Dr WOODRUFF – Honourable Speaker, I move –
That the bill be now read the second time.
Before I commence, I want to acknowledge the victim/survivors and people with lived experience who are in the Chamber today and who are watching us online. They’re the reason that we are here today and we carry them in our hearts as we go through this debate.
The Conversion Practices Prohibition Bill 2026 prohibits practices and conduct aimed at changing, suppressing or eradicating the sexual orientation or gender identity of a person: conversion practices. The bill provides a tiered approach with an education, prevention and response scheme for a lower-level conduct, and new criminal offences for serious conduct. The scheme allows for a person to make a report about a conversion practice that’s happened and allows for a voluntary process facilitated by the conversion commissioner. Where an agreement can be reached, the report can be referred to the tribunal for assessment. The scheme also provides for the commissioner to proactively investigate serious or systemic conversion practices and to publish findings as well as accept an undertaking or issue compliance notices to prevent conversion practices.
For serious conduct, the bill establishes criminal offences for engaging in conversion practices that cause injury for taking a person outside Tasmania for conversion practices.
Conversion practices that aim to change the press or eradicate the sexual orientation or gender identity of another person often present as pseudoscientific or pseudomedical practices. These practices are based on the twin beliefs that change is possible and desirable. Both conversion practices and the beliefs behind them are firmly rejected by medical and scientific evidence and the experience of survivors.
The Australian Psychological Society position statement on conversion practices reads:
Approaches to mental health practice variously referred to as ‘reparative’ ‘conversion’ or ‘ex-gay’ ‘therapy’ are based on the assumption that being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer (LGBTQ+) is indicative of psychological dysfunction and that this can be cured. No professional health organisation in Australia supports these approaches for the following reasons:
(1) There is no clinical evidence demonstrating that approaches that claim to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender are effective.
(2) There is, however, a considerable body of evidence documenting the negative effects of stigma associated with being a member of LGBTQ+ communities, including higher rates of depression.
(3) There is also clinical evidence that change or suppression practises are harmful and can compound the challenges already faced by LGBTQ+ communities. [tbc]
The Tasmanian Law Reform Institute’s report on conversion practices from April 2022 found the harms caused by conversion practices include –
… isolation from, and loss of trust in, religious leaders or medical professionals, low self-esteem, self-hatred, anxiety, depression, trauma, substance abuse, a reluctance to seek medical treatment, and suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and suicides.
They also found that:
These harms often last for many years, and trauma can persist for life for survivors. [tbc]
The TLRI also found that conversion practices still happen In Tasmania. 46 submissions to the institute recorded people being offered or undergoing conversion practices. Other submissions implied or directly stated that they conduct conversion practices in Tasmania. Prevalent studies have estimated between 5 and 14 per cent of Australian LGBTQA+ people have been exposed to conversion practices.
The TLRI report contained testimonials from people who’d undergone conversion practices. I’d like to read some accounts into the Hansard and they show that these harmful practises are not confined to the past and highlight the risks of allowing even so-called consensual conversion practices. This account is from a then 25-year-old trans person:
My faith is a huge part of who I am. It’s the foundation of me. Back when I was at [redacted education provider], I wanted to join a social group for my faith, and since service to others and the community is a core value of my faith, I wanted to be an active part of that group. For a while it was great – I was part of the group’s music crew and volunteered at events and it seemed to be a really warm, loving community dynamic.
And then they found out I was trans.
Suddenly I got booted out of the music crew and got banned from volunteering. I was told by the group’s leadership that I could still be a member, but only if I ‘abstained’ from being who I am and didn’t ever mention it again. They prayed for me to be ‘healed’.
The sense of whiplash was incredible, being cut off from my faith community so suddenly, it was like I couldn’t breathe. They said I could rejoin the music crew on the condition that I denounced my identity publicly and went into regular ‘healing’ prayer sessions. For a while, I tried to continue attending the group’s events, pretending I was a good little cis-het girl just to be there, but I couldn’t keep it up. Everyone had suddenly become so cold and knowing that my acceptance in that community was contingent on me lying about who I am, that damage was done. I couldn’t be at home there anymore and I couldn’t trust any of these people. It hurt so bad, like my family had died but somehow still standing around making small talk with each other.
It totally destroyed my self-worth, I hated myself. I started drinking myself into oblivion every night, sleeping with strangers compulsively and putting myself in unsafe situations. I thought I deserved to suffer and I was going to hell anyway so I might as well get there a bit quicker.
I guess I’m one of the lucky ones, in that it didn’t end up actually stopping me transitioning and I made it to a better place eventually. But I lost so much.
Honestly, I still don’t trust any faith groups. I haven’t been able to be part of any since. I don’t know how to find a church community where I’ll be able to feel safe and not like they might suddenly turn on me. My faith is still the core of my identity but trying to find other people to share that with is too much for me most of the time. [tbc]
The next account is from a 28-year-old trans person.
When I – utterly terrified – finally told my pastor I was trans and asked him if there was any hope for me, his tone didn’t really change. He’d always been worried for me, and he stayed as gentle and kind as he’d always been. But gently, kindly, he told me that queerness was a kind of spiritual brokenness, and I needed to be healed, and it was part of his calling to help me find my way back to what God intended for me.
To have the main authority and parental figure in my life tell me that who I was fundamentally wrong, and corrupted by the Devil? Saying out loud all the things my anxiety and depression had been saying inside my head? I can’t explain what that felt like. Multiple times a week, we would have one-on-one ‘Bible studies’ that were all about convincing me to change my sinful heart and let God heal me. The other emotional and material help my pastor had been giving me all stopped.
My girlfriend got taken in for compulsory ‘faith counselling’, too. They told her she had to break up with me, that she wasn’t the right person to guide me back to righteousness, and that if she wanted to stay at that church she wasn’t allowed to talk to me or sit with me during services anymore. She needed the church community, so she stopped talking to me. I don’t blame her.
A month into my rehabilitation, I tried to kill myself. I left the church after that. I actually tried to kill myself a few times over the next few years. I guess I was pretty bad at it.
I’d like to say I’m all better these days, but I’m not. I’m still totally fucked up. I can’t hold down a relationship. My faith is a source of constant pain. I’m scared of Christians, but I’m a Christian still so I can’t practise my own faith. I feel safest around other queer people who hate Christianity because of how it’s treated them, but then, I end up feeling like they hate that part of me, and I have to keep that secret. I can’t be my whole self anywhere. Deep down I think I still believe I deserve to suffer.
I don’t know if things will ever get better for me. But any laws that could stop that happening to someone else are a good thing, as far as I’m concerned. [tbc]
What these and many similar stories show us are the actual experience of people subjected to conversion practices. Some people have been pushing for this bill to allow consensual conversion practices, and for removing suppression from the bill. These stories highlight the reality of what can actually occur in sessions that are airbrushed over with the relatively benign language of ‘consensual pastoral care’ and ‘client-identified goals.’
In psychology and health practices, the requirement for agreeing to an intervention is not consent, but ‘informed consent’. Informed consent must be free from coercion, manipulation or undue influence and must involve clear communication for the reasons and the risks of a treatment or practice.
All major health and psychology representative bodies in Australia and worldwide have consistently denounced conversion practices, describing them as harmful and not effective in their stated purpose. These include the Australian Medical Association, the Australian Psychology Association, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians.
It is not possible for conversion practices to practically occur with informed consent, because the underlying principles require agreeing that a person can and should change. These are both soundly discredited claims. They are also contrary to professional standards for relevant health professionals. It is not plausible that a person would willingly and freely agree to undergo a conversion practice if they understood it would fail to meet its stated purpose and was likely to cause them significant harm.
The reality is that the coercion people often experience is systemic, with multiple institutions convincing people that their self is broken and unless they participate in conversion practices they will not fit in or be accepted. In these situations, conversion practitioners do not need to coerce people; surrounding systems and institutions are set up to do it for them.
Clause 5 of the bill provides a definition of conversion practice as well as clearly setting out circumstances that are not a conversion practice. To meet the definition of a conversion practice, a practice or conduct needs to meet all the following requirements: it must be directed towards a person; it must be a practice or conduct motivated by that person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity; and it must be for the purpose of changing, suppressing or eradicating a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, or to induce the same.
While any conduct that does not meet the above criteria is not a conversion practice, clause 5 also explicitly clarifies a range of conduct that does not constitute a conversion practice. The provision of a health service is exempt if conducted by a registered health practitioner, if they, in good faith, consider it appropriate for the person and if it complies with all relevant legal, professional and ethical requirements. Conduct is also exempt if it is genuinely facilitating a person’s coping skills development or identity expiration to meet the person’s needs.
The bill also makes it clear that a range of conduct is not of itself a conversion practice. This includes participating in public debate, expressing belief, expression that a belief ought to be followed, providing religious teachings, general requirements in relation to religious orders, and parental discussions. A number of specific health practitioner conducts are also covered, including providing information about treatment and non-treatment options, identity exploration, and detransitioning.
Part 2 of the bill establishes a general prohibition on conversion practices, as well as a positive duty for a person to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate conversion practices engaged in by themselves or by a person acting on their behalf. The positive duty does not give grounds to make a report to the conversion commissioner, but a serious breach of the positive duty may give grounds for an investigation.
Clause 9 stipulates that no criminal or civil liability is created except as expressly provided by the bill and that compliance with this act doesn’t itself mean that requirements of other legislation have been met.
Part 3 sets out the offences related to conversion practices. These are offences for engaging in conversion practices, taking a person outside of Tasmania for conversion practices and advertising conversion practices.
Division 1 sets out offences for conducting a conversion practice that causes injury. These offences are punishable under the Criminal Code. The bill establishes an offence of engaging in one or more conversion practices that cause injury. To prove this offence, a person must be shown to have intentionally engaged in a conversion practice which caused injury and were negligent as to whether they would cause injury.
Division 2 sets out offences for taking a person outside of Tasmania for a conversion practice on similar terms to the Division 1 offences. It is an aggravating factor for both these offences if the conversion practice is conducted on a child or a vulnerable person.
Division 3 establishes an offence of advertising a conversion practice for which proceedings may be brought by the commissioner, a person authorised by the commissioner or a police officer. The bill provides that employers or principals – the person in charge – are responsible for a conversion practice of employees, contractors or volunteers unless they could not have known of or prevented the conversion practice.
A proceeding against a Division 1 or 2 offence punishable under the Criminal Code cannot occur without the written consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The bill captures conduct that occurs outside of Tasmania if a significant part of the conduct occurs in Tasmania or the effects of the conduct occurred in full or in part in Tasmania. This is to make sure that after conversion practices are banned, our laws can’t be skirted by involving practitioners who are based outside of Tasmania.
Parts 4 through to 8 of the bill establish the office of the conversion practices commissioner, as well as the elements of the education, prevention and response scheme. The Anti-Discrimination Commissioner is, by virtue of that office, also the conversion practices commissioner. The response scheme consists of a report process and an investigation process. Any person can make a report that a conversion practice has occurred or is occurring, and the commissioner can respond to a report with targeted education, a facilitation process, by referring it to a more appropriate body, or not responding in certain circumstances.
A party’s participation in the facilitation process is entirely voluntary, and any party may withdraw at any point. It is also entirely confidential unless both parties agree otherwise. The matters cannot be used in civil or criminal proceedings except for administrative proceedings related to obstruction or false or misleading information during the facilitation process. If an agreement is reached and the commissioner is satisfied both parties have freely entered into the agreement, it becomes an enforceable order as if it were made by the tribunal.
Either the commissioner, the respondent or the person affected by an alleged conversion practice can apply to have the commissioner’s report assessed by the tribunal. This provides a de facto appeal avenue, as well as an avenue for compensation for losses or damages.
The second element of the education, prevention and response scheme is an investigation. This may be launched on the commissioner’s own initiative if they consider that a matter is of a serious or systemic nature, that it relates to a class or group of persons, that the act may have been contravened, and if it would advance the objects of the act.
Unlike the report process, in an investigation the commissioner has the power to require documents and people’s attendance to answer questions. For either of these, the commissioner must provide a reasonable period or deadline to comply.
A person is not excused from providing information on the grounds that it could incriminate them. However, as is the case in other acts, any information provided is exempt from evidence in civil or criminal proceedings, except for proceedings relating to the information being false or misleading. The commissioner may also order that a person’s identifying information is protected, if necessary, to prevent victimisation or to protect their employment, privacy or other lawful interests, or that any information obtained in the investigation is not published or is restricted.
In responding to an investigation, the commissioner may take no further action, may enter into an agreement with a person, establish an enforceable undertaking, issue a compliance notice and publish a report on the investigation. The subject of an investigation may enter into an enforceable undertaking as a result of the investigation, and such an undertaking may stipulate particular actions the person will do or will refrain from doing for the purposes of complying. These undertakings may be published in the public register and any information may be omitted if necessary for safety or privacy purposes, to avoid prejudicing an investigation or an enforcement action, or to comply with a requirement of the act or any other act. If the enforceable undertaking is not complied with, the commissioner may take the matter to the tribunal. The tribunal may issue a compliance order, discharge, or vary the undertaking, or make any other order the tribunal considers appropriate.
The commissioner also has the power to issue compliance notices. A person to whom a compliance notice is issued may appeal the notice as a whole, or particular terms of the notice to the tribunal. The tribunal may confirm, vary, or quash the notice, and may direct the commissioner to take such action as the tribunal considers appropriate. If the compliance notice is not complied with, the commissioner may take the matter to the tribunal. The tribunal may issue a compliance order, vary the notice, order the commissioner to withdraw the notice, or make any other order it considers appropriate.
In the case of employees, contractors and volunteers, the employer or principal – the person in charge – is taken to be responsible for conversion practices unless they can establish – on the balance of probabilities – that reasonable precautions were taken to prevent the practice from occurring.
Amendments to the Criminal Code Act 1924, Limitation Act 1974 and the Civil Liability Act 2002 are made to include conversion practices as a form of child abuse. The amendments to the Civil Liability Act 2002 include conversion practices under the provisions that deal with organisational liability for child abuse. This sets out that organisations that have a responsibility for children have a duty of care to prevent people associated with the organisation from using that position or association to conduct a conversion practise, and establishes liability for the organisation if that duty of care is not met.
The Limitation Act 1974 amendments include a conversion practice as a form of child abuse that is not subject to a limitation period. As is generally the case for amendments to limitation periods, the changes to these periods apply to past conduct. However, any course of action would be assessed under the rules as they were prior to the commencement of this bill. The Criminal Code Act 1924 amendments include conversion practices as an offence for the purposes of failing to report the abuse of a child offence. The bill also amends the definition of sexual orientation in the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 to ensure ‘asexual’ and ‘aromantic’ are included in the definition. The bill also provides for the act to be independently reviewed after five years of operation.
Honourable Speaker, there have been numerous amendments circulated, including some amendments I will be moving based on feedback from members and others. I can indicate that there are a number of amendments we are aware of that we intend to support, and I’ll have more to say on these matters during the committee stage of this debate. I want to sincerely thank members who have worked with us in good faith to discuss and progress potential amendments. It has been a very collaborative process.
This bill has been many years in the making. It brings Tasmania into line with the majority of other states that have already legislated to protect LGBTIQA+ plus people from the harms, often lifelong harms, of conversion practices. It’s based on legislation tried and tested elsewhere. It fulfils the state’s obligation to protect people, especially children and young people, from harm.
At the same time, it protects free speech, faith teaching, pastoral care, conversations with children and between doctor and patient, where a person’s intent is not to deny someone the ability to be themselves. These would not be a conversion practice under this bill.
At the heart of this bill are those people who suffered the despair, the loneliness and shame, and the years of life lost from such conversion practices. We recognise their trauma and the enormous courage of those who have publicly shared their stories. Their truth has been the catalyst for this bill, which is carefully designed to make sure never again should others suffer as they have.
I want to thank everyone at Equality Tasmania and in particular pay great respect to Rodney Croome, Tasmania’s relentless advocate for inclusion and LGBTIQA+ justice. Their years-long campaign to end the torment of conversion practices has borne fruit in this bill and in closing, I want to echo the voice of one survivor, who said:
We are okay and lovable just as we are.
Honourable Speaker, I commend the bill to the house.
