Complaint submitted on 27 June 2025
I wish to submit a complaint about Ryk Goddard’s recent ABC Hobart radio interview with Rodney Croome (20 June 2025) in response to publicity over Tasmanian State Liberal Party candidate Dr Julie Sladden co signing with 100 other Australian health professionals the Australian Doctors Federation Open Letter to Australian Health Bodies
stating that:
“As clinicians, we call on our professional bodies and regulatory authorities to urgently acknowledge and respond to recent international and local developments in the field of youth gender medicine. These developments indicate that what is known as the “gender affirmative treatment” model (GAT), currently used in Australian public youth gender clinics, risks the health and well-being of vulnerable children and adolescents”.
and demanding that they:
“cease the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery for children and adolescents due to the lack of evidence of benefit and known risks of serious harm. We request unambiguous advice to the profession that clinical practice should align with the Cass Review and the National Association of Practising Psychiatrists (Australia)”.
Ryk Goddard chose not to invite Dr Sladden or Dr Rachel Bradley for an interview to discuss the Open Letter nor did he mention any details contained in the Open Letter. Rather he chose to invite Rodney Croome for an interview, not to address the issues raised in the Open Letter, but rather to enable Rodney Croome to issue a challenge to Dr Sladden ‘to listen to trans people’.
Mentioned in the Open Letter was the recent decision by Justice Andrew Strum in the Re Devin case in The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia which has direct implications for delivery of ‘affirmative care’ for gender distressed children by private health practitioners in Tasmania and at the Tasmanian Gender Service. Rodney Croome claimed that Dr Sladden’s position to gender affirming care was against known best practice yet Ryk Goddard failed to question his claims in relation to the facts contained in the Open Letter, especially the recent Justice Strum decision. I was astonished that Ryk Goddard deliberately avoided any mention of the very serious matters raised in the Open Letter.
The Open Letter urges health bodies to adopt the National Association of Practising Psychiatrists recommendation for ‘psychosocial support as the first-line intervention for young people with gender-related distress’ yet Ryk Goddard chose not to invite the President of NAPP Dr Phillip Morris in for interview to explain this approach. Again, he rather chose to present the issues as an adversarial contest between a political activist and a candidate for the upcoming Tasmanian election.
I understand that the ABC recently became a Platinum Award winner in ACON’s AWEI awards. I consider that the relationship that the ABC has with ACON is inconsistent with the ABC Charter to provide fair, and impartial reportage in the public interest.
ABC Chair Kim Williams has stated that he does not want activist journalists in the ABC but it appears that there has been no follow up to his statements in terms of policy implementation on the ground as we can hear from Ryk Goddard’s interview with Rodney Croome.
It is disappointing that our nationally funded broadcaster continues to fail to report the truth or challenge the highly questionable and harmful narrative of ‘affirmative care’ pushed by political lobbyists citing ‘kindness and inclusivity’ as their raison d’être.
I call upon ABC Hobart, the Chair Kim WIlliams and the Board to enforce the ABC Charter to:
* report ethically and free from bias or activism, which has been all too apparent in recent years
* exit ACON’s AWEI program
* to ‘show the door’ to any journalists who have become accustomed to pushing their own cultural agendas and those of their political allies.
A copy of the Open Letter, including links to evidence based reports and studies on the issue of gender dysphoria and affirming care, is below.
Yours faithfully,
xxxxxxxx
OPEN LETTER TO AUSTRALIAN HEALTH BODIES REGARDING GENDER-AFFIRMING INTERVENTIONS
June 15, 2025
As clinicians, we call on our professional bodies and regulatory authorities to urgently acknowledge and respond to recent international and local developments in the field of youth gender medicine. These developments indicate that what is known as the “gender affirmative treatment” model (GAT), currently used in Australian public youth gender clinics, risks the health and well-being of vulnerable children and adolescents.
The UK _Cass Review_,[i] widely recognised as the most comprehensive review of paediatric GAT, and a growing number of systematic reviews[ii] conclude the evidence for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for young people with gender dysphoria is weak and uncertain.
Invasive treatments such as puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgery hold known and potential risks of harm. These include sterility, urogenital and sexual dysfunction, effects on bone, brain and cardiovascular health.
Due to the above, countries including Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Brazil and the UK have all recommended their use be restricted in minors.
Current Australian standards ignore evidence supporting a normally timed puberty leading to resolution of symptoms in approximately 85% of children with gender dysphoria.[iii]
A guideline review undertaken as part of the Cass Review (2024)[i] rated the ‘Australian Standards’ 19/100 for rigour of development.
The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia recently relied on the findings of the _Cass Review_[i] and clinical expert evidence in _Re Devin_.[iv]
In his judgment, Justice Strum:
– Endorsed the Cass review.
– Regarded the risk of harm from puberty blockers as “unacceptable”.
– Rejected the idea that gender identity is innate and immutable.
– Criticised the gender clinic’s policy of unreserved affirmation.
– Found that a senior gender-affirming clinician had failed in her duty of impartiality as an expert witness.
– Found the gender clinic lacking in its approach to assessment, diagnosis, and therapeutic options.
The judiciary has set an example of considered, evidence-based, developmentally appropriate analysis, which Australian health bodies have so far failed to adopt, leaving Australian clinicians in legal jeopardy.
A US Health and Human Services review of treatment for paediatric gender dysphoria,[ii] released 1st May 2025, found that there has been a “rapid expansion and implementation of a protocol that lacked sufficient scientific and ethical justification” and “when confronted with compelling evidence that this protocol did not deliver the health benefits it promised, and that other countries were changing their policies appropriately, the US medical professionals and associations failed to reconsider the ‘gender-affirming’ approach”.
Australian health bodies need to respond to this compelling evidence to avoid the same error. We call on Australia’s peak medical and professional bodies and institutions to cease the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery for children and adolescents due to the lack of evidence of benefit and known risks of serious harm. We request unambiguous advice to the profession that clinical practice should align with the _Cass Review_[i] and the National Association of Practising Psychiatrists (Australia),[v] which recommends psychosocial support as the first-line intervention for young people with gender-related distress.
[i] Cass, H. (2024). _Independent review of gender identity services for children and young people_. NHS England. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20250310143633/https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CassReview_Final.pdf
[ii] Treatment for Paediatric Gender Dysphoria: review of evidence and best practices. Department of Health and Human Services 1 May 2025. https://opa.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2025-05/gender-dysphoria-report.pdf
[iii] Singh, D., & Zucker, K. J. (2021). A follow-up study of boys with gender identity disorder. _Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12_, Article 632784. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.632784
[iv] Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. (2025). Re Devin (FedCFamC1F 211). https://www.fcfcoa.gov.au/judgment?field_judgment_type_target_id=187&page=0
[v] Morris, P. Managing gender dysphoria/ incongruence in young people: a guide for health practitioners. National Association of Practicing Psychiatrists 8th June 2025. https://napp.org.au/napp-statement-on-gender-dysphoria-in-young-people/
Reply from ABC Ombudsman’s Office 03.07.25
Dear xxxxxx,
Thank you for your email about an interview on Hobart Breakfast.
Your complaint has been received by the ABC’s Ombudsman’s Office. The office is separate to and independent of content making areas within the ABC. Our role is to review and, where appropriate, investigate complaints about ABC content concerning the ABC’s editorial standards.
We have reviewed the relevant content against the ABC’s editorial standards for impartiality.
The newsworthy focus of the interview with equality campaigner and spokesperson for ‘Let us Give’ Rodney Croome was an impending change in the rules for donating blood, removing what he saw as discrimination. At the end of the interview, Mr Croome extended an invitation to candidates in the upcoming state election with an interest in gender-affirming care to discuss the concerns of affected people. As part of this, Mr Croome referred to one of the candidates, Ms Sladden, having signed an open letter opposing the current model for gender-affirming care.
We consider that Mr Croome’s references to gender-affirming care reflected his personal views, and it was relevant to his role to mention that seeks to discuss potential related discrimination issues with political candidates. In this context, and noting the newsworthy focus of the interview, we do not consider there was an editorial requirement to invite interviewees who may present views that differ from those of Mr Croome, reflect those of Ms Sladden and signatories of the open letter, or refer to the other matters you raise.
Please note that any affiliation of the ABC with other organisations is a management issue and does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman’s Office.
Given the above, we are satisfied that the program was in keeping with the ABC’s editorial standards for impartiality. While we have decided not to uphold your complaint on this occasion, please be assured that your concerns are noted and have been shared with the relevant program area.
Thank you again for taking the time to write to us. Should you be dissatisfied with this response to your complaint, you may be able to pursue the matter with the Australian Communications and Media Authority: http://www.acma.gov.au.
Yours sincerely,
James
Investigations Officer, ABC Ombudsman’s Office