Minister for Women Says Debate on Bill That Defines Gender Too Harmful for Senate

Labor’s Katy Gallagher explained her government’s reason for blocking One Nation’s attempt to reinstate the definition of ’man‘ and ’woman' into law.

Signage denoting a unisex bathroom can be seen at Melbourne Airport, Australia, on Oct. 31, 2023. Susan Mortimer/The Epoch Times

Labor’s Minister for Women Katy Gallagher has defended the decision to block a proposed bill from One Nation that reinstates the traditional definition of “man” and “woman” into the country’s law—saying debate could cause “harm” to young people.

On Sept. 17, One Nation Senator Pauline Hanson raised the issue of her Sex Discrimination Amendment (Acknowledging Biological Reality) Bill 2024, which was voted down last week at the first reading stage by Labor, the Greens, and independent Senator David Pocock.

The amendment would have removed the term, “gender identity,” from the Sex Discrimination Act, and revived the old definition of “man” and “woman” based on biological sex.

The rejection marks the second time Hanson has been unable to advance such a proposed legislation.

The first reading is a formality and is normally done to notify the Senate of the existence of a bill. The clerk will read out the title and purpose of the bill, no debate occurs, and senators will vote on whether it proceeds to the second reading stage—it is rare for the Senate to block a bill on the first reading.

Senator Hanson took issue with how her Bill was dealt with.

“I was denied the right—something very unusual in this place. Labor and Greens have taken the highly unusual step of voting down a bill at the first reading that sought to reinforce the biological definitions of man and woman.”

Hanson emphasised the bill’s intent to align legal definitions with biological sex, a move that she argued would protect the integrity of women’s spaces and rights. However, opposition to the bill was strong.

Labor Senator Says Debate Too Sensitive

Labor Senator Katy Gallagher acknowledged it was a rare move but argued its necessity.

“We did take the rare step of not agreeing with the first reading. The reason we took that decision—and we did think about it carefully—was about the debate that would happen in this place if a Bill like that was introduced. This is a vibrant democracy, but when you have Bills that seek to harm people, including young people, we will draw the line,” she told the Senate.

Gallagher further stressed the vulnerability of the gender-diverse community.

“We know how vulnerable the gender-diverse community is. We know how they struggle. We do not think the Senate is a qualified place for that debate. That debate should be had at home with friends, with professionals, with health professionals who seek to guide some of those difficult decisions for young people in this country.”

Opposition Concerned Normal Process Blocked

Simon Birmingham, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, expressed concern with the move and the precedent it would set.

“In practice, the first reading is almost always passed without opposition and is regarded as a purely formal stage,” Birmingham said. “The Coalition supports these normal procedures, as we have with many Greens, Labor, or crossbench bills that we strongly oppose.”

He further warned, “It will become an increasingly difficult and dangerous precedent if parties that can muster the numbers deny the first reading of a bill. The structure and process we have in this Parliament for bills to be considered on three substantive votes is important, starting with the first reading.”