Motions
Gender dysphoria—Puberty blockers
Motion
Hon Maryka Groenewald (10:23 am) without notice: I move:
That this house:
(1) notes that systematic evidence reviews undertaken in the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and New Zealand have found low-certainty evidence for the benefits of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in children, and ongoing uncertainty regarding their long-term safety;
(2) acknowledges that these jurisdictions have subsequently restricted or discontinued the routine use of these interventions, and now place primary emphasis on psychological assessment, family-based support, and addressing underlying mental health needs;
(3) recognises that the Albanese Labor government has commissioned a federal review of the national clinical guidelines for the treatment of minors with gender dysphoria; and
(4) calls on the state government to:
(a) review Western Australia's clinical protocols in light of the emerging international evidence and the ongoing federal review;
(b) suspend new prescriptions of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for children until updated evidence-based guidelines are established; and
(c) ensure that the primary clinical approach to childhood gender dysphoria is a watchful-waiting model, supported by comprehensive psychological care and early family involvement.
Obviously, this motion is no surprise, and it follows on from some important discussions we have been having throughout the year about the need to raise awareness and bring transparency and evidence to caring for children and young people. I want to start by acknowledging what I understand to be true, and that is that young people experiencing gender dysphoria are experiencing real distress and they deserve evidence-based care. I have never said anything otherwise. I say this because I know it generates strong feelings and I want to be clear about where I stand. I reject statements made in this house that I somehow want to politicise the issue, and I hope this comes through in my motion today.
This motion asks for review and consideration. What is the evidence base for the clinical approaches we are using to treat young people with gender dysphoria in Western Australia? Young people absolutely deserve support and access to mental health services, psychosocial support and clinical involvement. The question we are considering is not whether we should support these young people. Of course, that goes without saying. The question is what the evidence says that support should look like. We know that global medical consensus on this issue has been shattered recently. For years, we were told that the affirmation model, giving puberty blockers and hormones to distressed children at any cost, was the gold standard. For years, medical services assured families that these medications were a safe, fully reversible way to pause puberty and that gender-affirming drugs were life-saving health care. But over the past 18 months, that standard is starting to collapse under the weight of evidence. The countries that pioneered these treatments—the socially progressive democracies of Northern Europe—have looked at the data and pulled the emergency brake. In fact, I recently met Dr Rita, who was the architect of the model they use in Finland. The research and the longitudinal stories coming through now have really had an impact on me, and I am blown away by the fact we are still sticking our heads in the sand here in Western Australia.
Let us start with the landmark Cass review. The review, led by Dr Hilary Cass, is the most comprehensive independent review of gender identity services ever conducted. It is also backed by professionals globally who refer to it as the most comprehensive assessment of paediatric gender medicine to date. President, I seek leave to table the Cass review commissioned by the United Kingdom government.
Leave denied.
Hon Maryka Groenewald: Thank you, President. I seek leave to table the United States Department of Health and Human Services report on paediatric gender medicine.
Leave denied.
Hon Maryka Groenewald: Thank you, President. I seek leave to publish an open letter to Australian health bodies regarding gender-affirming care put together by the Australian Doctors Federation.
Leave denied.
Hon Maryka Groenewald: That is okay; they can look it up.
Dr Cass and her team spent four years examining the evidence. They commissioned systematic reviews from the University of York and, ultimately, her team found the evidence for the use of puberty blockers and hormones was remarkably weak. We were told for years that puberty blockers were a pause button, a harmless way for children to buy time to think and, if the child decided he or she was not transgender, they could discontinue the treatment and carry on with puberty as normal. Now, the Cass review has actually debunked that myth. It found that these drugs do not, in fact, buy time and lock children into a medical pathway. The data showed that 98% of children who started on puberty blockers proceeded to cross-sex hormones. They are not a pause button; they are the first step on a pathway to lifelong medicalisation.
But the concerns go far beyond that pathway; they go to the physical safety of the drugs themselves—something I have raised in this place on multiple occasions. The Cass review found that puberty blockers compromise bone density. Adolescence is the critical window in which people build bone mass. If puberty is blocked, that process is blocked. We are now seeing young people with the bone density of senior citizens, putting them at risk of osteoporosis and fractures for the rest of their lives.
Dr Cass also raised serious concerns about fertility. We are initiating treatments on children that may leave them permanently sterile before they are old enough to even comprehend what it means to be a parent. Unfortunately, the concerns go beyond the healthy development of sexual function. There are red flags for brain development too. We know that the adolescent brain undergoes massive restructuring during puberty. We simply do not know what the long-term cognitive effects are of chemically blocking the hormones that drive that crucial development.
The report concluded that we are operating in an evidence-free zone. As a result of this review, the National Health Service has stopped routine prescriptions of puberty blockers for children. The Conservative government actually initiated the ban, but it is the left-wing Labour government that has continued on with the ban. It is not just the United Kingdom; the Scandinavian countries, the very birthplace of progressive social policy, have moved first on this critical issue. Sweden conducted a systematic review in 2022. Its National Board of Health and Welfare concluded that the risks of puberty blockers and gender-affirming treatment are likely to outweigh the expected benefits. It has restricted those treatments to exceptional cases within a very clear research setting. Finland reached the very same conclusion. The Council for Choices in Health Care review found that the evidence was very weak and that medical transitioning should not be the first line of treatment. Finland has shifted its entire model of care away from drugs towards psychosocial support. Perhaps the most dramatic reversal has occurred in Denmark, which established a centralised gender clinic in 2016, modelled on the affirmation approach—the very same one that we have here. In 2018, that clinic was medically transitioning about 65% of children who were referred to it. As it watched the patient cohorts change—more teenage girls, more complex mental health issues and no clear reason for the dysphoria—it became incredibly alarmed. It decided to review its practice, and, by 2022, the number of referred children receiving those prescriptions fell from 65% to just 6%. Think about that shift from two-thirds of children being medicated to one in 20. That is what happens when following the science and the evidence instead of the ideology. That is happening not just on the other side of the world. New Zealand has just initiated a ban on puberty blockers that will kick in later this year and Queensland, right here in Australia, has announced a pause on new intakes for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.
The world is taking note, the evidence is piling up and the so-called medical consensus in favour of the affirmation model at all costs is starting to crumble, yet in this state the government treats the prescription of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for children as settled medical consensus. Furthermore, those of us who are sounding the alarm over these treatments are being treated as if we are engaging in some kind of combative politics. In fact, we are merely reflecting the policy of an increasing number of developed nations and research. Even the federal Labor government has ordered a review of Australia's approach to treating young people. Even it has seen the evidence that this state seems to ignore and, as a result, is ordering a review.
I know that some in this place, particularly those with a medical background, might argue that this house has no business interfering in clinical approaches, say that it should be left to the doctors and may even claim that some of these reviews are problematic, but history provides a chilling answer against that blind defence. The morning sickness drug prescribed to women in the 1960s and 70s, thalidomide, was widely promoted as safe but caused catastrophic birth defects in more than 10,000 babies worldwide, including in Australia, by the way. That was trusted as a mainstream product and trusted among the medical fraternity for decades. Even after thalidomide was removed from the shelves, another product took its place, and even it was removed eventually because there were widespread concerns that its continuing use would open the door to litigation. We know that there are harmful medications. The medical fraternity should not always be supported at all costs. Every one of those was defended by experts right up until the evidence finally caught up with them.
When that consensus harms vulnerable people, whether it is women or now children, Parliament does not just have a right to intervene and investigate; it has a duty. It is not just us raising the alarm. The medical profession itself is waking up to this scandal. The Australian Doctors Federation, representing clinicians from across the country, has released a public statement calling for an end to the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgery for children under the age of 18 years. It has endorsed the Cass review, highlighting the unacceptable risk of harm.
Given the potential risks of these treatments, what is the alternative? It is called watchful waiting, and the evidence for it now is overwhelming. Critics will say that without drugs, these children are doomed, but the research and stories tell a completely different story. Multiple long-term studies spanning decades have followed children with gender dysphoria who did not receive medical intervention. These studies from researchers like Dr Kenneth Zucker and the Dutch pioneers themselves consistently found the same thing. When supported with watchful waiting, allowing puberty to take its natural course, while providing psychosocial support, between 61% and 98% of the children naturally grew out of that dysphoria by adulthood. The watchful waiting model works. It protects the children's future, their fertility and bone health and allows the vast majority to work through their distress with sufficient support. That is why this motion calls for this approach to be adopted as the standard approach for young people. It is a responsible approach with a well-documented track record of success.
While the world moves to this evidence-based model, what is WA doing? In this state, it seems that we are still keeping the blindfolds on. For months I fought to get the release of the gender-care model. When it was finally released, it confirmed the concerns, not mine but of medical practitioners who have been involved in this issue for many, many years. Many red flags were raised. It comprises 13 pages to guide complex medical treatment for children and has only eight references, three of which are from advocacy groups. It explicitly refuses to provide intensive psychotherapy or any formal assessments for autism or ADHD. In fact, it actively endorses the affirmation model, meaning that a minor's identity is immediately accepted and the only question becomes how to approach it. Medical standards for diagnoses and treatments are entirely lagging behind those in the rest of the world. I would love to know how often the WA models of care standards have been amended since these findings and recommendations were put in place.
That brings us to the fundamental issue of consent. The child and youth model of care fails to adequately and independently assess a child's capacity to consent to these life-altering interventions, running afoul of the Cass review's core recommendations. In what other area of medicine would we offer such invasive treatments without first validating that the condition is persistent and not the result of other underlying causes? The architects of this model talk about informed consent, but they ignore the duty of care that adults and medical professionals owe to a child. It is unprecedented in modern medicine for doctors to prescribe such powerful and irreversible drugs to children not only with the evidence in question, but also a complete absence of longitudinal studies to see whether they work, yet my good friend Hon Pierre Yang claimed that these guidelines were grounded in clinical excellence. That could not be further from the truth. Our children deserve better treatment and treatment based on the highest clinical guidelines and excellence, which is why I have brought forward this motion. Reviewing WA's outdated standards of care and pausing new prescriptions is the bare minimum we can do, given what we already know.
That brings me to the other side of this debate—those who might claim that we are attempting to deny care. That is false. Stopping harmful experimental medical treatment is not denying care. I am simply asking for better care. We are asking for holistic psychosocial support and assessment, which is something that many of these children need and that many of the de-transitioners have told me they need. We want to treat the whole child and their experiences and address any comorbidities. We do not want to just chemically alter their bodies. The young people and parents navigating this journey deserve compassionate evidence-based care from professionals that is bound by care, not ideology.
The case before us is clear. We have the Cass review, which is the most comprehensive independent analysis ever conducted into this, and Sweden, Finland, Denmark and New Zealand—all democracies—are pulling back from this approach and shifting to watchful waiting. We have research that shows that 61% to 98% of children with dysphoria naturally resolve this distress without the need for excessive medical intervention, and we have Western Australia, the richest state in the country, operating on a 13-page document with eight references from three advocacy groups while explicitly refusing to provide psychosocial support or any intensive therapy. Explicitly endorsing this affirmation model at all costs is highly unusual in diagnostic medicine. This is not a close call. The evidence is overwhelming. The direction of the world is unmistakable and the responsibility now rests on us. Even the federal Labor government has ordered a review of this very issue. If it can see the evidence, why can the Cook Labor government not see it? Members, we must demand that our state's children receive proper care. There can be no higher priority than looking at what other jurisdictions are raising red flags about. That is why this motion demands that we align ourselves with best practice.
As I conclude, all I am asking and all this motion is asking is for us to review Western Australia's clinical protocols in light of the evidence, suspend the prescription of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for children and ensure that the primary approach to childhood gender dysphoria is a watchful-waiting model supported by comprehensive psychological care. In fact, these demands, these calls for action, are the opposite of radical. I am calling for us to take note of the standards of the British NHS, Sweden's health authority, Finland's health authority, New Zealand's health ministry and, increasingly, international medical consensus. The world is waking up to the reality of the situation. The question is: Will Western Australia act decisively in the face of this mounting evidence? Thank you, President.
Point of order
Hon Nick Goiran: I have two points of order. I will deal with the first one. Standing order 59(1) obliges the member to identify any document quoted during the course of the debate. I tried to follow the debate quite closely; there was a lot of information being provided. I ask that the member identify each and every document that was quoted during that debate.
The President: The honourable member is quite correct regarding the requirements of standing order 59(1). I was under the impression, through the member's contribution on her second reading speech, that she had clearly identified the documents as she spoke to each one of them. However, for the sake of clarity and, I assume, reference to the general public, I will ask the honourable member to again identify the three documents that were mentioned in her second reading speech.
Just one moment while I check something. Sorry, member; I was confusing your bill with your motion, so I do not have some written reference to refer to. Just for the sake of clarity, I ask that you name those three documents, please.
Hon Maryka Groenewald: Thank you, President, and I thank Hon Nick Goiran for that. The first document is The Cass Review: Independent review of gender identity services for children and young people. The final report was released in April 2024. The second one is called Treatment for Paediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices, put together by the Department of Health and Human Services. The date for that one is 19 November 2025. The third reference is an open letter to Australian health bodies regarding gender-affirming care and interventions. That is a freely accessible open letter that can be obtained through the Australian Doctors Federation.
The President: Order, member. I was just asking for the names of the documents, thank you.
Your second point of order, Leader of the Opposition?
Hon Nick Goiran: I wish to exercise my rights under standing order 59(2) and ask that those documents be tabled.
The President: Hon Maryka Groenewald, I just want to check that the documents that the member seeks tabled are not confidential documents.
Hon Maryka Groenewald: They are not confidential.
The President: Okay. I am relying on your information on that. The member has requested that the documents be tabled. Under standing order 59(2), those documents are tabled.
(See paper 908.)
(See paper 909.)
(See paper 910.)
Proceeding resumed
Hon Pierre Yang (Parliamentary Secretary) (10:44 am): Thank you, President, for the opportunity to make a contribution and provide a government response to this motion. From the outset, I wish to indicate that the government is not supporting this motion.
The Child and Adolescent Health Service aims to improve the quality of life of young people who identify as transgender or gender diverse and their families. The honourable member used words such as "scandal" in her contribution to describe this matter in terms of gender-reaffirming treatment. I think it is important that we all pause and reflect on the language we use, because language matters. It has a real impact. It is important that while we are debating a very important matter—I understand this is a very important matter to many members—we reflect on the kind of language we use. I want to say to these young people and their families that I am sorry that this house is putting you through this once again. On this side of the house, we appreciate what you are going through. We value you and we stand with you.
The Gender Diversity Service was first conceptualised under the Barnett Liberal government in 2015, as I stated a few weeks ago during debate on the honourable member's motion on notice. That was when the Mental Health Commission provided funds to CAHS, the Child and Adolescent Health Service, to initiate such a service, and we thank it for its foresight and for putting health care before ideology. This move was in recognition of the gap in services available to young people at the time who were experiencing problems relating to gender identity. Fast forward a decade and the Child and Adolescent Health Service Gender Diversity Service is the only public provider of gender-reaffirming medical treatment for young people under the age of 18 in WA experiencing significant gender identity concerns, including gender dysphoria. It is an accurate reflection that the GDS is a patient and family–centred specialist outpatient service that is delivered by an experienced multidisciplinary team, as I stated a few weeks ago, that considers holistic health care and the development of young people.
The government and all members of this place have a duty of care to these young people and their families. We need to safeguard the very real risk of a negative impact that public discourse often has on this cohort and to protect their wellbeing. Some of these young people are already facing significant societal challenges when accepting and promoting their true self and identity. Negative public discourse can have a real impact and pose an unsafe risk to these young people and put unnecessary pressure on their families. I ask members to be mindful when we debate this matter today and think about the kind of pressure and stress the language employed will have on these people.
The families actively involved in GDS have expressed their serious concerns about the impact of any abrupt changes to the delivery of care on their children's mental health and wellbeing. To be clear, all young people who wish to pursue gender-reaffirming medical care undergo a comprehensive mental health assessment and multidisciplinary team assessment. The care pathway is comprehensive and thorough and requires written informed consent from the young person themselves and both parents or legal guardians. The process to meet all the required steps of the full assessment could take up to five to six months from referral to consent to treatment.
The Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service: Gender Diversity Service Model of Care was tabled in this place a few weeks ago and details these steps. It was developed and informed by a broad range of both national and international expertise and literature, as well as Australian health policies. I want to reiterate that the model of care is evidence based. That is not questionable or debatable—it is evidence based. Some of the literature used to inform the development of the model of care includes the Better Choices. Better Lives. Western Australian Mental Health, Alcohol and Other Drug Services Plan 2015–2025; the Western Australian Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex; Health Strategy 2019–2024; the World Professional Association for Transgender Health's Standards of Care for the Health of Transsexual, Transgender, and Gender-Nonconforming People, version 7; the Endocrine Treatment of Gender-Dysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline from 2017; and the Australian standards of care and treatment guidelines for transgender and gender diverse children and adolescents from 2018.
As the member's motion alludes to, the Australian Government has commissioned the National Health and Medical Research Council to develop national clinical practice guidelines for the care of trans and gender diverse people under the age of 18 years. It expects that the new guidelines will take three years to develop, with interim advice regarding the use of puberty suppression expected around the middle of 2026. As appropriate, Child and Adolescent Health Service clinicians will review and consider the advice when it becomes available.
The dedicated clinicians at the GDS used evidence-based care to get the best outcomes for these young people and their families. They documented long-term clinical outcomes. The University of Western Australia and the Keys Research Internship have established an ongoing study for periodic follow-up of gender diverse young people. CAHS also undertakes comprehensive monitoring and evaluation of the patient care experience, which includes survey tools, wait-time monitoring and clinical questionnaires. All young people and families accessing GDS are informed and invited to participate.
The honourable member also in her contribution made mention of the international research The Cass Review: Independent review of gender identity services for children and young people, known as the Cass review. It makes a number of recommendations, many of which are not aligned with, or applicable to, the Australian or Western Australian context. The Cass review has been widely criticised for significant shortcomings on the methodology on which its recommendations rely, including a selective interpretation of evidence, failure to evaluate the harms of withholding care and imposing an unusually high threshold of evidence that is not required in other areas of medicine. Despite recognising that incidents of regret and detransition are rare, the Cass review prioritised speculating about harms and it established barriers that would effectively deny access to established treatments. The Cass review also described social transition as an active intervention that was a cause of concern for many people, despite acknowledging the longitude and cross-sectional evidence of good mental health outcomes in children and adolescents supported to socially affirm their gender. Although some recommendations in the review are more aligned with best practice, including comprehensive multidisciplinary assessment and attention to coexisting conditions, it remains the case that gender-affirming care is best practice, as is set out in national and international guidelines.
We heard the honourable member outline words in her second reading speech of the Australian Christians Party's view earlier this morning, and I quote these following words:
… yes or no. Is every human being born with basic human rights—yes or no? Should every baby born alive be entitled to …
Health care—
This bill is about recognising that every human being is born with rights and deserves protection. It is about basic humanity and how we treat our most vulnerable.
Acting President, I ask all members to reflect on these words said by the honourable member earlier this morning and reflect the true nature of the tapestry of this motion before us. What is the true intention of this motion before us? If you support human rights, you have to support it all the way. It cannot be selective. If you are being selective, you are not true to your words.
The state government is choosing to support vulnerable young people in the community with gender diversity concerns and their families. The government is choosing to listen to the highly skilled clinical workforce who are telling us it is essential that we continue with the current evidence-based model to protect the health outcomes of these young people. On this side of the house, we do not play politics with this very important and sensitive issue. We support vulnerable children and their families in our community to access the care they need when they need it.
Hon Michelle Hofmann (10:57 am): Before I begin my substantive remarks in support of this motion, I will just address a few points raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, who has apologised for the fact that we are having this debate. If we are really serious about trying to always do what is in the best interests of our kids, if we really care about kids, yes, it is absolutely critical that we speak with compassion on these issues, but we need to speak about them. When there are differences of opinion and differences of view as to what is in the best interests of children, particularly looking beyond just this moment and looking at it holistically and in the long term, we need to be open to having debate and discussion about this. It is critical that we raise, debate and speak about some of the concerns in this space in order to do what is in the best interests of children. The wellbeing of children extends beyond what we say and what we speak to them about, but public discourse is also essential when there are disputes in medical practice. The reality is, always has been and always will be that medicine evolves. No evidence is ever above review. Science is always evolving, undertaking more research and finding outcomes, which sometimes confirm our current beliefs and sometimes flip them upside down. Therefore, we should always be open to having proper debate and a proper review of research, and if we refuse to even consider alternative views, we do a great disservice to our children and future generations. This is a relatively new area of medicine, particularly in Western Australia, but other jurisdictions have been dealing with it for longer and they have some evidence that we should be considering when we talk about public policy that is in the best interests of our children.
I rise to support the motion before the house, and I come to this with a very pro-child lens. I am speaking up about this in the best interests of kids. That is what is motivating me to contribute to debate today. I will start with an outline of the policy in this space that the Liberal Party took to the last state election. We supported a balanced approach in this area, and that means supporting the health and wellbeing of transgender and gender dysphoric individuals, while ensuring that interventions are based on safe medical practices in both the short and long term. Although the long-term impact of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormone therapy in children is still largely unknown, there is increasing evidence of potential permanent side effects. These can include infertility, obesity, heart and liver disease, blood clots, changes in cognition, reduced bone density and sexual dysfunction. The position that we took to the last state election was that we would ban the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormone treatments and surgical intervention for children under the age of 16 years for the purpose of gender transition until a comprehensive review of these treatments and their suitability is undertaken. I raise that because it is really important that we take a balanced approach in this debate and in this area of medicine.
Around the world, there have been a lot of changes in this space. Other jurisdictions have undertaken large amounts of research, and not just the UK with the Cass review. Sweden decided in February 2022 to halt hormone therapy for minors, except in very rare cases, Norway has limited the use of hormonal interventions in favour of psychosocial support and other jurisdictions like New Zealand have also put in place measures in this space. Just last month in the US, a comprehensive review of the scientific literature regarding the provision of gender-transition procedures was released by the US Department of Health and Human Services. This review focused on findings that there is very low quality evidence underpinning treatment approaches. It has extensive descriptions of potential or plausible harms associated with certain treatment options—that is, hormonal interventions and surgeries. Some of the concerns raised in that review are the unknown or potentially harmful effects of suppressing normally timed puberty on adolescent physical and mental health. Particular areas of concern include bone mineralisation, brain development, sexual maturation, fertility and psychosocial development. Some of the risks associated with hormonal interventions can lead to infertility and impaired sexual function, and surgical risks are also present, with complications in some cases. In addition, it has been highlighted in this review and others that permanent sterility is not something that a child can truly understand at a young age, and this is an issue that needs to be factored into the discussions we are having about treatments that have permanent, lifelong impacts on our children.
The Swedish review that has been spoken about and was published in 2023 but brought about changes in 2022 raised some real issues about this area of medicine, and particularly concluded that different treatments in children with gender dysphoria should be considered experimental treatment rather than standard procedure. The issue is that there are substantial limitations on gender dysphoria research and a few longitudinal studies are hampered by small numbers and high attrition rates. This is something that has been highlighted in the Cass review, and I will mention a few of the comments made by Dr Hilary Cass. This highlights the need to continue to discuss and explore the developments in this space. One of her concerns and disappointments is the lack of evidence on the long-term impact of taking hormones from an early age. Her message is:
… research has let us all down, most importantly you.
Here she is talking to the children who are in these situations. She also focuses quite strongly on the issues with the evidence that we have. She says in this particular space:
This is an area of remarkably weak evidence, and yet results of studies are exaggerated or misrepresented by people on all sides of the debate to support their viewpoint. The reality is that we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress.
It is of concern that we are allowing children to go through significant treatments with no good evidence about the long-term harm that it may cause. That should be of concern to all of us today.
As a result of the Cass review, the UK stopped the sale and supply of puberty blockers via private prescriptions for the treatment of gender incongruence and/or gender dysphoria for under 18s, taking the approach that children should be given the time to properly work through their experiences and really be supported to make sure that they understand the long-term potential impacts of treatment options. The attempts by many to stop discussion in this space and say that there is only one viewpoint and only one right way is quite a disturbing trend in our society. Dr Hilary Cass says:
There are few other areas of healthcare where professionals are so afraid to openly discuss their views, where people are vilified on social media, and where name-calling echoes the worst bullying behaviour. This must stop.
We have seen this particularly in Queensland in the situation faced by Dr Jillian Spencer, a paediatric psychiatrist who lost her position after raising concerns about gender interventions for minors and has been pilloried and punished in this space. Medical practitioners should be able to raise concerns when they are worried about what is in the best interests of our children. Our children are precious.
Hon Maryka Groenewald (11:07 am) in reply: I appreciate that this is probably not the first or last time that we will speak about this issue. I find it encouraging that, despite Hon Pierre Yang not addressing what I asked, he said that the federal review will form the basis of perhaps looking at gender guidelines and best practice and how it operates, so I will keep my eye on that as well.
As Hon Michelle Hofmann pointed out, this is not settled; this is not black and white. We need to be mindful and open in having these discussions to ensure that it is best practice in clinical care. I would like to reiterate that and thank both members for their contributions.
Motion lapsed, pursuant to standing orders.
