Tasmania’s Conversion Practices Bill: A Fair Look

Tasmania’s Conversion Practices Bill: Opposing Harm, Protecting Faith and Reading the Fine Print

Few subjects put Christians in a more delicate position than laws about “conversion practices.” On one hand, many believers are horrified by stories of people being pressured, shamed or harmed in the name of changing their sexuality or gender identity, and want such abuse stopped. On the other hand, many fear that poorly drafted laws could criminalise ordinary prayer, pastoral care, preaching and parenting.

That tension is at the heart of a bill now before Tasmania’s Parliament. A recent commentary on The Daily Declaration by Mike Southon, republished from the advocacy group Freedom for Faith, calls the Greens’ Conversion Practices Prohibition Bill “the most radical” of its kind in Australia. Supporters of the bill, including LGBTIQA+ advocates and the Labor Party, say it’s a long-overdue response to real harm.

Parliament is expected to vote from 27 October. This post sets out what the bill proposes, what critics and supporters say, what the evidence shows, and how Christians can think about it with both conviction and compassion. It draws on the Freedom for Faith analysis and on other published reports. We haven’t been able to reproduce the bill’s full text here, so readers are encouraged to read it themselves.

Where the Bill Stands

According to reports:

• The bill. The Conversion Practices Prohibition Bill 2026 is a Greens bill, released as a draft in July for consultation by Tasmanian Greens leader Rosalie Woodruff, and later introduced into Parliament. It would prohibit practices intended to change, suppress or eradicate a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
• The background. In May 2022, the Tasmania Law Reform Institute (TLRI) recommended a ban, finding that conversion practices had caused “severe harm” and were still occurring in Tasmania. It made 16 recommendations. Premier Jeremy Rockliff promised to act.
• The politics. Labor and several crossbench MPs have indicated support for the bill, which means it could pass even without unified Liberal backing. The Liberal Party has granted its MPs a conscience vote. Mr Rockliff says he supports a ban “as a general principle” but believes the legislation needs to be balanced, and has said he would consider amendments. Some Liberal ministers, including Felix Ellis and Michael Ferguson, have said they’ll vote against it, arguing that the definition is too broad and could affect freedom of speech.
• The faith response. Freedom for Faith coordinated a detailed legal analysis signed by 17 church and faith leaders, which it says it was sending to every member of Parliament before the debate.
• The timeline. The bill is expected to be voted on from 27 October.

What the Critics Say

The Freedom for Faith analysis begins by saying that its signatories support laws that protect people from coercive, abusive and genuinely harmful practices. Its objection is to the way this bill is drafted. Its main concerns, as summarised in the commentary, include:

1. A very broad definition. It says the definition of “conversion practice” doesn’t require coercion or harm, expressly disregards consent, uses undefined terms such as “suppression” and “inducing,” and can capture a single conversation.
2. Uncertain religious protections. The bill protects prayer as an “expression of belief” and parents who “discuss” faith and sexuality with their children. But the analysis argues it doesn’t clearly protect praying with someone at their request for strength to live by their convictions, or parents who guide, decide or choose a school.
3. A low threshold for a serious offence. The criminal offence requires “injury,” including temporary harm to mental health, and negligence. The maximum penalty is 21 years’ imprisonment. The analysis points out that New South Wales and South Australia require serious or substantial harm, and that the TLRI itself recommended serious harm together with knowledge or recklessness.
4. Child abuse provisions. Any conversion practice directed at a child would become “child abuse,” even if consensual and harmless, and a reasonable suspicion alone could require a church or school to notify the regulator within three business days.
5. Organisational liability. Churches, schools and other organisations would have a positive duty to take steps to eliminate conversion practices, and could be held criminally responsible for offences by employees, contractors and volunteers.
6. Civil exposure. The bill would remove time limits for certain historical childhood injury claims, including claims already time-barred.
7. A powerful regulator. A Commissioner could investigate on reports from people with no direct involvement, compel documents and answers, and publish findings, with the privilege against self-incrimination removed, subject to limited immunity.
8. Wider legal changes. The analysis says the bill also makes changes to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 and the Health Complaints Act 1995 with effects beyond conversion practices.

Freedom for Faith also compares the bill with the laws in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia, arguing that it is at least as restrictive as Victoria’s, and more intrusive than the more recent NSW and SA laws on parental rights and religious freedom.

An independent critique published by the Australian Presbyterian Church adds a further point: that the TLRI’s evidence of conversion practices in Tasmania mostly concerned non-physical practices, and that it’s hard to find evidence of historical aversive or abusive methods still being used. It also argues that Parliament must be mindful of constitutional and international guarantees of religious freedom.

What the Supporters Say

Supporters give very different answers:

• The harm is real. The TLRI found severe harm, and advocates point to survivors’ testimony about shame, isolation, depression and suicidality. Equality Tasmania has described these practices as “harmful and sometimes deadly” and says they’re still occurring in the state.
• The bill is not radical. Equality Tasmania’s Rodney Croome has said that the bill follows other states in allowing prayer, preaching and parental guidance that are not conversion practices, as well as medical treatments within existing guidelines. He argues it addresses concerns about religious freedom, parenting and healthcare, and explicitly protects doctors providing health care in good faith and in accordance with professional standards.
• Intent matters. The Greens say the bill targets acts that intentionally try to change, suppress or eradicate a person’s sexual identity or gender. They have also said that claims by some critics are misleading.
• Consent can’t always be assumed. Supporters argue that a person who has been raised in a religious community, or who is a minor, may not be able to give genuine consent, and that the law has to account for that.
• Other states have already done it. Victoria, the ACT, Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia have introduced bans of various kinds, and supporters argue that Tasmania should join them.
• Labor’s position. Tasmanian Labor has said it recognises the serious harm of conversion practices and has long supported a ban.

What the Research Says

The research on conversion efforts is worth understanding, though it’s contested at the edges.

• Effectiveness. Major professional bodies, including the American Psychological Association in a 2009 review, have concluded that efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to succeed and carry some risk of harm. Many Christian leaders have acknowledged this. In 2013, Exodus International, once the largest “ex-gay” ministry, closed, and its president publicly apologised for the harm it had caused.
• Harm. Australian research, including the 2018 report Preventing Harm, Promoting Justice by researchers at La Trobe University, documented survivors reporting significant harms from some conversion practices. Studies in other countries have associated exposure with higher rates of depression and suicidality, although researchers debate causation and what counts as a conversion practice.
• The grey area. The harder question is where to draw the line between coercive or abusive practices and voluntary pastoral care, such as an adult who wants a pastor to pray with them as they seek to live according to traditional Christian teaching on sexuality. Different jurisdictions have drawn the line in different places.

The Hardest Question: What About Adults Who Ask?

One question sits at the centre of this debate. Traditional Christian teaching holds that sexual intimacy belongs within marriage between a man and a woman, and that all believers, whatever their attractions, are called to chastity outside it. Some Christians who experience same-sex attraction choose to live celibately, and many seek support from pastors and friends to do so. Others hope for change in their attractions, or in how they relate to them.

Supporters of broad bans worry that such “support” can slide into pressure, or become an expression of the belief that being gay is a defect that must be fixed. Critics of broad bans worry that a law that disregards consent could make it illegal for a pastor to pray with someone who asks for help living by their convictions, and for a parent to guide their child according to the family’s faith.

Both concerns deserve to be taken seriously. The question of precisely where each bill draws the line is why the drafting matters so much.

A Christian Lens

Scripture gives Christians a framework for thinking about this.

Coercion and abuse are wrong. Jesus’ warning about those who cause little ones to stumble (Matthew 18:6) is severe. Ezekiel 34:4 condemns shepherds who rule the sheep harshly and brutally. Jesus rebuked those who load people with burdens hard to bear (Luke 11:46). Any practice that shames, isolates, humiliates or harms a person, whether in the name of “healing” or otherwise, is incompatible with the gospel.

Gentleness and respect. Galatians 6:1 tells us to restore those in sin gently. Second Timothy 2:24–25 says the Lord’s servant must be kind and correct opponents with gentleness. First Peter 3:15–16 calls us to defend our hope with gentleness and respect.

Truth and compassion belong together. Jesus was full of grace and truth (John 1:14). Paul tells believers to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). Christians who hold traditional convictions about sexuality are called to hold them in a way that welcomes and cares for everyone, including those who disagree.

Parental responsibility. Deuteronomy 6:6–7, Proverbs 22:6 and Ephesians 6:4 describe parents as the primary teachers of their children’s faith, with the duty not to exasperate them. A law shouldn’t treat ordinary, loving parenting as abuse, and parents shouldn’t use authority to harm.

Freedom of conscience. Faith can’t be coerced (Romans 14:5; Joshua 24:15). That principle protects adults who freely seek spiritual counsel, and it also protects people who don’t want it.

Transformation language. Paul writes to the Corinthians that some of them had lived in various sins, but that they were washed, sanctified and justified (1 Corinthians 6:9–11). Christians read this in different ways, and it’s a reminder of how sensitive the vocabulary of “change” is. The gospel promises forgiveness and new life in Christ. It doesn’t promise that anyone’s attractions will be altered, and no Christian community should imply that it does.

Our Take

Here’s where we’d like to add some commentary.

1. Christians should be the first to condemn abusive practices.

Practices that shame, coerce, isolate or harm people, including aversive techniques, forced “deliverance” sessions and threats of rejection, have no place in the church. Many survivors are Christians, and some were harmed in Christian settings. A church that isn’t willing to say so plainly will have little credibility in this debate.

2. Good law should target coercion and harm, with clear definitions.

A law that criminalises vague or consensual conduct, or that doesn’t clearly define terms like “suppression,” risks being unfair to churches and unclear to everyone else. That’s a principle that applies to legislation of any kind. It’s reasonable for Christians to ask for clarity on what’s covered, what’s protected and what threshold applies, without opposing the goal of preventing harm.

3. Check the claims against the text.

Both sides use strong language. “The most radical” and “this isn’t radical” can’t both be right, and each side has an interest in how the bill is presented. The best way for readers to judge is to read the bill itself, the Freedom for Faith analysis, the TLRI report, the Equality Tasmania explainer and any amendments proposed before the vote.

4. Protect voluntary pastoral care for adults, and be careful with minors.

There’s a significant moral difference between an adult freely seeking prayer or counsel and a child being subjected to pressure from authority figures. A good law will distinguish between these, and good pastoral practice should too.

5. Churches can lead by example.

Whatever happens in Parliament, churches can develop clear policies on pastoral care for people dealing with sexuality and gender: voluntary participation, no coercion, no shaming, confidentiality, training for pastors, and referral to qualified professionals where appropriate. That helps protect people and strengthens the case for religious freedom.

6. Listen to those who’ve been hurt.

Some survivors have strong stories, and some have left the church because of how they were treated. They deserve a hearing. So do people who are same-sex attracted and who’ve chosen to live celibately within a church and who feel their choice is being misunderstood. Both groups are real, and both are made in God’s image.

7. Avoid caricatures.

Critics of the bill aren’t all trying to protect abusive practices, and supporters aren’t all trying to silence the church. Most people on both sides say they want to prevent harm and are arguing about how.

The Other Side of the Argument

In fairness, here are additional perspectives:

• LGBTIQA+ advocates would say that the harm is well documented, that a narrow law could leave loopholes, and that “consent” in a religious setting is complicated, particularly for young people. They note that Australian jurisdictions have passed laws with religious protections, and that no wave of prosecutions of ordinary pastors has followed.
• Medical and psychological bodies have condemned conversion practices and generally support bans, but some have also called for care in drafting, particularly around counselling for gender dysphoria and exploratory therapy.
• Some Christians support strong legislation, arguing that the church has a record of harm that should be acknowledged and that clear legal limits are a form of accountability.
• Other Christians support a different approach, such as targeting coercion and abuse through existing laws on assault, fraud and coercive control, with new laws only where gaps are clear.
• Legal commentators note that the interaction between this bill, child protection laws and anti-discrimination law is complex, and that careful drafting and amendments could address many of the concerns.
• Politicians across the spectrum say they support the principle of banning harmful practices, while disagreeing on the detail.

None of these views cancels out the others. A thoughtful reader can recognise the force of concerns on each side.

What You Can Do

• Read the primary sources. The bill, the TLRI report, the Freedom for Faith analysis, and the Equality Tasmania explainer are all public.
• Contact your MP, if you live in Tasmania, and ask specific questions about the definition, the threshold, the protections for prayer and parenting, and the position on amendments. The Freedom for Faith analysis is accompanied by a tool to contact MPs.
• Be respectful. A polite, informed message is more persuasive than an angry one.
• Pray for Tasmania’s MPs, for survivors of abuse, for pastors and parents, and for the church to be a place of both truth and welcome.
• Support survivors. If you know someone who has been hurt by a church practice, listen, and help them find support.
• Review your own church’s practices, and make sure they’re safe, voluntary and compassionate.

If You Need Support

If you or someone you know is struggling with questions about sexuality or gender, or has been harmed by a religious or other practice, support is available. In Australia, Lifeline is available any time on 13 11 14, QLife (1800 184 527) offers peer support for LGBTIQ+ people, and Beyond Blue (1300 22 4636) offers mental health support. In an emergency, call 000.

Questions to Reflect On

• What do I believe the church has got wrong in how it has treated people on this issue, and what has it got right?
• Where would I draw the line between pastoral care and pressure?
• Have I read the bill, or am I relying on summaries from one side?
• How do I treat people who disagree with me about sexuality, and how do they experience me?
• What would it look like for my church to be both faithful and safe?

A Short Prayer

Lord Jesus, you are the Good Shepherd who binds up the broken and seeks the lost. We grieve for every person who has been harmed by those who claimed to speak in your name. Forgive us where we have been harsh, and heal those who carry wounds. Give wisdom to lawmakers who must write clear and fair laws, and protect both the vulnerable and the freedom of your people to love and teach truthfully. Make your church a place of grace and truth, where every person is known, welcomed and safe. Amen.