Posts

Screen Australia’s DEI Targets

I questioned representatives from Screen Australia regarding their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) agenda. DEI requirements are not mandated by legislation or the Screen Australia Act, instead they are management-driven KPIs.

I challenged their Gender Matters and inclusion targets, which aims for at least 50% female and non-binary representation in key creative roles, arguing that exceeding 50% disadvantages more meritorious men and ignores true merit-based selection.

Taxpayers are contributing $86 million in the 2026-27 budget, yet Screen Australia’s recoupment of equity investments remains low (ranging from 12% to 32%), indicating poor commercial performance.

I pointed out that overall audience numbers have dropped significantly since 2021-22, questioning whether their focus on ideological targets is failing to deliver what audiences actually want to watch while giving taxpayers less value for money.

One Nation will dismantle government-backed DEI initiatives and equity-focused programs that divide rather than unite, ensuring all citizens are treated equally under the law based strictly on merit.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. My questions go to the DEI agenda of Screen Australia. A producer that used a polite Facebook post to raise the gender imbalance in favour of women in your approved productions and in your management was blocked. These questions are apparently not allowed. Happily, you can’t block me, so we’ll ask some questions. From your corporate plan 2023-27: Screen Australia’s funding guidelines include an Inclusive Storytelling Statement that highlights our commitment to diversity equity and inclusion. The agency has developed a series of programs to provide skills development opportunities for diverse practitioners traditionally under-represented in the Australian screen industry … Screen Australia also has a long-standing commitment to gender equity through its Gender Matters program and KPI. Can you show me where in your enabling legislation this DEI requirement was mandated, or is this a decision taken by the management, the board, the government, the minister, KPIs?  

Ms Brunsdon: The screen sector in Australia and globally has traditionally been very white and male. The population in Australia is slightly more than 50 per cent women. That’s not the case in terms of the representation in the screen sector. There are generally equal numbers of men and women in film schools who finish those studies, but they’re then not represented and their stories don’t get told, and stories from a female perspective are not always told. Stories from culturally diverse parts of the country are not always told. Our research tells us that Australian audiences value authentic representation of Australian stories, and that goes right across the community. A lot of the research we’ve done on seeing ourselves, which goes into the representation of parts of the community on screen and behind the screen, tells us that there are parts of the community that are very severely underrepresented, including people with disability, where one in five people in the community identify as having a disability but we don’t see that on screen. We do have programs, like most of the state screen agencies, to develop new stories from different parts of the community. They’re stories that travel. They’re stories that get audiences in Australia and internationally, and that’s one of the reasons that we do that. People like to see themselves, their experiences and their lives reflected in the stories they watch on screen, whether that’s on TV or whether it’s in cinema. The Gender Matters taskforce has been disbanded. The corporate plan that you mentioned has been updated, and we released a new corporate plan last year in April. Our purpose is about supporting a vibrant and viable screen industry that reflects the diversity of stories and the depth of stories from across Australia. So we’re just working with and trying to reflect the community of Australia in the stories that get supported and that get shown.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I didn’t ask you to justify your following of DEI. I just wanted to know if your enabling legislation requires DEI—if it was mandated—or if it’s a decision taken by the management, the board, the minister or the government? Who set your KPIs on this, you or the government?  

Ms Brunsdon: We set the KPIs.  

Senator ROBERTS: So who set the DEI requirement? Was it mandated?  

Ms Brunsdon: There isn’t a DEI requirement mandated, but the functions of Screen Australia under the Screen Australia Act are to support and promote the development of a highly creative, innovative and commercially sustainable Australian screen production industry and support the development, production, promotion and distribution of Australian programs and the provision of access to Australian programs to support the development of screen culture in Australia and undertake any other function conferred on it by the law of the Commonwealth. There are a number of ways that we do that. We’re also required to place an emphasis on documentaries and programs of interest or relevance to children and programs with a high level of artistic and cultural merit, promote the open market as the primary means of support for projects with commercial potential, promote the development of commercially focused screen production businesses and promote the effective, efficient and ethical use of public resources. There’s no DEI component in there. We interpret reflecting these stories to ensure that there is a diversity of stories on screen.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you give me, on notice, your evidence from your research that says DEI improves your capability in all those areas?  

Ms Brunsdon: I’ll take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you—and any peer reviewed scientific studies would be appreciated as well. It seems that you’re setting them In looking at your KPIs, the first KPI for 2016-19, at least 50 per cent of production funded projects are to have women in more than 50 per cent of key creative roles. This was achieved at 56 per cent. Is your KPI really ‘at least’ 50 per cent? Surely anything above 50 per cent means less meritorious women are being favoured over more meritorious men. Surely the merit ratio is 50 to 50—or, in your universe, are women better than men?  

Ms Brunsdon: Are women better than men? It’s a KPI that we measure over three years, so it’s not that every project has to have women in key creative roles. It’s over the breadth of the projects that we support that we are aiming for that target. And it’s a target; it’s not a rule. It’s something that moves depending on the projects that come in and depending on the creatives already attached to those projects. It’s a target that’s harder to achieve in feature films because they often come with a writer-director from their origination. A lot of TV series that come to us don’t necessarily have all their directors attached, so there’s room for things to move at those times. So it really depends on everything. The population isn’t quite fifty-fifty.  

Senator ROBERTS: Slightly more females.  

Ms Brunsdon: Slightly more females. That target is about the representation of women relevant to the population and to the community.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have you done any work on why that used to be lower? There are some amazing female producers, directors, actresses—or actors, whatever you want to call them these days. In the past, surely for commercial interest, people would have wanted to jump on to make sure that women were involved. They provide a more varied and diverse approach. So why were they underrepresented?  

Ms Brunsdon: For a variety of reasons—in the same way that they’re underrepresented in many parts of the economy and many parts of the sector and, indeed, leadership positions more broadly. A lot of women take time out to have children or have other caring responsibilities. It can be more difficult to get back into the sector if you’ve taken time out for those caring responsibilities. That’s certainly one thing. There are a number of research papers that detail this. People find it more difficult to get jobs when they have children because of the hours that this industry takes when you’ve got a project in production. So there are a number of barriers there for people to do that. We’ve recently done some research looking at different methodologies for production—that might be a nine-day fortnight or shorter working hours or eight-hour days and that kind of thing—to try and encourage better working hours for everybody. It’s not just for women or people with caring responsibilities but actually for the whole workforce.  

Senator ROBERTS: I think most people would agree from their own experience—it’s not just me—that women are generally better carers. Most families make the decision that their children will be cared for by one of the partners if they can afford it, and that’s increasingly unlikely, sadly, these days, but generally that’s the woman because women are better carers.  

Ms Brunsdon: I couldn’t comment.  

Senator ROBERTS: I wasn’t fishing. The second KPI from 2019 to 2023 was ‘more than or equal to 50 per cent of key creative roles across development and production held by women’. That was achieved at 55 per cent. Again, tough luck men, because this is all about the women, right?  

Ms Brunsdon: Well, the KPI is about female representation, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Having achieved the earlier targets, rather than holding them there and looking for projects with merit, you increased the targets. For 2023 to 2026, the KPI requires the female mandate to be expanded to include non-binary, gender-diverse people for a target of more than 50 per cent of key roles of writer, producer or director across funded projects for a three-year average. Is women at 50 per cent a hard floor? Is bringing in transgenders, men living as women, taking jobs off women, or is ‘transgender’ a new protected class to add on top of the 50 per cent reserved for women?  

Ms Brunsdon: No, it’s not. The 50 per cent is for women and/or non-binary or gender-diverse people. So it’s an inclusive target of 50 per cent.  

Senator ROBERTS: So it should be 50 per cent or more?  

Ms Brunsdon: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: You must be treating it as additional because the latest data shows that female and trans et cetera producers are now at 62 per cent, writers are up to 55 per cent and directors are still down at 49 per cent—almost 50. Apparently, that’s not close to being equal. Overall, it is 56 per cent across all KPIs. Are you going to stop now and start approving projects on merit again?  

Ms Brunsdon: We do approve projects on merit. That’s absolutely the very first thing. The target is about tracking the projects in terms of who the key creatives are and making sure that we’ve got that information as we’re going through the year. The results of the target also change every year depending on the projects that come to us. Because we don’t commission projects, we can only respond to the applications that we receive.  

Senator ROBERTS: ‘Merit’, do you say? Well, it’s not really, is it? Because there’s a line item in your account for ‘recoupment of equity investment’, REI, which is taxpayers getting a return on our money. If your investment decisions were being made on merit, your commercial returns would show that. I note your returns over the last six years on recoupment of equity investment have ranged from 12 to 32 per cent. Some variation may occur as costs are in one year and returns are in another, so we understand that. Your numbers may be more accurate. Why did the projects you fund fail commercially so frequently? Even when you’ve had a hit, the best year was only 32 per cent of your money back.  

Ms Brunsdon: It really depends on the projects, and they’re subject, obviously, to global headwinds and the contraction in the global marketplace for screen content. It depends on the box office, if they’re theatrical feature films in Australia, and it depends how well they sell internationally. Over the last couple of years, it’s become much more difficult for projects to sell, certainly into the US, which used to be a much more stable market, certainly for Australian content. It can’t be relied on because of the contraction of some of the big media players there. It’s very much subject to market conditions, and the market has changed significantly and continues to move fluidly, and that’s not something we have any control over. Some projects do incredibly well. The feature film Talk to Me, which was released a couple of years ago, has recouped many times over what its budget was.  

Senator ROBERTS: It was a very good one.  

Ms Brunsdon: A very good one. We want more like that. And there are things that perhaps are less commercially focused but still play very well with audiences. There’s a real range of projects that we support and a real range of returns, because the return on investment is not just about the commercial financial return; it’s also a cultural return and an influence return, in terms of whether it is something that’s going to influence people to change their behaviour. There are different reasons that we watch the shows that we watch, that we go to see films that we see, and our reactions to them and our behaviour is a result of that.  

Senator ROBERTS: I understand systems change behaviour and language changes behaviour. Could you tell me the behaviours you’re seeking on behalf of the Australian taxpayer?  

Ms Brunsdon: We’re not seeking—  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re basically changing behaviours, which I understand. So what behaviours are you trying to change?  

Ms Brunsdon: We’re not trying to change behaviours. It will depend on the show. There may be documentaries that seek to give people a better understanding of a certain issue or group of people, and to have more empathy around things or just understand their community better.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is changing behaviour one of the criteria or one of the KPIs for selecting investment grants?  

Ms Brunsdon: No, it’s not.  

Senator ROBERTS: How do you do that, then? How do you make sure they change behaviour?  

Ms Brunsdon: That’s not something that we can do. We don’t distribute the shows, we don’t market shows and we don’t commission shows.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. A common measure of a hit screen production is one that returns 2.5 times its production cost. Two times breaks even, including distribution, and the 0.5 on top of two is profit. By that measure, your last hit movie was the movie Talk to Me in 2022, which cost $4 million and returned a whopping $140 million. A great result, but it was unexpected for a small horror film. Nonetheless, it was a good result. It made your results for 2023-24 look good. The next previous hits we can see in your returns are: Lion way back in 2016; The Sapphires in 2012; and Red Dog in 2011, which must have been a very big hit. That was a long time ago. Is this move to DEI in more recent years creating projects that people don’t want to watch?  

Ms Brunsdon: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: In 2024-25, your total audience was 101.8 million; let’s say 102 million. That’s up from last year, but it’s down on 2020-21, and on 2021-22, which was 140 million. So you’re way down—that’s almost one quarter down. I acknowledge that the platforms are changing from theatre to streaming, and now to TikTok. Can you provide an accurate figure for your audience each year over the last five years, broken into screen, television, streaming and social media, please.  

Ms Brunsdon: I’ll have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Your 2026-27 budget is $113 million, with $86 million from the taxpayers. What is your projection for grants and for recoupable investments in 2026-27?  

Mr Reid: Our budget for 2026-27 is the total expenditure for 2026-27 on page 526 of the Portfolio Budget Statement.  

Senator ROBERTS: How much?  

Mr Reid: It is $95.9 million in total expenses, and our recoupment budget for 2026-27 is $3.8 million.  

Senator ROBERTS: How much from taxpayers?  

Mr Reid: From taxpayers, we receive revenue from government of $86 million.  

Senator ROBERTS: So that’s the same.  

Mr Reid: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve got figures of grants of $34 million and recoupment of equity investment of $59 million.  

Mr Reid: You’d have to point to where you’re—we do do grants and equity investments. For 2026-27 we’re projecting $34 million in grants and $33.6 million in what we call the write-down in impairment of assets. That’s the equity component that we provide to recipients.  

Senator ROBERTS: The first figure, we agree on. What was the second figure?  

Mr Reid: It’s $34 million and $33.6 million in investments.  

Senator ROBERTS: If your primary objective is to fund Australian content, then the figure in your budgets for grants and REIs, inflation adjusted, would go up each year, but it doesn’t. Wages go up every year, but money going back into the industry is down from a high in 2020-21 of $99 million, which is $118 million in today’s dollars, to $86 million this year. Taxpayers are paying more and getting less out of Screen Australia. Why is that?  

Mr Reid: I’m not sure that I agree with the premise of your question, but taxpayers are paying less and we are delivering a lot for the Australian public.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you convince me that taxpayers are not paying more and getting less?  

Mr Reid: Your own figures were that, in 2021, we were paying out $90 million and now we’re paying out less. But Australian stories are being produced and watched at a very high rate.  

Senator ROBERTS: But the figures don’t reflect that—the profit figures and the returns.  

Mr Reid: As my colleague mentioned, Screen Australia does not make all of its decisions based on commercial return.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/0 Comments/by

Patronage or Partisanship?

,

During this Estimates session, I questioned the Office of the Governor-General regarding their association with the political activist group Equality Australia.

My primary concern is the perceived loss of neutrality for the Governor-General’s office. I asked Mr. Martin how the Governor-General can justify being a patron of an organisation that advocates for irreversible gender treatments for children — positions that are political and non-neutral.

While Mr. Martin claimed patronage is “purely honorary,” I argue that it lends the credibility of the office to Equality Australia, effectively amplifying their specific political messaging.

I attempted to get to why Assistant Charities Minister Andrew Leigh intervened to grant Equality Australia charity status, despite multiple court and tribunal rulings finding they were not established for a benevolent purpose.

I raised the issue of Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) status, which allows donors tax deductions. It’s my view that giving this status to such a group is a massive “favour” that warrants serious scrutiny.

Mr. Martin insisted that the Governor-General does not support specific advocacy positions of her patronages, though he did admit these matters are “always under review.”

I’m concerned that I did not get clear answers regarding this issue.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. Australia’s Governor-General is supposed to be neutral as to taking political positions. My first question is: how is it that the Governor-General can be a patron of a political activist group, Equality Australia, that actively supports irreversible gender treatments for children?  

Mr Martin: The Governor-General is patron of around 209 organisations, at this point. The patronage is a purely honorary role. The Governor-General has no role in making decisions around policies or positions taken by the individual patronages. It’s purely an honorary position.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your answer and for being brief. Isn’t it that she lends her credibility or the office’s credibility to Equality Australia just by being a patron?  

Mr Martin: Yes, broadly speaking, the role of a patronage is to amplify the message of the organisation and to elevate it, to some extent, in their broad goals. But, again, the Governor-General’s patronage does not provide support for any position or support advocacy of any particular organisation. There are many patronages that seek to raise issues of all sorts of different types. While the Governor-General supports, through patronage, the general good work of the organisations, she doesn’t support or advocate any particular position taken by those patronages.  

Senator ROBERTS: I was going to ask the minister this, but I’ll ask you instead, Mr Martin. Why did Assistant Charities Minister Andrew Leigh intervene to give Equality Australia charity status when, on three occasions, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and two Federal Court hearings had held that Equality Australia was not established for a benevolent purpose and should not be noted—  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m going to stop you there. That’s not a question appropriately directed to Mr Martin or this particular office. You would have to go back to—  

Senator ROBERTS: I would like to have asked the minister.  

CHAIR: Well, no minister appears at this session—  

Senator ROBERTS: I can see that.  

CHAIR: because it’s not the appropriate session.  

Senator ROBERTS: I thought I’d try anyway.  

CHAIR: It’s just the office of the Governor-General.  

Senator ROBERTS: I have difficulty understanding patronage of an organisation that was not established for a benevolent purpose and should not be entitled to DGR, deductible gift recipient status.  

CHAIR: In your opinion.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is the Governor-General aware of this, or were you aware of it before tonight?  

Mr Martin: Yes, I am. The issues relating to DGR status were not in place when the patronage was accepted. Again, it’s an honorary position that has no role in those sorts of matters.  

Senator ROBERTS: Now that it is in place, do you have any change?  

Mr Martin: We regularly consider and review patronage. These matters are always under review.  

Senator ROBERTS: DGR, deductible gift recipient, status allows donors to claim tax deductions for their donations. Equality Australia was given such a massive favour by—  

CHAIR: Again, Senator Roberts, this question is not appropriately directed at these witnesses.  

Senator ROBERTS: I would like to ask a minister, but okay.  

CHAIR: As I’ve said, this is not the appropriate session. We can help you find the appropriate session for you to ask those questions.  

Senator ROBERTS: I might put them on notice to the minister.  

CHAIR: Sure.  

Senator ROBERTS: My fourth and fifth questions are not appropriate. They’re for the minister.

/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

Standing With @BillboardChris: Protecting Our Kids with Compassion & Support

Grateful to be able to offer my support to Billboard Chris in person at Parliament House today after the concerning events in Queen Street Mall Brisbane.

As I’ve said many times in Senate speeches and other forums, gender dysphoria should be met with compassion and understanding, not a scalpel or hormone drugs.

Our children need support during adolescence, not automatic affirmation that could lead to irreversible harm. Given that children are not mature enough to consent to treatments that will result in permanent infertility and damage, a total ban on such treatments for anyone under 18 is necessary.

We must protect our children as they navigate this challenging period in their lives.

I stand with Billboard Chris and commend his dedication to ending this abuse of our children.

Above all, free speech and the right to peaceful protest must be safeguarded at all costs.

/4 Comments/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

Labor’s LGBTIQA+ Agenda for Kids

,

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

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/7 Comments/by

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