Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

Tasmania’s proposed conversion practices law raises serious concerns for churches, parents and faith-based schools, with broad definitions, severe penalties and uncertain protections for religious freedom.

By Friday, every member of Tasmania’s Parliament would have had a detailed legal analysis of the Conversion Practices Prohibition Bill.

It is signed by 17 church and faith leaders, and written and coordinated by Freedom for Faith. Their message is clear: this Bill should not proceed in its current form.

The Bill is meant to stop coercive, harmful attempts to change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity. But its definition doesn’t require coercion or harm, disregards consent, and can capture a single conversation.

Even after its revisions, this Bill is at least as restrictive as Victoria’s law, and in important respects goes further.

It protects prayer as an “expression of belief”. But it doesn’t clearly protect praying with someone, at their request, for strength to live by their convictions. Parents are protected when they “discuss” faith and sexuality with their children, but not clearly when they guide, decide or choose a school.

And the consequences are severe. Any conversion practice directed towards a child becomes “child abuse”, even if it was consensual and caused no harm. A reasonable suspicion alone can require a church or school to notify the regulator within three business days. Organisations must take steps to eliminate conversion practices, and can be held criminally responsible for offences by their employees, contractors and volunteers.

The criminal offence needs only “injury”, including temporary harm to mental health, and negligence. It carries a maximum of 21 years’ imprisonment, more than twice Victoria’s maximum for serious injury.

A law no-one can explain should not pass. Parliament returns within weeks, and your support is putting this analysis in front of every MP before they vote.

Executive Summary

The signatories support laws that protect people from coercive, abusive and genuinely harmful practices directed towards their sexual orientation or gender identity. The Greens’ bill goes far beyond that objective. It combines an uncertain and exceptionally broad definition of “conversion practice” with serious criminal, civil, institutional and regulatory consequences.

The central problem is that the bill does not clearly distinguish harmful conversion practices from ordinary religious practice, parental guidance, counselling and support freely sought by adults. A single interaction can fall within the definition; “suppression” and “inducing” are undefined; consent is expressly disregarded; and there is no requirement for coercion or harm before conduct becomes a “conversion practice”. The exclusions for religious practice, parents and supportive care contain important protections, but leave significant uncertainty about their practical boundaries.

The principal concerns are:

• Religious practice and parental guidance remain uncertain. The bill protects “expressions of belief” and parental “discussion”, but does not clearly protect requested spiritual guidance, the practical application of religious teaching and parental decision-making. Many of the protections apply to conduct “of itself”, raising uncertainty about multiple conversations or prayers.
• The criminal threshold is too low for an indictable offence. Sections 12 and 14 require injury — including temporary harm to mental health — and negligence concerning that injury. New South Wales and South Australia require serious or substantial harm. The Tasmania Law Reform Institute (TLRI) recommended serious harm together with knowledge or recklessness. The Greens’ bill instead exposes defendants to the Criminal Code’s general maximum of 21 years’ imprisonment.
• The broad s 5 definition is carried into child-safety and child-abuse laws. Conversion practices directed towards children become reportable conduct and are incorporated into institutional child-abuse provisions without requiring the injury necessary for a criminal offence. Conduct falling within the broad s 5 definition may therefore trigger child-safety reporting, investigation and organisational liability even where no harm has been established.
• The bill imposes extensive obligations and liability on churches, schools and other organisations. Section 11 creates a positive duty to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate conversion practices. Employers and principals can be deemed to have committed offences committed by employees, contractors and volunteers, while separate civil attribution provisions and child-abuse duties create further overlapping liabilities.
• The bill creates substantial exposure to claims and legal costs. It expressly removes limitation barriers for qualifying historical childhood personal-injury claims, including claims already time-barred. Churches and other institutions may also face Tribunal compensation proceedings, civil claims, criminal proceedings, child-safety investigations and regulatory enforcement arising from the same alleged conduct.
• The Commissioner is given extensive coercive powers. Reports may be made by people with no direct involvement. The Commissioner may initiate investigations, compel documents and answers, issue compliance notices, accept enforceable undertakings and publish findings. The bill removes the privilege against self-incrimination, subject to direct-use immunity, and does not expressly provide derivative-use immunity.
• Substantive amendments to other laws are presented as consequential changes. These include a new definition of sexual orientation throughout the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 and a broader non-discrimination principle under the Health Complaints Act 1995. Their effects extend well beyond conversion practices and should be separately scrutinised.

Comparison with Other States

The Greens’ bill is NOT equivalent to that of other states. Even after the changes made following consultation, the Greens’ bill remains at least as restrictive as Victoria’s — and in important respects goes even further. On parental rights and freedom of religion, conscience and speech, it is substantially more intrusive than the more recent laws adopted in New South Wales and South Australia.

The differences are not minor drafting details. They include the breadth of the definition, the treatment of consent, the criminal threshold and penalties, child-abuse and reportable-conduct provisions, organisational liability, the positive duty, retrospective claims and the powers given to the Commissioner.

Legislation Compared

• Tasmania: Conversion Practices Prohibition Bill 2026, Bill 45, as introduced; Criminal Code Act 1924, sch 1, s 389(3).
• Victoria: Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Act 2021, version 002.
• New South Wales: Conversion Practices Ban Act 2024, No 19.
• South Australia: Conversion Practices Prohibition Act 2024; Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (including the conversion-practices amendments).

[Contact Your MP]

The bill will be voted on from 27 October.

Please pray:

• For Tasmania’s MPs — that they read the analysis carefully and refuse to pass a law whose meaning no-one can explain.
• For Tasmanian parents, pastors and churches — that they are not left exposed to complaints and investigations over ordinary care and guidance.

___

Republished with thanks to Freedom for Faith.