- Protect children.
- Trust families.
- Defend freedom.
That’s where I start when considering the Greens’ proposed law dealing with sex, gender and so-called “conversion practices”. I have serious concerns about the Greens’ proposed 88-page law to control what Tasmanians can and can’t say about sex, gender and transgender issues. The Greens are claiming how fair it is. I believe it is extreme and very risky for our community.
Tasmanian residents can sign the parliamentary petition opposing the Greens’ Conversion Practices Bill.
We’ve already seen why we need to guard against radical left-wing laws and policies dealing with young people and the sensitive subjects of sex and gender. The independent Cass Review in the UK raised serious concerns about gender services for children and young people and led to a much-needed overhaul, the Tavistock Clinic being shut down and a swift move away from the use of puberty blockers for children with gender issues.
So I am deeply concerned about the growing social and activist pressure on young people around sex and gender. Children who are questioning themselves need time, love, support and the freedom to work things through.
Parents, families and trusted adults must be free to reassure them, question them and sometimes disagree with them.
That’s one of my biggest concerns with this Bill. At a time when we should be acutely aware and careful about these issues, the Greens want an authoritarian new law that I believe entrenches sex and gender transition while prohibiting Tasmanians from counselling a young person to not do that or to help them detransition back to their genetic, biological sex.
The Greens’ bill is much more than banning what they call harmful conversion practices. For a start, there doesn’t even have to be any harm. And the definition of “conversion practices” is deliberately so broad that I believe it can and will capture ordinary conversations and even prayer.
To stop people being forced or coerced into changing their sexual orientation or gender identity could seem fair. After all, abuse and coercion should never be tolerated.
But hang on – neither should we stop loving families from talking, advising and supporting each other through difficult questions.
Regrettably, this Bill creates much more risk than the Greens are admitting.
They have made the definition of “conversion practices” so broad that it intrudes on basic freedoms Tasmanians take for granted.
Why shouldn’t people be free to ask for help that accords with their own beliefs and goals, and why shouldn’t the people they trust be free to have that conversation with them?
A person who asks a friend, counsellor, youth pastor or priest for support, advice or prayer to live according to their own moral or religious beliefs. Or a detransitioner who regrets changing their gender and wants help to return to living according to their genetic, biological sex.
Prayer. Yes, prayer. (I thought the Greens didn’t believe in prayer?) They say prayer does not “of itself” constitute a conversion practice. A pastoral prayer can absolutely meet their wide definition and, despite the pretence of protection, still be caught.
A brother or sister saying: “Don’t do it. You’re a boy, not a girl. Please don’t destroy or damage your organs.”
Churches, Synagogues, Mosques and youth organisations teaching on sex and gender in ways that can, and I believe will, fall within the Greens’ definition.
Even South Australia’s Labor Government didn’t go anywhere near this far. Their law expressly protects parents discussing and providing guidance to their children about sexual orientation, gender identity, sexual activity and religion. It also expressly protects stating religious teachings and general requirements for religious communities.
Not good enough for the Tasmanian Greens. They’ve gone much further, with an 88-page law that intrudes on family, religious and community life.
The Bill also creates a new ideological obligation – what it calls a “positive duty to eliminate conversion practices”. Think employers, churches, schools, charities and community organisations. This is social engineering to make everyone live, think and speak the way the Greens demand.
Here’s another reason I’m deeply worried: There doesn’t have to be any harm for conduct to break the law. The person involved doesn’t even have to be unhappy or make a complaint!
A person could even be helped by the conversation, be happier and never complain, yet the conversation could still be caught by the new law.
Someone else can report it, and the new Commissioner can start an investigation without any complaint at all.
Consider this: an adult or child asks for help and advice, consents to the conversation, isn’t harmed and doesn’t complain. Someone else can interfere, report and trigger a costly and traumatic legal process.
And what a process it is: A new Commissioner. Investigations. Compulsory information-gathering. Compliance notices. Tribunal proceedings. And criminal offences punishable under Tasmania’s Criminal Code, with the prospect of prison.
For the criminal offences under Part 3, the Bill expressly says: “The consent of a person towards whom a conversion practice is directed is not a defence.”
Saying “they asked me for help and guidance” does not protect a person who thought they were providing welcome assistance in good faith.
I am concerned that the Greens want people to think they are merely trying to stop old-fashioned, harmful and coercive behaviour we hear about in history such as electric shock therapy, sleep deprivation or persistent punishment.
If that were all this Bill did, we would be having a very different debate. But it isn’t.
This Bill uses the force of criminal law to impose a problematic and ideological view of sex and gender on Tasmanians – with potentially bad outcomes for young people, families, faith communities and a liberal democratic society.
Throughout my political career I’ve fought for children to be protected from abuse. I want parents trusted to parent. I want families free to talk honestly with each other. And I stand for Tasmanians being able to freely seek advice, practise their faith and make their choices.
As Liberal Member for Bass, I have a free vote on this and intend to vote against this Bill. Why? Because I love our people, I care deeply about our children and I value our nation’s freedoms. I do not want the Greens to make laws designed to control what people can think, say and do regarding sensitive matters of family life.
How could I in good conscience do any other?
I will certainly work with any MPs who can see these major defects, including MPs who want to support the Bill, to improve and amend it.
If I can, I will support amendments that protect people from genuine abuse while protecting individual choice and basic, fundamental Liberal values and freedoms.
People should be free to live and let live.
I expect the usual noisy reaction. But let’s have a real debate about what is actually written in this Bill. It won’t be possible for anyone to justify this extreme, complex, authoritarian 88-page law to any reasonable Tasmanian.
Please read the Bill, consider what it actually says, and make your own views known to your local MP.
Update – 11 October 2026
I received some questions from the Mercury newspaper in relation to the petition I agreed to sponsor on the Parliament e-petition website. Mindful that the story will only be able to convey some of my answers, here is my full response:
Why are you sponsoring the petition?
Petitions are an important way for Tasmanians to speak directly to MPs. I’m sponsoring this petition because I agree with Women Speak Tasmania that while the Greens’ 88-page Bill is being sold simply as a ban on abusive practices, it goes much further, creating sweeping new legal obligations affecting parents, families, health professionals, employers, churches and community organisations. It will change what can be said and by whom in a society that values freedom of belief and speech.
They say there are exemptions. This is tricky and misleading. These so-called protections are inserted for worthless reassurance to people with concerns. The Bill repeatedly says certain activities do not, “of themselves”, constitute conversion practices. Those two words are crucial. They mean that simply because something happens in a family conversation, a counselling session or a religious setting, it is not necessarily protected. Families, counsellors and people of faith are still left to navigate the Bill’s broad definition and the uncertainty about where freedom ends and prohibited conduct begins. That’s no way to write a law carrying serious legal consequences including jail and ruining hope for future family wellbeing.
I oppose abuse and coercion. Always have. But I will not support a law that will interfere with ordinary family conversations, voluntary counselling, pastoral care or the freedom of people to seek help consistent with their own beliefs and convictions. Children who are questioning their sex or gender need time, love, support and appropriate healthcare. Parents and trusted adults must be free to reassure them, ask questions and sometimes disagree with them. Puberty blockers and surgeries are major changes to a person’s body that have significant lifelong impacts. Therefore, great care is needed, not one-way enforcement laws.
Law Reform Institute’s recommendation and other states?
In fact, the Greens as usual have gone much further than the Tasmania Law Reform Institute ever recommended. In fact, the Institute’s own submission criticised major aspects of the Greens’ draft Bill. The Institute recommended a much narrower approach, with penalties reserved only for serious harm. The Greens instead propose criminal offences involving children without any requirement to prove injury, along with sweeping investigation powers, a new Commissioner and many legal obligations. The Institute itself warned about the risk of discouraging legitimate medical care. These are not minor differences, and the Greens cannot claim the Institute’s recommendation as an endorsement of their Bill.
Support conversion practices, and will the Bill be defeated?
I oppose abusive and coercive practices. What I won’t support is legislation that risks denying vulnerable children careful, evidence-based psychological care and the freedom to explore their feelings without pressure towards predetermined outcomes.
Emeritus Professor Patrick Parkinson AM has identified fundamental defects in this Bill and recommends its rejection. His expert analysis deserves very serious attention by every MP. I will vote against the Bill. Labor should give its MPs a conscience vote, just as Liberal MPs have. We know of Labor members with serious reservations about embedding contested gender identity ideology in law, alongside new criminal penalties. They should be free to vote according to their conscience, rather than being tied to the Greens.
How many signatures?
In less than two days, 1,051 people have signed our petition, compared with 1,239 signatures on the competing petition now in its fourth week. That’s an extraordinary response and shows the strength of public concern.
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND:
Tasmania Law Reform Institute
The Institute’s July 2026 submission to the Greens’ draft Bill identifies significant departures from its recommendations, including criminal offences without proven injury, expanded investigation powers and the absence of its proposed clinical guidelines. Its recommended approach was based primarily on amendments to existing legislation, rather than the Greens’ standalone regulatory framework at 88 pages in the final bill.
Professor Patrick Parkinson AM
I’ve attached Professor Parkinson’s September analysis of the final Bill. He identifies serious concerns about the uncertain definition of prohibited conduct, positive legal duties, employer and volunteer liability, child-abuse reporting obligations, retrospective civil claims and the potential “chilling effect” on mental health and medical professionals. He acknowledges the Bill’s exceptions for legitimate healthcare but argues they may not provide sufficient protection. His conclusion is that the House should reject the Bill at its second reading. The executive summary is very powerful. Click here to view Professor Parkinson’s analysis
Women Speak Tasmania
The petition was initiated by Dr Elizabeth Caballero, principal petitioner and representative of Women Speak Tasmania. I recommend you seek comment directly from Dr Caballero as the women who initiated this petition can explain their position further.
Thank you Michael for this considered, relevant and timely article. I hope people will read it and realise the consequence for families, young people and faith communities if this Bill gets up.
Keep up the good work!
Thank you, Michael. Many of us, including retired health professionals like myself, with over 35 yrs experience in mental health nursing and counselling, have been horrified by the way in which the gender ideology activists have pushed “gender transition” on children, teens and vulnerable adults, despite there being no good evidence that it benefits the recipients’ mental health. In fact, the latest Finnish study shows it drastically worsens psychiatric symptoms and suicidality.
There’s a mountain of evidence (and thousands of traumatised detransitioners and unhappy transitioners) demonstrating the horrendous, lifelong medical consequences of this crackpot medical and psychological craze. That the major medical and psychological professional bodies have been ideologically captured is testament to the power of the activists’ propaganda and also to the fear instilled in individual practitioners who know if they fail to sing from the gender hymn sheet, they can be ostracised, deregistered or even criminalised.
All the harm done is made even more reprehensible now that WPATH has admitted their recommendations, followed by gender clinicians worldwide, were never evidence-based as they had claimed, but instead, constitute mere “opinions”.
It’s a relief to see some brave politicians like yourself at last standing up for sanity and freedom.
The Greens remind me of Don Quixote they sally forth whilst others see signs suggesting caution.
There are many people who once charged ahead on this conversion windmill know they were wrong and they need to be applauded as admitting to being wrong takes courage and displays wisdom.
If someone decides they want to ‘change’ their sex by blockers or surgery the best way I see to settle this issue is to make it illegal to offer such services until they are 25 years old and have had at least two medical doctors and two psychiatrists consult with them. If they then decide to go ahead then so be it BUT if the doctors or psychiatrists disagree then they can’t proceed.
Dear Michael,
Thank you for your well thought out article in response to the Greens proposed Conversion practices bill to be introduced in the Tasmanian Parliament. Gather supporters to oppose this very harmful proposed legislation. and may you have success. Thank you for standing for truth and support for the families and young people and all who seek to help and counsel our precious young people.
So well said Michael. if only our Govt would look at the UK research and seek to understand the damage that has been done and is being done by conversion medication and practices. The children of Australia should not be ruled by ones who have a radical agenda to change male and female…Parents should be allowed to counsel and guide. Its all so very wrong and goes against our Constitution and Judeo Christin values, which are written to protect the family, children and all generations.
Thanks Michael for your strong position on this Bill. Seek truth, act with wisdom and declare it boldly.
Thank you Michael for standing against this rubbish bill.
We want truth and wisdom to be prevalent.
I understand and support the principle of protecting people, particularly children and vulnerable people, from coercion, abuse and genuinely harmful practices. Where harm occurs, the law should provide clear and effective protection.
My concern is that the Conversion Practices Prohibition Bill goes considerably further than that.
For me, the proper threshold for legal intervention should be harm, coercion or abuse, rather than simply the intention or purpose behind a conversation, counselling relationship, religious interaction or clinical intervention.
Once legislation seeks to regulate conduct because its purpose is considered to be changing or suppressing someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity, difficult questions arise about where legitimate counselling, parental guidance, religious belief, clinical judgement and genuine exploration begin and prohibited conversion ends.
This is particularly important where children and young people are concerned. A young person may be completely certain about their identity, or they may be questioning, exploring or uncertain. Parents, doctors and counsellors should be able to support them, ask difficult questions and explore what they are experiencing without the law effectively determining in advance what conclusion that process is permitted to reach.
The law should not need to settle the wider philosophical or scientific debate about the nature of gender identity in order to protect a child from harm.
I also find it difficult to justify the State overriding the choices of a competent adult who freely seeks counselling, religious guidance or other support, understands its purpose and gives informed consent, where there is no coercion, abuse or demonstrable harm.
People make deeply personal decisions about their sexuality, identity, beliefs and how they choose to live. Others may strongly disagree with those decisions, but disagreement alone should not be sufficient reason for government intervention.
Protect children and vulnerable people. Maintain proper professional standards. Deal firmly with coercion, exploitation, abuse and demonstrable harm. But beyond those protections, I believe government should be extremely cautious about legislating people’s personal lives.
My concern is therefore not with the objective of protecting people from harm. It is with legislation that moves beyond harm and begins regulating lawful, consensual conduct according to its purpose. In my view, that risks crossing an important boundary between legitimate protection and unnecessary State intervention in personal autonomy, family life, clinical judgement, religious freedom and freedom of expression.
Thank you Michael for your strong opposition to this outrageous bill.