Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027

Ms PENFOLD (Lyne) (17:01): I rise during consideration in detail of the Attorney-General's portfolio because there is a simple question at the heart of Australian law that this government can no longer avoid. It's a simple question that should not be controversial. What is a woman?

Australians know the answer. A woman is an adult human female. In fact, that is exactly how the Prime Minister himself answered the question just a few years ago.

Yet today Australians are increasingly being told that asking that question is somehow part of a culture war. The Prime Minister says concerns raised by women about their rights, their own rights, under the Sex Discrimination Act are a culture war. With respect, that response is not leadership; it's avoidance.

Calling something a culture war is not an answer. It does not explain what the law means, it does not explain how competing rights should be balanced and it does not address the genuine concerns of millions of Australian women. What troubles me most is that the Prime Minister's comments suggest that women who raise concerns about privacy, safety, fairness and dignity should somehow be dismissed because their concerns are politically inconvenient.

Australian women are not participants in a culture war. They are asking legitimate questions about laws that were originally enacted to protect them. Last week, Australians watched Senate estimates and heard the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Dr Anna Cody, suggest that protections relating to pregnancy and potential pregnancy could apply based on how someone is perceived, rather than whether they can become pregnant.

If a senior official responsible for administering the Sex Discrimination Act can advance an interpretation that many Australians struggle to reconcile with common sense, then Australians are entitled to ask whether the law is still clear. If the law is clear, it should be capable of being explained in plain English. The Sex Discrimination Act was introduced by the Hawke government in 1984 to protect women from discrimination and advance opportunities for women and girls.

Today, many women are asking a different question. Does the law still protect us? The Federal Court's decision in Giggle v Tickle exposed a problem politicians have spent years trying to avoid.

When rights based on biological sex come into conflict with claims based on gender identity, whose rights come first? The court interpreted the law that this parliament wrote. The court did not create the problem; this parliament created it.

Specifically, the ambiguity was created when the Gillard government amended the Sex Discrimination Act in 2013 and failed to include a clear balancing test for competing sex and gender rights. The Albanese government inherited that problem, but it owns it. Women are increasingly being told they cannot object to biological males entering spaces established specifically for women.

Many women feel they have lost the right to say no. Whether members agree with that view or not, it is a genuine concern held by millions of Australians. Dismissing these concerns as a culture war is a cynical attempt to silence debate rather than answer the question.

My bill, the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sex-based Rights) Bill, seeks to provide clarity. It retains protections for transgender Australians. It does not remove gender identity as a protected attribute.

What it does do is recognise a reality that most Australians understand instinctively: biological sex matters in some circumstances—women's sport, women's toilets and change rooms, women's prisons, female-only spaces and services. Most Australians understand why those spaces exist. That is why the Nationals have launched a national petition today, calling on parliament to support my bill and restore protections for women and girls in law.

Australians deserve to have their voices heard. The Federal Court has spoken. The Sex Discrimination Commissioner has spoken.

Women are speaking, yet the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General continue to avoid taking a position. The Prime Minister and the Attorney-General now have their feet firmly stuck on the sticky paper. Either the law is ambiguous and needs to be fixed, or the law is not ambiguous and the government believes that trans women are women for the purposes of Australian law, even when rights based on biological sex are affected; there is no longer any middle ground.

So my question to the Attorney-General is this: does the government believe the Sex Discrimination Act is ambiguous and in need of reform, or does the government believe the law is already clear and that trans women are women for the purpose— (Time expired)