Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

Tasmania’s proposed conversion practices legislation raises serious questions about religious freedom, pastoral care and whether Christians can freely pray with those seeking to live according to their faith.

The Tasmanian Greens are seeking to introduce — with the enthusiastic assistance, unfortunately, of the Liberal Premier, Jeremy Rockcliff — a version of the Conversion Practices Bill which is truly Orwellian. Significantly, their anti-conversion laws are almost identical to those imposed under Sharia law, with both worldviews having the same totalitarian goal.

Just as under Sharia law, an individual is not free to convert to another religion — except if it’s to Islam — so also the Greens want to prohibit people’s freedom to change their sexual orientation or gender identity. Even if this is what someone wants to do and themselves are seeking outside assistance.

No wonder the Greens often portray Palestinian flags outside their offices right next to the one for LGBTIQ+. The ideological dissonance between the two groups seems to be totally lost on them. But it’s probably an illustration of the old proverb, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” as they both hate the nation of Israel and especially the Christian faith.

The Goodness of Conversion

What makes the “good news” of the Christian Gospel so good is the promise of salvation. The assurance that everyone who turns to Jesus in faith and repentance will not only be forgiven of their sins but also empowered to live a new life of obedience to God’s Word (See 1 John 3:1-10).

At the risk of incurring the condemnation of those who champion the vacuous mantra that ‘love is love’, this was the message which Israel Folau was famously persecuted for. However, rather than paraphrase the Scriptures as Izzy did, let me quote the pertinent passage in full:

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” — 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Obviously, the key principle being expressed here is not one of condemnation but redemption. This is why the apostle Paul writes, “And such were some of you” before immediately going on to talk about being “washed”, “sanctified” and “justified” by trusting in Jesus and repenting of one’s sinful thoughts and actions.

Unfortunately, the Greens want to deny everyone that sacred opportunity and instead abandon people to the slavery of their own passions and lusts. Just like a radical Muslim, they insist that conversion can only go in one direction… and that’s the one which identifies with themselves.

The churches in Australia have been silent regarding the wicked agenda of the Greens’ political policies for too long. Sadly, she has largely become like the church of Sardis, which Christ rebuked by saying, “You have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead.” (Rev. 3:1b)

May this not be true of us! As the Lord Jesus also says, “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches”.

The Cancer of Cultural Marxism

What has become clear is that central to the Green / Woke / LGBTIQ+ / Pro-Palestine agenda is cultural Marxism. As Dr Robert Smith has persuasively explained, this is no longer an ‘imaginary conspiracy’ but rather a ‘revolutionary reality’.

Just like cancer, Marxism is a deadly disease which can only feed off a healthy host. And wherever the Marxist virus takes root, death and destruction inevitably follow culturally. This is why it’s so important to call out and oppose what the Greens are trying to do.

Central to the Greens’ proposed legislation is an attack on the two core tenets of Christianity. Namely, the goal of ‘converting’ someone is viewed as being ineffective and following on from that, any attempt at ‘changing’ them is harmful.

Central to the teaching of both the Old and New Testaments, though, is the truth that God will give to a person a new heart and that this supernatural gift empowers them to ‘repent’ of both their sinful actions and also desires. Take, for example, the following four passages:

“But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” — Jeremiah 31:33

“And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.” — Ezekiel 36:26-27

“Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again. The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” — John 3:5-8

“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.” — 2 Corinthians 5:17-19

The final passage is especially apposite as the apostle Paul — someone who himself had a dramatic conversion to Christ — explains how being “born again” is integral to one’s reconciliation to God. In his own words, conversion means becoming nothing less than a “new creation”.

Following on from the reality of regeneration is the doctrine of repentance. From the very beginning of Jesus’ ministry on earth, John the Baptist called on people to repent (See Matt. 4:17; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:7-8; John 1:23). Significantly, just like the Pharisees and teachers of the Law, the Tasmanian Greens would have also sought to prosecute John and even crucify Christ Jesus.

Legal Complexity and Nuance

One of the most deceptive aspects of the proposed legislation is that it claims to protect freedom of speech, when in practice it is forbidden. For instance, a parent would be allowed to express their views on gender and sexuality, but they couldn’t do anything which encourages their own child to adhere to what they believe. That would be considered a “conversion practice“.

It is important to notice the deliberate ambiguity here. We are not speaking about electroshock therapy, or waterboarding, or honour killings, or something as draconian as that. Instead, a ‘conversion practice’ includes not only parental advice but also prayer, anything which is aimed at changing a person’s behaviour or desires — even if they request it!

This became more than evident at a recent Budget Estimates hearing on Monday, 31 August 2026, in New South Wales, where the Hon. Susan Carter couldn’t get a clear answer as to whether praying for someone was a “conversion practice”.

Such is the brave new world we have entered. A social order which is just waiting for activists to pounce on anyone who would dare leave their own particular tribe.

In this sense, while radical Muslims and the LGBTIQ+ lobby make for strange bedfellows, they both share a similar goal. To prevent anyone — and especially our children — from ever converting to Christ.

I’ve decided to include the full transcript below and not an edited version so that people can better appreciate how complicated and nuanced interpretation of the legislation has become.

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER: Mr D’Aeth, I think this question is for you. The Attorney General, in answer to Government questions, has certainly provoked a lot of correspondence to my email and people asking questions about the way the conversion practices law is to be understood, especially by the Anti-Discrimination Board, which has a primary role. The question basically comes down to, if a person requests prayer in the form of, “Please pray with me so that I won’t act on the same-sex attraction that I feel,” would that be a prohibited conversion practice?

CHRIS D’AETH: I can’t answer the question in the form that you’ve put it, Ms Carter. The legislation states clearly what is and what is not a conversion practice. There are a number of examples, as the Attorney mentioned this morning, that provide guidance as to things that are and are not conversion practices. I don’t think I’ve got anything further to add to that.

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER: That example is not addressed as to whether it is or it is not, and it seems to be a live issue, certainly for a number of people who are contacting me. Who can answer this question, Mr D’Aeth?

CHRIS D’AETH: Last year, I met with members — just to be clear for everyone, I’m also the Acting President of Anti-Discrimination NSW.

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER: Hence why I addressed this to you.

CHRIS D’AETH: In that capacity, I met with representatives of the Faith Affairs Council last year. We talked about a number of different scenarios, because they and their members had those questions, similar to the question that you just asked. I indicated in that meeting, with my colleagues from ADNSW, that we were not in a position to provide legal answers to their legal inquiries about the interpretation of a particular piece of legislation. The interpretation of legislation is a matter for the judiciary, in cases that are decided before the judiciary. These matters are new, as you are aware, and at this stage, there are no decided cases in relation to that particular piece of legislation. Therefore, I can’t give guidance as the acting president. I wasn’t able to give guidance to that group. But what we were able to do was make reference to those examples and to make reference to the second reading speech and the speeches of the parliamentarians in terms of the intention behind the legislation.

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER: So if a pastor receives a request to pray with the person, because they want to “avoid the same-sex attraction” that they feel, what advice do you give to that pastor about whether complying with that request would be a prohibited conversion practice or not?

CHRIS D’AETH: The advice in terms of the conversation with the representative of the Faith Affairs Council, as I say, was that if they wished to seek their own legal advice in relation to the legal interpretation of legislation, they were free, of course, to do so. But I also refer to the conversations, and the statements in relation to the second reading speech, and the various politicians that have made the point that prayer in and of itself is not a conversion practice in terms of it repeating the teachings within that particular faith doctrine.

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER: But if that prayer is directed towards assisting a person to live what they understand to be the teachings of a religious faith and avoiding a sexual orientation that that religious faith says should be avoided, is that a conversion practice?

CHRIS D’AETH: I can’t answer your question in terms of a particular hypothetical, whether this is or is not. As I say, that’s a matter for others to determine. It’s not a matter for me to determine.

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER: So, essentially, we have to wait until a pastor is brought before the Anti-Discrimination Board and decisions are made. Is that what we’re waiting for?

CHRIS D’AETH: I’m not sure I can answer that particular question either, Ms Carter. The legislation sets out what the offence is, and it’s not for me, as the Acting President of ADNSW, to give advice to faith organisations in terms of their individual practices and on a rolling basis on what could be hypotheticals or could be actual scenarios. I’m unable to see all the circumstances, and it would not be feasible for ADNSW to play that role.

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER: Other questions have been raised with me, given the explanations that are on the ADNSW website. Why is the exception of “genuinely facilitating” not explained on the Anti-Discrimination NSW website?

CHRIS D’AETH: I would have to take that on note. I’m not quite sure exactly which section you’re referring to, but I can take a look at that and answer that on notice.

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER: That would be good. So you can’t help me. Basically, it will end up being lawyers at 20 paces when and if somebody is charged with the offence of praying with somebody so that they can achieve exactly what they set out to achieve.

MARK FOLLETT: If I may, Ms Carter, just to add in relation to the provision, there is the need to prove intention. So the criminal law will kick in.

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER: But what about in the civil provisions in the ADB?

MARK FOLLETT: That’s a conciliation process.

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER: But you can’t be conciliated unless there’s a conversion practice, though, can you? So the issue is how do we define “conversion practice”.

MARK FOLLETT: Yes. “Conversion practice” is defined in the Act as the criminal offence —

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER: But doesn’t part 4 also use that with respect to —

MARK FOLLETT: — so the AD of New South Wales has the ability to conciliate a complaint.

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER: How can you have a complaint of something if it doesn’t meet the threshold of a conversion practice?

MARK FOLLETT: To Mr D’Aeth’s point, that will need to be determined. I think you’re asking what the definition—

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER: But the issue that’s been raised with me is —

MARK FOLLETT: I understand the issue.

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER: Okay. But then surely that was also a threshold for the civil provisions with respect to the Anti-Discrimination Board, because there’s nothing to conciliate if there’s no conversion practice, is there?

MARK FOLLETT: I think Mr D’Aeth stated that there will need to be judicial interpretation for them to understand what is conciliated. But the point that I just wanted to make is that—

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER: So somebody has to be charged with a criminal offence, we’re saying, first.

MARK FOLLETT: Well, no. The discrimination board will need to assess a complaint. But to determine the nuanced point that you’re asking, which is, essentially, if someone requests a faith leader to, essentially, talk to them about their gender identity or sexual preference —

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER: Pray with them so that they can avoid —

MARK FOLLETT: The point I’m trying to make is that the law makes it very clear that the offence occurs if the person, through their acts, is intending to suppress their sexual orientation or their gender identity. It makes it very clear that a person talking about their faith and what their faith may say about sexual orientation or gender identity is not if they’re not intending to suppress or change someone’s sexual orientation. The point I’m trying to make is, intention plays a significant role, which I think the board will need to determine as well.

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER: So the key issue, as I’m being told, is consensual prayer and support. If a minister is asked by a member of their congregation to pray with them so that they can avoid acting on a certain sexual orientation, would that be construed as a suppression? Would the minister’s intention in praying with that person that they can achieve what they have asked for help with be construed as an intention to effect the suppression of that person’s sexual orientation?

MARK FOLLETT: If the minister is intending to effect that result, it’s possible.

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER: Why else would you be praying with somebody if you don’t believe your prayer is going to work?

MARK FOLLETT: That’s a matter for the minister.

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER: Because ministers tend to believe prayer works.

MARK FOLLETT: I’m well outside of my understanding of that. But the law says that it’s about the intention of the person conducting the practice, whatever that might be.

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER: When you have mutual support groups operated by churches — and I think every Christian denomination offers one of these — how do we interpret the pastor or the priest who provides the support for those men and women who consensually gather together to seek to live a celibate life because they prioritise their religious faith over their sexual orientation?

MARK FOLLETT: A lot of this will be circumstantial and depending on —

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER: But it’s a live issue for people who are trying to live their faith and who are deeply troubled and, frankly, really confused by what the Attorney General said today. My inbox has exploded with people saying, “What did that mean? Are we breaking the law if we do this?”

MARK FOLLETT: I don’t find it that confusing.

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER: Well, let me ask you straight. Your understanding of the law —

MARK FOLLETT: It’s the intention in the mind of the person. So I think maybe they should ask themselves what they’re intending to achieve.

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER: If a minister doesn’t believe that his prayer will be effective — so has no intention of change but merely of support — it won’t be a conversion practice. But if the minister does believe that his prayer will be effective, and will be support and will facilitate suppression or change, then it will be a conversion practice. Is that right? So it comes down to whether you believe in the power of prayer or not.

MARK FOLLETT: I don’t know what happens in — if the minister is talking about what religious teachings say about a particular—

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER: No. If the minister is praying with somebody. If the person has read all the religious teachings, had the theoretical discussions with the minister and says, “Please help me. I feel a same-sex attraction. I do not want to act on this because I want to follow what I understand to be the teachings of Christ. Please pray with me and help me,” and the minister does that, is that a conversion practice?

MARK FOLLETT: If the minister intends to suppress or convert —

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER: Yes, because the minister believes in prayer.

MARK FOLLETT: Well, they may be at risk, if that is their intended outcome.

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER: That would appear to contradict the statement of the Premier, made at the time when it was introduced, that an individual of their own consent, seeking guidance through prayer, will not be banned.

MARK FOLLETT: Seeking guidance.

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER: Well, the guidance to — so we’re splitting hairs now, are we? So it depends exactly on the words of the prayer.

MARK FOLLETT: I think the nuance is really important. I don’t think splitting hairs is right.

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER: But you understand —

MARK FOLLETT: I do understand, but it’s about the intention in the mind of the person —

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER: — if somebody comes to you to pray with you, you’re not keeping a record of which words you’ve used.

The Hon. MARK BUTTIGIEG: Point of order: The witness is attempting to articulate a very specific answer, and the member insists on trying to portray this as some sort of boxed-in position. I ask that the witness be heard and be able to articulate their answer fully. The CHAIR: I uphold the point of order.

MARK FOLLETT: I was just saying I think it’s not splitting hairs, Ms Carter. I think the nuance is rather important. I think there is a difference between guidance and an intention to have a result. That’s my point.

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER: With respect, what I’m hearing from religious leaders is they find that distinction difficult to articulate in their pastoral practice.

MARK FOLLETT: Okay.

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER: And this is creating significant concern among faith communities —

MARK FOLLETT: I understand that it’s controversial.

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER: — who want to support believers but who also don’t want to end up in jail.

MARK FOLLETT: I understand.

___

Image courtesy of Adobe.