REPORT ON PROCEEDINGS BEFORE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE NO. 3 – EDUCATION EDUCATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (PARENTAL RIGHTS) BILL 2020 CORRECTED At Macquarie Room, Parliament House, Sydney, on Wednesday 21 April 2021 The Committee met at 8:15 PRESENT The Hon. Mark Latham (Chair) The Hon. Anthony D'Adam The Hon. Wes Fang (Acting Deputy Chair) The Hon. Scott Farlow The Hon. Courtney Houssos Mr David Shoebridge Wednesday, 21 April 2021 Legislative Council Page 1 The CHAIR: Welcome to the second day of the hearing of the Portfolio Committee No. 3 – Education inquiry into the Education Legislation Amendment (Parental Rights) Bill 2020. Before I commence, it is the custom of this Parliament to acknowledge the traditional inhabitants of this land, the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation. I do so with all due respect as well as acknowledging other important contributors to the history of this site—those who constructed the Parliament House building, very often working in a dangerous industry, and the parliamentary staff over many decades who have supported members of Parliament and made our work in a representative role possible. We acknowledge and thank them all. Today we will be hearing from a number of organisations concerning this bill, as we did yesterday. We thank them all for their participation. The hearings will be broadcast live on the Parliament's website. In accordance with the broadcasting guidelines, media representatives are reminded to take responsibility for what they publish. Parliamentary privilege applies to witnesses giving evidence today, but it does not apply to what witnesses say outside of their evidence at the hearing. I therefore urge witnesses to be careful about comments they make to the media or to others after they complete their evidence and also to avoid adverse reflection on others under the protection of parliamentary privilege. We ask that you stick to the issues, as per the inquiry terms of reference, and avoid naming individuals unnecessarily. All witnesses have a right to procedural fairness, according to the resolution of the House. If witnesses cannot answer a question or they need more time or they need to consult documents, it is available to them to take that question on notice and furnish the Committee with a response within 21 days. Would everyone speak into their microphones, particularly with the videoconference system. There are no spectators in the public gallery, unlike yesterday, so I do not need to go through that procedure. Finally, I ask everyone to turn off their mobile phones to silent for the duration of the hearing and those participating via videoconference to please mute their microphones when they are not speaking. PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE NO. 3 – EDUCATION Wednesday, 21 April 2021 Legislative Council Page 2 KIRRALIE SMITH, National Spokeswoman, Binary Australia, sworn and examined JOHN HALDANE, Individual, before the Committee via videoconference, sworn and examined MARY HASSON, Kate O'Beirne Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Centre, before the Committee via videoconference, sworn and examined The CHAIR: It is available to each of the witnesses to make a short opening statement to the Committee as part of these proceedings for a few minutes if they choose to. Kirralie, you do? Ms SMITH: I do, yes. I find it quite interesting and farcical that we can have this kind of inquiry without the definitions of the term "man" or "woman". I think that they are very crucial to this kind of debate. Without such definitions, there is confusion, bias, discrimination and inaccuracies. On one hand we are teaching our school students scientific methods and evidence-based practices but on the other we are saying, "Reject the science in favour of an ideology that relies on stereotypical feelings and appearances." The terms "man" and "woman" have historically and scientifically been synonymous with the biological reality of male and female. As we know, our DNA is written on every single cell in our bodies. It identifies us as unique and marvellous individuals. Do all people have all aspects of a perfectly functioning biological system? No, of course they do not. However, the components are evidence-based and determine our genetic and biological make-up, which in turn dictates the reality of our lived experience. These components are measurable, observable and reliable—otherwise known as science. In 2013 the Anti-Discrimination Act de-gendered the language and conflated sexual orientation with gender identity. This has created an absurd situation where lesbians, gays and bisexual orientations depend on biology whereas the transgender ideology or identities reject the biological reality. Now the official statement from every Minister for women in this country, including the New South Wales Minister for women, Bronnie Taylor, can be summed up by the nonsensical expression, "Anyone who wants to be a man can be and anyone who identifies as a woman is a woman." But how can you identify something if it is not defined? How can you identify as a man if we do not know what a man is? Worse still, how can a man or woman be reduced to a set of emotions or feelings or a stereotypical appearance? To say, "I feel like a woman," does not make a person a woman. Who can say what a woman feels like? It is not measurable, definable, consistent or reliable. Women's feelings, as we all know, change all day every day and we are the butt of many jokes when it comes to that. To say "I feel like a woman" because of my dress or high heels or make-up is insulting and infantile. That is simply dress-ups. The lived experience and oppression for women is directly correlated to our biology. Menstruation, pregnancy, breastfeeding, motherhood, menopause, our physical capacity and strength all dictate this. Oppression, sexual harassment and abuse is a direct result of our sex-based reality. These definitions are absolutely crucial to this inquiry. Gender fluidity is an ideology rooted in feelings and stereotypes that have no scientific basis. Gender fluidity is at odds with the scientific method that we expect our school students to adhere to. Gender fluidity is a political ideology that has no place in our schools. Parental rights are essential to this debate and if scientific facts cannot be relied upon, then what can be relied upon? Parents have the right to expect their children to be educated, not indoctrinated, in New South Wales public schools. Schools must stick to teaching scientific, evidence-based facts and steer well clear of political ideologies. Thank you. The CHAIR: Thank you, Kirralie. Mary, do you want to make an opening statement? Ms HASSON: Yes. Thank you, distinguished members. I appreciate the chance to speak with you today. I have worked extensively with government and faith-based organisations and parents' organisations nationally and internationally on education and parental rights as they relate to sexuality and gender. In my brief remarks here I want to highlight three particular reasons why I support the education parental rights bill, because it prohibits the teaching of gender fluidity and aims to protect the primacy of parental responsibility for instilling core values in their children. First is that gender fluidity is an ideological, contested and evolving set of beliefs and as such it has no place in the primary and secondary educational environment. The language of gender ideology, or the ideology of gender fluidity, has changed over time and continues to evolve. The definition and understandings of gender and terminology related to gender fluidity are vigorously contested in international arenas such as the United Nations. If diplomats vigorously contest these ideas, they have no place being presented to children as fact. Activists, including some submissions to this parliamentary Committee, themselves disagree over the nature of gender and its fluidity. Again, if activists dispute these points among themselves, why should they be taught as fact to children? Gender fluidity ideology is contested by a broad spectrum of groups globally from radical feminists to atheists, biologists, parents of all religious and political beliefs, and faith leaders. Secondly, PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE NO. 3 – EDUCATION Wednesday, 21 April 2021 Legislative Council Page 3 imposing gender fluidity in the classrooms or schools causes harm to vulnerable children. There is evidence that the school requirement can serve as a catalyst to gender fluid social contagion causing vulnerable children or adolescents to become confused about identity and some to seek harmful gender transitions, oftentimes without their parents' knowledge or permission. We have detransitioners' testimonies about the extent of school exposure to gender ideology and the role it played in their own journeys. We have research from people like Lisa Littman, who researched the views of parents of trans-identifying kids and reported on the social contagion effect. We have statistics that show an unprecedented rise in numbers of teens embracing a fluid gender or declaring a trans identity and this rise corresponds to the increasing exposure to gender fluidity concepts in schools and in media. Third, allowing schools to teach gender fluidity usurps parents' rights not only to form their children in values but also to protect them from actual harm. As several witnesses testified yesterday, school officials might conceal a child's expression of gender fluidity from parents simply because the school judges the parents to be unsafe. But the law presumes that parents act with the child's best interest in mind. By permitting teachers, staff, counsellors to unilaterally decide to prevent parents from knowing or acting on a matter of such primary importance as identity, the law would flip this presumption on its head, presuming that every parent cannot be trusted unless proven otherwise and presuming that teachers are somehow better positioned than parents to decide what is in the child's best interests.