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

Is the Human Rights Commission Neutral?

I questioned the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Dr Cody, regarding the Australian Human Rights Commission’s intervention as an amicus curiae in the Tickle v Giggle case.

I asked Dr Cody whether the Commission could genuinely claim neutrality when participating in the legal action.

I also raised concerns regarding the official report Equal Identities, questioning whether the Commission’s position treats the exclusion of trans females from sex-based spaces as unlawful discrimination under section 5B of the Sex Discrimination Act, and why the office has not actively advised teams and individuals about relevant sport exemptions under section 42.

Additionally, I queried the broader policy approach of recommending the repeal or narrowing of religious and sex-based exemptions, questioning how such positions align with an objective advisory role to the court as amicus curiae or friend of the court.

Finally, I brought up the definition of “gender identity” under the Sex Discrimination Act, specifically the wording regarding a person’s characteristics with or without regard to their designated sex at birth, highlighting my concerns about how these legal definitions operate in practice.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing here today. Dr Cody, my first question seeks to clear up your role in Tickle v Giggle. You did not prosecute the case and you did not fund the case, yet you presented a legal
opinion in an amicus curiae, a friend of the court, submission. Is that correct?

Dr Cody: That is correct that our role was as amicus curiae to assist the court to understand aspects of the Sex Discrimination Act.

Senator ROBERTS: For clarity, your submission set out the law under the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013, passed under Prime Minister Gillard. It
changed the definition of ‘woman’, which can now be a person’s self-described gender identity, including appearance, mannerisms or other gender related characteristics with or without regard to the person’s designated
sex at birth. You argued Tickle was a transgender woman with female legal recognition and presentation, and therefore the treatment from Giggle was properly characterised as gender identity discrimination. Other sections around special measures to promote gender equity, including section 7D, were subordinate to the overarching definition of gender in the act. In simple terms, is that your advice to the court?

Dr Cody: No, it wasn’t. We did not make any submissions on whether or not Ms Tickle had been discriminated against. Our role was to assist the court to understand the constitutionality of the 2013 amendments
and to discuss meanings of sex and gender identity within the act, as well as the meaning of ‘special measures’ and how they would apply and any role for exemptions.

Senator ROBERTS: Amicus curiae—pardon my Latin—is a neutral or advisory role to help clarify legal questions. Are you neutral in the Tickle v Giggle case?

Dr Cody: Our submissions were to assist the court to understand and to interpret the Sex Discrimination Act. So, yes, that was our role as an intervener to assist the court.

Senator ROBERTS: Are you neutral?

Dr Cody: Our role was to assist the court to understand the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act.

Senator ROBERTS: Are you neutral?

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, the commissioner has answered the question.

Senator ROBERTS: How can you be neutral when you marched into court at the head of the scrum of people on the Tickle side of it? You were making a clear statement in that action of support of one side of this case—a personal show of support not appropriate to an amicus curiae role—were you not?

Dr Cody: No, Senator. We took seats in the only space that was available in the courtroom. That’s why we were sitting on the right-hand side of the courtroom.

Senator ROBERTS: I saw your comments in the publication OUTinPerth in April 2024, where you said: We stand with trans communities and will continue to advocate for their rights and the rights of women.
You are making a very clear distinction here between the rights of women and the rights of transgender women. Do you agree your comments amount to a statement that trans women are not women?

Dr Cody: I’m sorry, Senator, could you repeat that question?

Senator ROBERTS: You talk about trans women, and you talk about women. Doesn’t that show that they’re different?

Dr Cody: Transgender women are a subset of the broader category of women. ‘Women’ includes First Nations women, women with disability, older women, younger women, women from culturally and racially marginalised backgrounds, trans women, lesbians—non-binary would sometimes be included in that as well.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll come back to that. Moving on, this report titled Equal identities plus a long subtitle was published under your name as Sex Discrimination Commissioner. Can I confirm your official position, as
contained in this report, is that trans female exclusion from sex based spaces of services—for example, women-only apps, shelters, sports and bathrooms—is unlawful gender identity discrimination under section 5B of the Sex Discrimination Act. Is that correct?

Dr Cody: No, that’s not correct.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s not correct.

Dr Cody: That’s not what the report refers to and that’s not my position.

Senator ROBERTS: Section 42 of the Sex Discrimination Act provides an exemption specifically allowing sporting organisations to exclude someone, including a trans woman, from a competitive category of strength,
stamina or physique matters in a sport. I haven’t heard your office mention this exemption, which is directly relevant to controversies around, for instance, the Flying Bats Football Club. If you do in fact provide independent advice, as you claim to do in the Tickle case, why haven’t you advised the opposing teams that keep getting injured that there is an exemption to protect them in the act?

Dr Cody: It’s not our role to provide advice to individual parties. We conciliate complaints if someone makes a complaint of unlawful discrimination, and we advocate for the human rights of all people within society,
recognising that all people have a right to equality, respect and dignity. That is human rights law as it applies in Australia.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you want section 42—sport exemption—removed from the act?

Dr Cody: No, Senator. It has a legitimate place to play where strength, stamina and physique are relevant to a sporting activity.

Senator ROBERTS: Why strength, stamina and physique—that distinction between male and female?

Dr Cody: The words are ‘strength’, ‘stamina’ and ‘physique’. Different sports have different requirements around each of those, so that’s an important exemption that, when the parliament passed the Sex Discrimination
Act, it included, to ensure that sport enabled people to participate fully within it.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on. Your report recommends repealing or narrowing exemptions in the Sex Discrimination Act—such as section 43A—that allow sex based or faith based exclusions. Broad religious
exemptions are criticised as creating uncertainty and legitimising exclusion. What right do you have to present an amicus curiae brief when you are already clearly heavily biased in favour of Tickle and opposed to religious freedom?

Dr Cody: Our role within the Australian Human Rights Commission is to advocate for the human rights of everybody within our community. That is a part of our role as a national human rights institution. Our role as
amicus curiae is a different role. We’re not advocating in that situation but rather providing clarification to the court on the meaning of the Sex Discrimination Act.

Senator ROBERTS: I note that the Gillard government legislation that caused this ludicrous outcome passed on the voices, with former senator Birmingham—then-head of the Liberal Party in the Senate—on behalf of the coalition calling the bill ‘a very welcome piece of legislation’ and specifically supporting the absurd and illogical gender identity provisions. I’m just clarifying the record. Dr Cody, what is the difference between gender identity and gender? In your answers to Senator Cash you implied there was a clear difference between gender identity and gender. What is the difference?

Dr Cody: I was referring, in my answer to Senator Cash, to how sex is understood within law and in terms of the protections provided in discrimination law. Sex looks at three aspects. Those are biology and physical
characteristics as well as how someone presents themselves as well as their social recognition. Those are the three aspects that relate to how sex is understood under the Sex Discrimination Act and within discrimination law more broadly.

Senator ROBERTS: What about with regard to the differences between gender identity, or people who identify as a gender, and real gender? Does it apply there?

Dr Cody: Within the Sex Discrimination Act, I can refer you to the provision for gender identity, but I don’t have it to hand right at the moment.

Senator ROBERTS: So gender identity is a construct of the law. Is that correct?

Dr Cody: Gender identity is protected as a protected attribute within the Sex Discrimination Act. It’s not only an aspect of the law.

Senator ROBERTS: If someone introduces a bill that says men are the same as women, and it gets through the Senate and the House, that’s the law. Is that correct?

Dr Cody: It’s up to the parliament to pass its own laws, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: Right. So the parliament can say, ‘Men are the same as women’—end of story, that’s it. Is that right? Thank you. What is the meaning of ‘gender identity’ and ‘gender’?

Dr Cody: Gender identity—if you’d like me to refer to the Sex Discrimination Act?

Senator ROBERTS: Could you read it out, please.

Dr Cody: Yes, certainly.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m going to share the call after this.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I have another set later.

CHAIR: I’ll allow Commissioner Cody to answer your question and then I’m going to share the call.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you come back to me later?

CHAIR: Yes.

Dr Cody: Gender identity, within the Sex Discrimination Act, means ‘the gender related identity, appearance or mannerisms or other gender related characteristics of a person—whether by way of medical intervention or not—with or without regard to the person’s designated sex at birth’.

Senator ROBERTS: The keyword would seem to be ‘or’. I’m not a lawyer, I’m not a judge, but that would seem to be the keyword, and it’s used twice in the definition, separating the three characteristics. So you don’t
have to have a gender; you can be whatever you want to be if you identify as such or if you dress as such. Thank you very much.

/by

Can Doctors Still Discuss Gender?

,

I questioned representatives from AHPRA regarding their heavy-handed and unjustified actions against Dr Amos, an academic psychiatrist from North Queensland.

On 26 February 2026, the Medical Board of Australia slapped immediate restrictions on Dr Amos’s medical registration, banning him from patient contact and social media commentary on gender.

This move was triggered by just four complaints (three were anonymous and none were from patients) concerning three X posts — one questioning whether trans identification can be differentiated from psychosis and another using biological pronouns during an exchange.

When I pressed Mr Untersteiner on what specific parts of those posts allegedly posed a “serious risk to public health and safety” to justify an immediate action order, he hid behind confidentiality provisions and refused to discuss individual cases. Even with support from Senator Henderson challenging their secrecy, the agency repeatedly dodged direct questions.

When I asked Dr Orchard whether a health practitioner has the right to refer to biological sex, or if doing so constitutes discrimination, they hid behind vague codes of conduct and social media guidelines instead of giving a straight answer.

AHPRA claims they only intervene when debate crosses into hate or discrimination, yet they couldn’t provide a clear set of guidelines defining what they actually consider “misinformation.”

I questioned their process of issuing severe penalties before facts are even established or investigations conducted, ultimately destroying doctors’ careers over anonymous complaints and standard public commentary.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Could I have Ahpra please? Thank you all for being here. Dr Amos is an academic psychiatrist based in North Queensland. His academic work includes numerous published journal articles and
conference presentations on gender medicine. On 26 February 2026, the Medical Board of Australia placed restrictions on Dr Amos’s medical registration, preventing him from having direct or indirect contact with patients and banning him from posting on social media on the topic of gender. This was in response to four complaints about three X posts. Three of the complaints were anonymous. It’s important to note that there was no patient complaint. He had posted that ‘there is no reliable evidence that trans identification can be differentiated from psychosis.’

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, given that it is almost 10.30 and we’ve had all of these questions from senator Henderson—

Senator ROBERTS: No, we haven’t had these questions.

ACTING CHAIR: I think you’re going to get a similar response.

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve had this topic but not this question. Another complaint was that, in a post exchange, Dr Amos used biological pronouns and thereby was accused of misgendering a UK trans activist. The
immediate action order used by Ahpra against Dr Amos is meant to be reserved, as I understand it, for when there is a reasonable belief that a health practitioner poses a serious risk to public health and safety. What specific elements of those posts did the board determine posed a serious risk to public health and safety under the socalled national law?

Mr Untersteiner: As the chair has highlighted, I’ve answered this question numerous times. My response will remain. I can’t comment on individual cases, because we have very clear confidentiality provisions.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on then. Does a health practitioner have the right to refer—

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, just one moment. I hope it is a point of order, Senator Henderson, and not commentary.

Senator HENDERSON: No, of course not. This is just a point of order in relation to advice that I’ve just received through the secretariat. If the information is public, there’s no basis not to answer these questions. We’ve
checked the advice with the chair. So I would just challenge—

ACTING CHAIR: You haven’t checked the advice with the chair.

Senator HENDERSON: Sorry, I meant with the secretary. Apologies. I’m just saying through the chair that I don’t think it’s appropriate that you decline to answer these questions. It’s not consistent with the rules of the
Senate insofar as—

Mr Untersteiner: Sorry, to confirm—

ACTING CHAIR: I think this is an interpretation issue. The information that that you have is not necessarily the stuff that is printed in whatever publication it is that has been quoted. There is a big difference in reporting from wherever you got it and the agencies actually providing you with their detailed private information that is protecting other people’s privacy. But I’m happy for Mr Untersteiner to take that on notice and provide the rationale and the breakdown. Perhaps you, Senator Henderson, could provide the information that you were reading from previously in terms of your—

Senator HENDERSON: I’ve tabled that, Chair. That’s been tabled.

ACTING CHAIR: Right. I still haven’t seen it. Nobody’s given it to me, I’m afraid.

Senator HENDERSON: Please speak to the secretary. Please don’t—

Senator Roberts interjecting—

ACTING CHAIR: I’ll just finish. I believe you’ve been asking the Clerk about a public interest immunity claim, and we can go to that point at that time. But let’s just take it on notice and come back with the rationale and the understanding, and then Senator Henderson and Senator Roberts can go through that and determine what steps they might like to take next.

Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate Senator Henderson interjecting, but the ultimate umpire is the TV camera—the people watching this at home, the Australians. Does a health practitioner, Mr Untersteiner, have the right to refer to a trans person’s biological sex?

Mr Untersteiner: I’m struggling a little bit with that question in regard to our role as the regulator. I don’t know—

Senator ROBERTS: Is it discrimination for a health practitioner to refer to a person’s biological sex? Is it discrimination?

Dr Orchard: I understand your question to be: is there an issue with a practitioner making public reference to someone’s gender or sex?

Senator ROBERTS: To refer to a person’s biological sex.

Dr Orchard: Generally, in respect of public comments by practitioners, you’ve heard earlier the discussion around the right of free speech and the fact that Ahpra and the boards are committed to those ideals, but there are limits to free speech and how people express themselves—

Senator ROBERTS: So a doctor talking about biological sex is going against free speech?

Dr Orchard: What I was going to say is that the codes of conduct and the social media guides that are published by boards set out quite clearly the expectations of practitioners when they are making public comments.
They should make comments that are respectful and that rely on the best available information and so on—

Senator ROBERTS: I think you’re a man.

Dr Orchard: I beg your pardon?

Senator ROBERTS: I think you’re a man.

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, it’s not appropriate to get personal with the witnesses. Please have some respect.

Senator ROBERTS: How can a doctor fulfil their ethical obligation to inform the public of potential harms of gender interventions and gender ideology without being accused of discrimination against LGBTIQA+ people?

Mr Untersteiner: I’ve answered this question several times. As a regulator, we think health practitioners have a right to have public debate about a range of different issues, which include, again, gender-affirming treatment, gender blockers and other like treatments. We would not be taking regulatory action on that basis. Again, I think I’ve got to be very careful here about selective media and about using that as the basis.

Senator ROBERTS: What specifically would Ahpra consider to be misinformation in a post? If you can’t speak to that now, take it on notice.

Mr Untersteiner: Sure.

Senator ROBERTS: How do Ahpra staff acquire the capacity to know what is true or false information in this highly contested area? How do you know?

Mr Untersteiner: We rely on the existing clinical guidelines, but we also will look at the specific facts of the case, the specific facts of what was said and what context that was said in. Again, I want to be clear here that we will intervene where this goes beyond a debate about clinical pathways and treatments and moves into a place of hate or discrimination against individuals or groups. Again, I see firsthand the harm that discrimination and hate cause the community. I see vulnerable people in all walks of life in this country who fear seeking help because individuals go beyond debating appropriate clinical pathways or advice and move into very clear discrimination.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you give me specifically, please, a set of guidelines of what would be deemed by Ahpra to be misinformation in a post.

Mr Untersteiner: That’s a hypothetical. I don’t think I can answer that question.

ACTING CHAIR: Last question, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: You’re breaking careers on it. The Medical Board of Australia’s immediate action orders are implemented before the facts are established and before an investigation occurs. Is it reasonable to destroy a doctor’s career for three social media posts without conducting an investigation—three anonymous complaints, no patient complaints?

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you’re working on a limited basis there.

Mr Untersteiner: Again, I’d just say I don’t agree with your characterisation there. There’s a lot more information that won’t be public and isn’t appropriate for me to talk about. I’ve got legal obligations that I must
meet—

Senator ROBERTS: They’re facts.

/by

Restoring Biological Reality to Australian Law

,

I honour the original, genuine feminist movement – a movement of women who fought hard to establish rights that are now under attack.

I am deeply concerned by the recent Giggle v. Tickle Federal Court decision, which highlights how the rights of biological women to have safe, female-only spaces are being eroded by men pretending to be women.

I challenged the Office for Women on whether they truly stand with biological women. I find it incredible that in this day and age, we are even having this conversation.

I asked them directly if women are entitled to safe places where biological men are not welcome. The Office and the Minister repeatedly deflected my questions, claiming these issues are “medical” or matters for the Attorney-General.

They claim to stand for “all women,” yet when pressed on what that means for biological females, they offer no clear protection.

I view this trans activist movement as a destructive force intended to destabilise and divide western civilisation. Rather than encouraging people to continue down this path, we should be helping them love the bodies they were born in.

The irony is not lost on me that our first female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, legislated the very version of the Sex Discrimination Act that created this mess, one that puts women at risk and ignores basic biological reality.

Australians are fed up with this.

One Nation’s Promise: We will not wait. One Nation intends to amend the Sex Discrimination Act to fix the loopholes created by the Gillard government.

I will continue to pursue this issue until we return to a society that recognises truth, protects women and restores common sense to our laws.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. Women rightly fought hard and long to establish women’s rights through the original, genuine and very real feminist movement. I honour them. I sincerely do. Does the Office for Women support Sall Grover in her case Tickle v Giggle? Sall is otherwise known as Giggle. This case result in the Federal Court recently clearly shows that women’s rights are under attack from men identifying as women as part of the so-called trans activists. Do you support Sall Grover?

Ms Raman: I don’t believe that’s a matter for us. I would direct you to AGD. I think you did canvass this at length last night.

Senator ROBERTS: I did. I will continue to do so. As part of a—

CHAIR: Just ensure your questions are directed to the right people, Senator Roberts. That would be really helpful.

Senator ROBERTS: I am coming to that. By the way, the trans activist movement is part of a movement wanting to destabilise and divide our country. They are modern Marxists. I can’t believe we’re living in a time where this is even a topic of conversation. Surely it would be better to help these obviously unwell people with loving the body they are already born in, not encourage them to continue down this destructive path, which puts women at risk. The Office for Women plays a critical role in driving policies to eliminate domestic, family and sexual violence. I applaud you for that. The recent decision in Tickle v Giggle has diminished the rights of biological women to have safe places.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I think we’ve covered this in the sense that case is not a matter for these witnesses.

Senator ROBERTS: My question, Chair, is: does this office accept that women are entitled to have safe places where men, biological or identified, are not welcome? Do women have the right to have that?

Ms Raman: We’re focused on tangible and practical outcomes to close gender gaps. We are guided by our strategy Working for Women. Our day-to-day work is focused on what the Commonwealth can do to keep women safe, ensure families have choice in relation to care and work, as I said before, and improve women’s health and their place in decision-making. When we deal with these things, everyone is safer. All Australians are safer and have freedom and opportunities. Our daily work is about ensuring that we keep women safe. We work on the issues in our strategy to ensure that we get to gender equality.

Senator ROBERTS: What could be more tangible than a man who identifies as a women but is still a man attacking a women? Nothing could be more tangible than that. Nothing could be more safety aware than that. I want to know why Australians should be forced to accept that men can be women when they are not.

CHAIR: It’s not relevant to these witnesses.

Ms Raman: When we deal with the issues that we have in our strategy, these issues almost never come up. When we focus on the issues that are about ensuring that we remove the barriers to ensuring that we can have gender equality in this country, these issues do not come up in our day-to-day work.

Senator ROBERTS: Does the Office for Women stand with biological women, or does this office also include men identifying as women?

Ms Raman: We stand with all women.

Senator ROBERTS: So that’s biological women?

Senator WHITEAKER: What does that term even mean? It’s a ridiculous question.

CHAIR: The witness said all women, Senator Roberts. You are trying to create a divide here.

Senator ROBERTS: Safe spaces for women. I want women’s rights back.

Senator WHITEAKER: How about you leave that up to us to figure out for ourselves.

Senator ROBERTS: That is what I am doing. They’re coming to me saying, ‘For goodness sake, pursue this issue with the Office for Women.’ Senator Cash knows all about it. That’s exactly what we’re doing. I stand for women’s rights as hard fought for and won by the feminist movement decades ago. Do you believe that a man that is born with male genitals and male chromosomes can be anything other than a male?

CHAIR: This is a medical question, Senator Roberts. You are better off in the health department, which is next week.

Senator ROBERTS: If men can be women, does that mean anyone can identify something they are clearly not? For example, if I consider myself to be a six foot six inch basketball player when I’m clearly not, would it be considered delusional?

CHAIR: Again, that is a medical question, Senator Roberts. I would direct you to the health department.

Senator ROBERTS: We’ll get to the final one. Minister, will the government change the law? The irony is that former Labor prime minister Julia Gillard, the first female prime minister in this country, created the legislation that created this mess. She accused Tony Abbott of being misogynist. One Nation will amend the Sex Discrimination Act legislated by the Gillard government that has created this mess. Why don’t you do it before the election and change it?

Senator Gallagher: It’s not a matter for the Office for Women.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking the minister.

Senator Gallagher: Well, it’s a matter for the Attorney-General. Her representative appeared last night, as did representatives from Attorney-General’s. I presume you asked the question of them. That’s where it is appropriately made.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking you as a minister of the government today.

Senator Gallagher: It does not form—

Senator ROBERTS: You have two years left in your term.

Senator Gallagher: It does not fall within my ministerial responsibilities, Senator Roberts. It is a matter for the Attorney-General.

Senator ROBERTS: You’re a woman and you’re a minister and you’re part of the government.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, if you want to ask a question about changing that particular legislation, then you are in the wrong place. I believe you have already done that and asked in those areas. You may not have liked the answer—

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t ask that question yesterday.

CHAIR: Well, you still have time to put it on notice, Senator Roberts, if you would like to do that, to the relevant agency.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much.

/2 Comments/by

Labor’s Backdoor Deal for Equality Australia

,

The Albanese Government hid a provision in a Superannuation bill which gave charity status to a lobby group, Equality Australia. For those who don’t know, Equality Australia is an LGBTQI+ organisation committed to destroying religious freedom in Australia. For many years, Equality Australia has waged a campaign against Christian Schools Australia, as well as almost 2,800 other faith-based schools.

Their method is to target exemptions under the Sex Discrimination Act and similar state laws. These laws permit schools to fire, demote, or refuse to hire teachers based on sexual orientation or gender identity, or to expel or deny enrolment to students on those grounds, as being contrary to their religious teachings — although they only target certain religious groups.

Equality Australia does not mention Islamic schools or madrasas on their website. They have taken Christian schools to court, yet never Islamic schools, despite both religions treating these issues the same way. It’s this double standard that defines Equality Australia as a lobby group, not a charity — and a gutless, dishonest one at that.

Equality Australia was refused charity status by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, then the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and finally the full Federal Court, because they are a lobby group, not a charity.

The Government has legislated this approval because they are desperate to keep the transgender industry going to secure votes in crucial city electorates, which they are defending from the Greens.

I ask suburban, regional, and rural voters to reject the Government’s perverse agenda and vote One Nation to end the transgender madness and the Queer mafia attacks on Christianity.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Last year’s pre-election budget contained a hidden announcement indicating the federal government’s intention to award deductible gift recipient status to Equality Australia. Additionally, deductible gift recipient is called registered charity status. That allows donations to the organisation to be claimed as tax deductions. Reduced taxation from donors means taxpayers wind up paying more, so, if a body is getting charity status, they better deserve it. The innocuously named Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025 makes that happen—granting charity status to a lobby group Equality Australia until 1 July 2030. In other words, taxpayers will pay for donations to Equality Australia. 

For those who don’t know, Equality Australia is an LGBTQI+ organisation committed to destroying religious freedom in Australia. Their strategy is to force religious schools to teach the same perverted agenda taught in public schools, even to the point of forcing religious schools to hire trans teachers. For many years, Equality Australia has waged a campaign against Christian Schools Australia as well as other faith based schools, numbering almost 2,800 schools across Australia. It strongly advocates to strip protections that currently and tenuously allow Christian schools to operate in name and in nature—that is, as Christian schools. 

Their method is to target exemptions under the Sex Discrimination Act and similar state laws which permit schools to fire, demote or refuse to hire teachers based on sexual orientation or gender identity or to expel or deny enrolment students on those grounds, as being contrary their religious teachings, although only certain religious groups. Equality Australia does not mention Islamic schools or madrasah on their website. They have taken Christian schools to court, yet never Islamic schools. Both religions treat these issues the same way. It is this double standard that defines Equality Australia as a lobby group not a charity and a gutless one at that—a dishonest lobby group. 

The background to this issue is that Equality Australia has previously sought public benevolent institution status as a way to get tax deductibility for the donor, yet the government’s Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission rejected those attempts, and then the Administrative Appeals Tribunal rejected the same attempts, and then the full Federal Court rejected the same attempts. All decided that Equality Australia is not a charity. It’s a lobby group. They even say that in their strategic plan. While this was going on, media reports suggest Equality Australia has been rorting the system, channelling donations through another charity, Thorne Harbour Health, formerly the Victorian AIDS Council, and there you have it. What a pile. This arrangement may be allowing an entity which is not a charity but a lobby group to use, in whole or in part, tax deductions to an AIDS trust. This is a clearly non-conforming operation. 

Complaints have been made to the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. The Prime Minister’s hand-picked governor-general is controversially the patron of Equality Australia, and the Australian newspaper has reported the Governor-General has declined to answer their questions on the appropriateness of this arrangement. 

This bill was passed through the House of Representatives on 26 November 2025 and went to the Senate standing committee on economics for inquiry and report, and, of course, they rubberstamped it. One Nation calls for the granting of deductible gift status to Equality Australia to be put on hold until the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission completes investigations into these dodgy financial arrangements. 

The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission grants charity status as a routine measure. It’s only when an organisation which does not deserve to be a charity applies that bills like this come before the Senate. You know it—bills that overrule the experts, overrule the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and override the full Federal Court. Does the minister know better than all of these bodies? Of course not. This decision has been taken because there are votes in the urban bubble in this war on Christianity and in Equality Australia, the Labor Party, the Greens and the teals pursuing gender. 

And there’s more. The Productivity Commission is reviewing the whole system for granting charity status. Their final report on philanthropy within Australia proposed a wholesale upheaval of the deductible gift recipient system. Why don’t we do that—suspend more of these legislated overrules of the system until these matters can be settled? It would be terrifying to open the door to Equality Australia’s having more money to conduct its war on Christianity and on religious schools—sorry, its war on Christian schools. It’s not a war on Islamic schools but on Christian schools—not all religious schools, just Christian schools. With stronger campaign finance behind the lobby group, our schools are in danger of coming under attack once more. 

In February’s Senate estimates hearings, I asked the office of the Governor-General about Equality Australia, because Australia’s Governor-General is supposed to be neutral and to not take political positions. This leads to many questions for the government. Firstly, how is it that the Governor-General can be patron of a political activist group like Equality Australia, which actively supports irreversible gender treatments for children? Secondly, why did Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury, Dr Andrew Leigh, intervene to give Equality Australia charity status when, on three occasions, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and two Federal Court hearings held that Equality Australia was not established for a benevolent purpose and should not be entitled to deductible gift recipient status? Deductible gift recipient status allows donors to claim tax deductions for donations. Why did the Labor government give Equality Australia such a massive favour against the findings of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the full bench of the Federal Court? Was it because the Governor-General is a patron of the activist group, the lobby group Equality Australia? Isn’t this a clear conflict of interest and a breach of the requirement of neutrality of the Governor-General? 

Observing the government’s blatant contradiction of the law, does the law mean nothing to this government? Is the lobby group, the activist group Equality Australia, when it attacks Christian schools, acting in any way on behalf of the government—on your behalf? Is this lobby group acting on behalf of the government in any way when it supports children’s futile attempts to change sex, to change gender? One Nation will propose an amendment to the bill as follows: delete clause 4 of schedule 5 of the bill in its entirety and, consequently, delete chapter 5.18 of the bill’s explanatory memorandum. 

Turning to the bill as a whole, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025 amends the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 to streamline the choice of superannuation fund made during the onboarding of new employees and ban the advertising of certain superannuation products—fair enough. Additionally, it amends the income tax assessment acts to provide income tax and withholding-tax exemptions for World Rugby and its wholly owned subsidiaries. The bill amends the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 to give legislative authority to the Convention between Australia and the Portuguese Republic for the Elimination of Double Taxation with respect to Taxes on Income and the Prevention of Tax Evasion and Avoidance. It amends the A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax) Act 1999 to increase the maximum amount of wine equalisation tax producer rebate that eligible wine producers can claim to $400,000 each financial year. 

I now address comments made by Senators McKim and Dolega in their second reading speeches earlier today. By the way, One Nation has members of the LGBTIQ community in its membership and in its voter base. In response to Senator McKim’s comments about LGBTQI+, I note that many lesbians, gays and bisexuals oppose gender affirmation as a treatment for gender dysphoria in children. They oppose it, and they oppose it very strongly—I’ve spoken to them. Like One Nation, they know that surgery to chop body parts off children and the hormone and chemical treatment of adolescents alters brain function and puberty and neuter the victims’ ability to have children later. One Nation clearly opposes gender affirmation of children as a way of treating gender dysphoria, a known mental health condition that children pass through. One Nation points to the lack of peer reviewed, double-blind, scientific and medical studies that support gender affirmation. One Nation points to the growing number of studies and experts in the field now discrediting gender affirmation. One Nation points to the growing number of children and parents using legal action, court action, to sue those now known to harm children through surgical, hormonal and/or chemical means implementing gender affirmation. 

In response to Senator Dolega’s use of labels—through you, Chair—including ‘cookers’ and ‘homophobes’, against us, I note that labels are the refuge of those incapable of responding with a rational, fact based argument, whether their claim is ignorant, incompetent, dishonest, desperate, stupid, weak, lazy or fearful. When people resort to using labels, they confirm they have neither the data nor the logical argument to counter their opponent’s position. In that way, those who resort to labels admit they lack a counter argument. They’re admitting they have lost. It’s also not possible to give offence—only to take offence. Calling me a cooker or a homophobe—whatever—has no impact on me. It won’t stop me telling the truth. I do not take offence. Until the recipient takes offence, labels are mere words that tell everyone about the labeller, not the labelled. 

In conclusion, as I foreshadowed earlier, One Nation will move an amendment to this bill in committee stage. If the amendment is not carried, One Nation will oppose this bill; if the amendment is carried, One Nation will support the bill. 

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sharma): Senator Roberts, before you conclude, I want to draw your attention to standing order 193(2) of the Senate, which directs: 

A senator shall not refer to the King, the Governor-General or the Governor of a state disrespectfully in debate … 

I would ask you to reflect on your comments with regard to the Governor-General and consider whether you wish to withdraw them. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Acting Deputy President. I was referring to the Governor-General’s actions and whether or not the government condone them. 

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. I might refer this matter to the President to look at what you said a bit more closely, but my recollection, Senator Roberts, was that you called into question the partiality or otherwise of the Governor-General. Is that not your recollection? 

Senator ROBERTS: That is correct. 

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Then I would ask you to withdraw, because that is a— 

Senator ROBERTS: I withdraw. 

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Roberts. 

/2 Comments/by

Commissioner Doesn’t Get XX/XY

,

“I understand the law. What I don’t understand is the science around XX and XY ….”

— Australia’s Sex Discrimination Commissioner, during Senate Estimates.

How can you advise the court on sex-based rights if you don’t understand the science? Seriously!

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’d now like to go to Dr Cody, and the intervention in Tickle v Giggle, please. Thank you for appearing, Dr Cody. Tickle v Giggle is the case of someone who was born a biological male being stopped from joining a women-only app. What are you arguing in your intervention? How much are you being paid by the taxpayers to go in and bat for biological born and developed men to be allowed into women’s spaces?  

Dr Cody: The role that we have within the case Giggle and Tickle is intervention, or amicus curiae: helping the court to understand the interpretation of the Sex Discrimination Act and the amendments from 2013, and also how the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women applies, whether or not there are special measures, and their understanding of section 5 and section 7 of the Sex Discrimination Act. We were given leave by the court to assist them to understand those issues and also the constitutionality of the Sex Discrimination Act. In terms of the cost, we have two counsel who were briefed. Both agreed to appear on a capped fee basis, so that’s a reduced fee. One was paid $13,000, and the other one was paid $10,000.  

Senator ROBERTS: What I actually asked, Dr Cody, was how much are you paid by the taxpayers to go in and bat for biological born and developed men?  

Dr Cody: My salary is similar to that that you mentioned for Commissioner Sivaraman.  

Senator ROBERTS: About $400,000 a year, plus 15.4 per cent super?  

Dr Cody: Correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Just so I can be clear, your position is that the law means a biological man who identifies as a transgender woman can enter a female-only space?

Dr Cody: I would question whether or not Roxanne Tickle is not a man. She is a trans woman. She has gone through various processes and has transitioned, and she’s a trans woman. So she has access—or sought access and was provided access—to the Giggle for Girls app, and then was taken off the access to the Giggle for Girls app.  

Senator ROBERTS: What sort of chromosomes does she have—XX or XY?  

Dr Cody: I can’t answer that. 

Senator ROBERTS: You can’t?  

Dr Cody: No, I can’t answer that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Wow. Can someone who was born with XY chromosomes change to XX chromosomes—a male change to a female?  

Dr Cody: I don’t believe so, but I’m not a scientist. There are many variations of chromosomes. There are hormonal variations, there are chromosomal variations, there are genitalia variations—there are a lot of variations which are along a spectrum.  

Senator 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’re born with XY chromosomes, they’re a man and they stay a man?  

Dr Cody: No, I would not agree.  

Senator ROBERTS: You don’t agree?  If a woman took a case to court today trying to stop a person with a penis who identified as a female going into a women’s bathroom, which side would you be arguing for if you were there as a friend of the court?  

Dr Cody: No.  I would need to know more facts. I can’t make a judgement on that in particular.  

Senator ROBERTS: Coming back to your previous answer, you talked about XX and XY and how you didn’t really know the answer. How can you make a decision on sex?  

Dr Cody: The issue 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.  

Senator ROBERTS: If a person was born male, that’s XY. Someone born female is XX.  

Dr Cody: Not always.  

Senator ROBERTS: No?  

Dr Cody: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you give me an example of when not?  

Dr Cody: Because there are also people who have innate variations of sex characteristics, so they may be identified as male at birth, but in fact later find out that they have XY chromosomes or XX chromosomes. So it is more complex than just XX being female and XY being male.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll agree with that, but it’s a very, very tiny proportion of the population. Someone who was born a man, a boy, has XY chromosomes and cannot change to XX—is that correct?  

Dr Cody: If their chromosomes are XY, then I don’t believe their chromosomes can change. But, I repeat, I’m not a scientist, so I haven’t studied whether or not they can change it.  

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

Dr Cody: I’m not taking a side within a court case. Our role is as amicus—that is, to provide clarification and help to the court in understanding the legal issues that are in dispute.  

Senator ROBERTS: So how can you clarify if you don’t understand?  

Dr Cody: I understand the law. What I don’t understand is the science around the XX and XY, unless the evidence is before the court. So my role is to assist the court with understanding the legal argument.  

Senator ROBERTS: On my reading of what you’ve said in Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd v Roxanne Tickle, the position on biological males in female spaces seems pretty clear at the Human Rights Commission. Could you explain?  

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

Senator ROBERTS: What your position is.  

Dr Cody: On which issue? 

Senator ROBERTS: The Human Rights Commission’s position on biological males in female spaces. Could you please explain your position on that.  

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

Senator ROBERTS: Someone born as a male, XY chromosomes. 

Dr Cody: If they are a man, and depending on which space they are wanting to enter and why that space has been created—if it’s a special measure, for example, for ensuring the quality of women—then there may be good reason to exclude men from that space.  

Senator ROBERTS: What would be some of the reasons?  

Dr Cody: For safety reasons, for example.  

Senator ROBERTS: What sorts of safety reasons?  

Dr Cody: There is certainly a reason why men would be excluded from a domestic violence refuge for women.  

Senator ROBERTS: Female prison?  

Dr Cody: Female prisons are also made for women, and therefore men would be excluded from a women’s prison.  

/7 Comments/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

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

Trump’s Bold Moves Align with One Nation’s Policies

,

In his first two weeks, President Trump has secured the border, prevented a Chinese takeover of the Panama Canal, and tackled US government waste. He’s withdrawn from the WHO, WEF, and climate change fraud—moves One Nation has supported for 20 years. Executive orders have ended woke DEI and transgender ideology while supporting LGB Americans – again a One Nation policy. 

President Trump isn’t a threat to democracy here or in the United States – he is, however, a threat to the Greens’ toxic ideology.  Australia led the pushback against woke ideology, and Trump’s actions align with One Nation policies.  

One Nation is proud to put Australia first, just as Trump puts America first. 

Transcript

The election of President Donald Trump was certified in every American state, by Democrats and Republicans alike and in Congress. The 2024 election was a textbook application of the United States’ republic model of government. In his first two weeks, President Trump has secured the border against illegal arrivals, overnight adding Mexican and Canadian troops to police their side of the border and lifting threats of tariffs. President Trump has prevented the Chinese takeover of the strategic Panama Canal, and his team have made a huge stab at putting the cleaners through US government waste, some of which appears criminal and seditious in nature. President Trump has withdrawn the USA from the World Health Organization, from the World Economic Forum and from climate change tyranny and fraud. These are moves One Nation has advocated for 20 years. Executive orders have destroyed woke DEI and transgender ideology while reaffirming support for gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans. Again, this is One Nation policy. 

President Trump is not a threat to democracy here or in the United States. He is a threat to the Greens, who are watching the pushback to their neo-Marxist identity politics. Their toxic ideology is rightly being dispatched to history’s sewers. President Trump did not start the pushback against woke ideology; Australia did when everyday Australians rejected the Voice proposal, and the Irish did when they rejected the fragmentation of their families in a referendum there. President Donald Trump’s actions are in accord with One Nation policies, and of that we are very, very proud. Trump puts America first; One Nation proudly puts Australia first. 

/3 Comments/by

Medical Transitioning of minors is child abuse

Medically transitioning children is experimental. Long term benefits are not clear and detriments are mounting. Our children are not fodder for experimentation and advancing research outcomes for the medical profession.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I’m speaking to the answers Minister Gallagher provided—or, rather, failed to provide—to my questions on gender dysphoria treatment.

In avoiding the answer to my questions, the minister tried weakly to say, ‘Nothing to see here.’ Yet the world is waking up to the profoundly inhuman medical and psychological harms that children with gender dysphoria are experiencing when referred to gender clinics. The international trend is moving away from prescribing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to children under 18 years. Britain’s infamous—and the world’s largest—gender clinic, Tavistock, is now closing, following a review that found it failed vulnerable under 18s: it failed vulnerable under 18s! It follows the clinics in Finland, Sweden and France suspending the availability of puberty blockers and sex hormones to children unless under strict clinical trials.

How did we get to this place, where the power of ideology and trans activism is greater than the rightful duty and obligations of parents, and of the medical and legal professions to provide whole-of-person care for children with gender dysphoria? This woke ideological movement is suffering binary dysphoria. Apparently, for some, a binary world is not sufficiently colourful. Some parents are now forced to abrogate their parental responsibility to the power of the medical state. Fundamental facts are being ignored about children and child development. Fact: contrary to some views, sex is assigned at conception—not birth. We all know that adolescence is a highly challenging time, marked with a preoccupation of the discovery of self. It’s okay that a percentage of both genders don’t conform to traditional stereotypes. This doesn’t need correcting through irreversible medical treatments.

Ideologically-driven activists have intimidated the medical profession into silence and compliance with the affirmation model rather than making a stand for our children who are in distress during adolescence and who need holistic or whole-of-person care. When puberty blockers are administered we know, firstly, that a child cannot develop fertility—the latter stages of puberty do that—and, secondly, that they will not have full sexual function. Essentially, this child’s body becomes frozen in the early stages of puberty, with testosterone or oestrogen treatment adulterating the child and committing the child to a lifetime of hormones and drugs. It’s unknown what effect puberty blockers have on brain development, and only now is The Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne conducting research in this area. Too bad for all those children who have already passed through, and those currently receiving treatment. Endocrinologists traditionally treated diseases, yet in gender clinics they take perfectly healthy children with no diseases and inject them with puberty blockers to suppress normal hormone levels to treat, not an endocrine disease but the mental distress the child is experiencing.

How has this gone unchecked for so long? Why are these medical professionals not subject to disciplinary action for deliberately harming our children? What are governments doing while this is going on? Endocrinologists know the importance of puberty to the full development of a healthy human being. Today gender clinics give medical professionals a licence to offer up puberty as an option to children. The transgender lens has compromised the full care of our children. Gender clinics in Australia need to close and follow the lead of the Tavistock clinic in anchoring whole-person-care back to localised clinics within the mental health system.

Our children are making decisions that they can’t possibly understand—decisions with lifelong consequences. They are being sterilised and denied full sexual function, and their brain development is likely compromised. They are being made sick when they’re not physically sick. They are being denied the therapeutic support they need to help them with their distress. Instead of asking why there has been an explosion of girls presenting with gender dysphoria in Western countries, the medical profession has bowed down to the trans activists and grabbed the opportunity to create profits and research outcomes at the expense of our children—inhuman!

Adults in Australia’s gender clinics must not be allowed to hide behind a statement of operating to the standards of care. There is no care when the medical profession does not fully deal with the mental health issues that children are experiencing. There is no care when the medical professional takes physically healthy children and sends them on a pathway of drugs, infertility and arrested physical, sexual and neurological development for the rest of their lives. There is no care when state government legislation denies parents their rightful place in support of their children in distress. Our children are not fodder for experimentation and advancing research outcomes for the medical profession. Our children are not profit centres for pharmaceutical companies.

We are one community, we are one nation and this child abuse must stop now.

/1 Comment/by