxpayer funded Human Rights Commission to rule out ever supporting children being put onto puberty blockers or sex-change surgery ever again.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. I’ve got questions on gender—sex change. My questions are to the commissioner who looks at gender-affirmation care and children. That may be Dr Cody; is that right?

Dr Cody: That’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to make clear, from the start of these questions, that I support adults doing whatever they like if they want to transition or attempt to transition. However, I draw the line at children. Previously, the commission has argued in court that puberty blockers were ‘reversible’, the risk of a wrong decision to give a child puberty blockers was ‘low’ and the outcome of a wrong decision would not be ‘grave’. My questions to the commission are: do you still stand by that position completely, and why the hell are you in court arguing to put children on puberty blockers?

Dr Cody: I believe that you are referring to family court decisions in which we have intervened as amicus. I’m not aware of the details of those specific cases. I would have to educate myself around exactly what our argument was. We do not have any intention to—or any cases in which we are intervening, or have sought to intervene, as amicus in relation to the use of puberty blockers or gender-affirming care with children.

Senator ROBERTS: But your words are significant. Are you a medical doctor?

Dr Cody: I’m not.

Senator ROBERTS: There’s no good evidence that puberty blockers are reversible, and the effects of puberty blockers on the developing brain of a child are simply unknown. Why should the Australian taxpayer be funding the commission to argue for children to make irreversible changes to their body that we have no good clinical evidence for?

Dr Cody: One of the fundamental human rights that we all have is a right to health care. That includes children—the importance of all children having the appropriate access to health care from the moment they are born right through until they turn 18. Gender-affirming health care is a part of that access to health care.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, let’s continue. The Cass review in the UK—have you heard of that?

Dr Cody: I have.

Senator ROBERTS: It was one of the most sweeping and intensive inquiries into puberty blockers for children. The Cass review said that the evidence for puberty blockers is so poor that they should be confined to ethically controlled clinical trials, and cross-sex hormones for minors should only be used with extreme caution. The Cass review had the gender affirmation treatment protocol used at the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne independently evaluated for the scientific rigour in development. Do you know what it scored?

Dr Cody: I’m sorry, what scored? I didn’t catch the first part of that question.

Senator ROBERTS: It had the gender affirmation treatment protocol used at the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne independently evaluated for the scientific rigour in development. It scored 19 out of 100—very low rigour. Are you aware that, in the United States, there was a US$10 million report over nine years that was not published because the lead author didn’t want the results to be public? Those results were that there were no improvements in the mental health of children who received puberty blockers after two years. Are you aware of that?

Dr Cody: I’m not aware of that study in the United States. In relation to the Cass review, one of the findings of that review was recognising the importance of having a holistic approach to health care—which we have in Australia—that includes a psychologist’s treatment, social work treatment and having wraparound services with a GP and psychiatric assistance for any child who has any issues around their gender. One of those recommendations is something that we actually have within Australia and that we’re lucky to have within our healthcare system.

Senator ROBERTS: Until recently, it’s been almost automatic in some areas to put children who suffer from gender dysphoria, which is not uncommon in adolescents, on affirmation to change their gender. I can’t remember the name of the institute—it’s either the Australia-New Zealand society of psychiatrists or psychologists that has come out recently saying gender affirmation is not recommended. When are you going to stop going to court at taxpayer expense arguing for these experimental, life-changing, irreversible, mentally damaging chemical treatments to be given to children.

Dr Cody: At the moment, we are not intervening as amicus in any cases before the Family Court.

Senator ROBERTS: I think this question will probably go to the president. In your opening statement, you say:

Human rights are the blueprint for a decent, dignified life for all. Human rights are the key to creating the kind of society we all want to live in …

Could you tell me what is the field of human rights? What rights are encompassed in the field of human rights?

Mr de Kretser: The modern human rights movement started after World War II with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where the international community, after the horrors of World War II and the Holocaust said, ‘No more. These are the basic standards that everyone, no matter who they are or where they are, needs to lead a decent, dignified life.’ They have then been expressed in two key international treaties, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and various other treaties have codified aspects of rights since then. The human rights in those treaties have only been partly implemented in domestic Australian law, which is why we’re calling for a human rights act to properly implement Australia’s international obligations and to properly protect people’s and community’s human rights in Australia. Is there a specific human right or aspect that I can address for you?

Senator ROBERTS: I’d just like to know what you see as the core human rights that humans have and that you’re overseeing in this country?

Mr de Kretser: The legislation that we have—our discrimination laws—implements the obligations to protect aspects of the right to equality, for example. We have seven commissioners. Six of the seven are thematically focused on different rights: Commissioner Cody, obviously, is focused on equality rights; Commissioner Hollonds is focused on child rights; Commissioner Fitzgerald is focused on the rights of older persons—and the like. The key international treaties are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights.

CHAIR: I don’t want to interrupt this really helpful lecture on human rights law. If you’ve got a punchline question, you should get to that now.

Senator ROBERTS: Is freedom of speech seen as a human right?

CHAIR: Yes. Good question.

Mr de Kretser: Absolutely. Freedom of expression—our freedom of speech—is an aspect of that. Freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of religion and the like are critical human rights.

CHAIR: That’s all the questions we have for you this evening. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you for the work that you did on the framework and delivering that in the last couple of days. I know it’s taken an enormous amount of work.

/3 Comments/by

Urgent Review Needed on Transgender Care for Children’s Safety

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

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

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

Photo credit: Gender Dysphoria Alliance

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

/7 Comments/by

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

,

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Senate divided. [11:40] 

(The President—Senator Lines) 

/by

Government Doxxing Australian Companies Over Gender Pay

,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/2 Comments/by

Slow Start on Classification System Inquiry

,

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

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

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

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing, Mr Sharp.  

Mr Sharp: Pleasure, Senator. 

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: So I have to ask the department? 

Mr Sharp: Yes, Senator. 

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: The review into the classification system. 

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Are we talking a month or so? 

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

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

Mr Sharp: Correct, Senator. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: What does that mean? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Windeyer: Correct. 

Senator ROBERTS: We’ll ask in May. 

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

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Senator Brown. 

/by

Human Rights and Gender Dysphoria

,

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Advocacy for immigrants.

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: That’s right.

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: The last decade.

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: How many have you intervened in?

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: What does that mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr Cody : It was not recognised in law.

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: What changed in 1990?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much.

/by