ADJOURNMENT

Ms PENFOLD (Lyne) (13:17): When I stood in this parliament in May and introduced my Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sex-based Rights) Bill, I did so because I believed there was a problem this parliament could no longer keep avoiding. I said that women should not have to fight to have their sex recognised in Australian law, I said that acknowledging biological reality should not be controversial, and I said that when rights based on sex and rights based on gender identity come into conflict it is the job of this parliament to provide clarity.

This week, a decision in Queensland demonstrated exactly why I introduced that bill. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal appeal panel overturned an earlier decision involving women's advocate Jasmine Sussex. Ms Sussex had sought information about the hormones and substances used by a transgender woman to induce lactation and about the substance subsequently fed to a baby.

She sought that information as part of her defence against a vilification complaint arising from comments she had made publicly. The appeal panel found errors of law in the earlier decision amounting to a substantial miscarriage of justice and determined that the information could be relevant to her defence. I welcome that commonsense decision, but I'm deeply concerned that an Australian citizen has had to go through this process in the first place, and I'm deeply concerned about what is happening to women who speak publicly about sex based rights.

Sall Grover and Kirralie Smith have both publicly reported receiving offensive death threats. Whatever your position on this debate, that should horrify every member of this House. No woman should receive a death threat for participating in a public policy debate.

No woman should be threatened for simply stating the obvious and defending the right of herself as a woman. This is where political leadership matters. The Prime Minister has dismissed this issue as a culture war, and I reject that characterisation.

Thousands of Australians are asking their parliament to address these questions. They are not declaring a culture war; they are asking their elected representatives for clarity. When parliament refuses to provide that clarity, while political leaders dismiss those asking legitimate questions as engaging in a culture war, we should think very carefully about the message that sends.

It risks giving a green light to those who believe women raising these concerns are legitimate targets for hostility rather than Australian citizens entitled to be heard. I'm also concerned that the exposure draft of the digital-duty-of-care bill could further seek to silence women who speak to the reality of biological sex. I have serious concerns that the bill will effectively double down on brave women like Sall, Kirralie and Jessica.

Political leaders should be turning the temperature down. Debate the argument, disagree strongly if you wish, but never threaten a person. That is why parliament needs to step up.

I have proposed a way forward. My Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sex-Based Rights) Bill, which sits on the Notice Paper, recognises biological sex and seeks to restore clarity about the meaning of 'woman' and 'man' and the circumstances in which sex based rights matter. I've also called for the establishment of a joint select committee on sex based rights.

I want Australians to have their say. I want women to be heard. I want legal and medical experts to be heard.

I want sporting organisations, service providers and women's organisations to be heard. And I want people with different views, including transgender Australians, to be able to participate respectfully, because the alternative cannot be to leave these questions to be unresolved one Australian at a time, one tribunal at a time and one expensive court case at a time.

We need a parliamentary pathway to a legislative fix. Let the evidence be put before us, let parliamentarians test the arguments and then let this parliament do what it was elected to do—make the law. That is not a culture war; that is democracy.

In a democracy, I and millions of Australians are not prepared to accept silence, because parliament's silence has consequences. It has consequences when Australians find themselves in tribunals and courts. It has consequences when people are afraid to speak.

And political language has consequences when women participating in this debate are already receiving death threats. My challenge to the Albanese government is straightforward: support my call for a joint select committee. Give Australians the opportunity to participate in finding a legislative solution.

Let us hear the evidence. Let us debate the difficult questions. Let every member of this parliament say where they stand.

Citizens should not have to become test cases because their parliament refuses to act. It is time for parliament to take responsibility and provide the clarity Australians deserve.