Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee [Part 2], , 54:47 to 58:53
Senator Roberts questions the department regarding an application by plastic surgeons to list gender affirmation surgeries on Medicare, focusing on potential taxpayer costs and the early stage of the assessment process.
Topics: Health, Government spending
Speakers: Senator Malcolm Roberts, Daniel McCabe, Senator Nita Green, Senator Ellie Whiteaker, Unknown Speaker
>> Good evening. Welcome back. We will recommence outcome two. Starting with Senator Roberts.
>> Thank you, chair, and thank you for appearing again. Uh, application 1754, surgical procedures for gender affirmation in adults. is to the medical benefits advisory committee and it's headline there's a news report on the weekend plastic surgeons push to fund 30 transgender surgeries on Medicare amid safety concerns so it's an application by the Australian Association of plastic surgeons to have multiple year types of transgender surgeries listed on Medicare so they can be performed free of charge to the patient in a public hospital subject to resource availability is this correct
Hi Senator Daniel McCay, first assistant secretary technology access technology assessment access division. Uh yes, the Australian Society of Plastic Surgeons has made an application to the uh medical services advisory committee uh for gender affirming surgeries for
>> In effect, if it's successful, this means all taxpayers are paying for these surgeries whether they agree with trans transgenderism or not. what will be the annual cost of taxpayers if the application is approved.
>> So Senator, it's probably important to note that this application [clears throat] is very uh early in its process. Um uh the med medical services advisory committee is is meeting again later in November to even discuss the clinical efficacy of these surgeries. Uh then we'd have to get to in due course um the cost effectiveness. So, we're a while away for any uh decisions or recommendations out of the committee, Senator. Uh and then ultimately uh any recommendations would be a decision of government, but we're a long way away from that, Senator.
>> So, there are no cost estimates yet.
>> Not not at this stage. No. The title of
the application includes the phrase gender in congruence which is defined as quote a medical and psychological term defined by the World Health Organization as a marked and persistent mismatch between an adult's experienced or expressed gender and their assigned birth sex at birth. That's the end of the quote. Minister, is this use of quote assigned sex at birth unquote consistent with departmental language on this issue or has the applicant jumped ahead of the department's position? Uh,
well, Senator, I can't speak for the applicant. Um, I certainly um know that there is um uh some [clears throat] medical experts or advice that we can give you about the right terminology um in the particular context that you're talking about. [clears throat]
terminology is a good word minister be because it's an accurate word because what's what's happening according to an article I read in the weekend Australian which is the only newspaper I read um
>> not the query man
they're about changing the language which is what a lot of advocates try to do so to to make it sweeter and more palatable so they're they're changing established terms like gender dysphor oria and making it gender in congruence. So anyway, Minister for Clarity, is it is it the policy of the Department of Health that sex is not a biological fact, but rather is assigned, not determined at birth? Is sex assigned or determined at birth?
>> We can take you through the definitions um that are given. I think the most relevant one would be um is it the NHMRC definition, but this is obviously something that is reviewed from time to
>> Definition of male and female is reviewed of sex.
>> No, no, no. Um the the terminology that you're using which is used by medical practitioners. I think we're talking about two different things, but the chief medical officer can probably