Greens’ Conversion Practices Bill: What it matters and what happens next?

The Greens’ Conversion Practices Prohibition Bill has passed Tasmania’s House of Assembly. But it is not yet law, and there are serious questions that Parliament still needs to answer.

I opposed this Bill because I believe it goes far beyond preventing harmful conversion practices.

It proposes a complex new system of legal obligations, investigations and penalties that could affect parents, healthcare professionals, community organisations, religious communities and ordinary Tasmanians.

The House made several worthwhile amendments on 28 and 29 October. But the central concerns remain.

Protect children. Trust families. Defend freedom.

Watch my parliamentary speech

Why I opposed the Bill

Let me be clear about where I stand.

Nobody should be subjected to cruelty, humiliation, coercion or abusive treatment because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Historical conversion techniques involving degrading or harmful treatment were wrong.

But preventing abuse does not justify every new law proposed in its name. The question is whether the law is carefully targeted, whether people can understand what is prohibited, and whether it unnecessarily restricts freedoms that Tasmanians should be able to take for granted.

In my view, the Greens have not got that balance right. Far from it. It is a far broader bill with significant implications for Tasmanian families, clinicians, educators, businesses and faith communities.

Their Bill now runs to 91 pages, creates new offences, gives substantial powers to a new Commissioner and imposes a new legal duty on individuals and organisations to take reasonable and proportionate steps to eliminate conversion practices.

That is a very significant expansion of regulation into sensitive areas of personal and community life.

1. The definition goes much further than preventing the abuse the Greens focus on in their public statements

This is the fundamental problem.

The Bill defines a conversion practice by reference to conduct directed towards a person, based on their sexual orientation or gender identity, for the purpose of changing, suppressing or eradicating it, or inducing them to do so.

Importantly, the definition does not require coercion, lack of consent, repetition or proof of harm.

For example, difficult conversations can arise between parents and children, doctors and patients, counsellors and clients, or people who voluntarily seek religious guidance.

The Bill includes provisions intended to protect many of these activities. Supporters say these provisions provide safeguards. They even called them exemptions. My concern is that the boundaries remain deeply unclear. The provisions are heavily qualified by the words “does not, of itself, constitute a conversion practice”.

That is very different from saying the activity is exempt. Late in the debate, even Rosalie Woodruff dropped the comment “It was never an exemption.”

Wow! Ordinary Tasmanians should not have to rely on a future investigation led by a faceless bureaucrat to discover whether a conversation or action was lawful.

2. Children deserve careful medical care, not Greens’ political ideology

One of my strongest concerns relates to children and young people experiencing distress about their sex or gender.

These young people deserve compassion, careful assessment and appropriate professional support.

The independent 2024 Cass Review in England identified significant weaknesses in the evidence supporting some medical interventions for young people and recommended more holistic, individualised assessment.

That should encourage caution, not political pressure towards any predetermined outcome. A psychologist may need to explore anxiety, trauma, bullying, autism, family circumstances or other contributing issues. A doctor may need to discuss the benefits and risks of treatment, non-treatment and alternative approaches.

The Bill claims to contain protections for legitimate healthcare, including good-faith treatment and identity exploration. And no such clause for educators in schools.

The critical question is whether these protections are sufficiently clear in practice. Eminent legal people have told me it is a minefield for practitioners, and it will have a chilling effect on their willingness to provide care.

I do not want clinicians becoming reluctant to accept difficult cases or provide appropriate advice because they fear being accused of unlawful conduct. That would be a terrible outcome for vulnerable children and families.

3. Families, free speech and personal belief matter

Parents need to question, advise, disagree with or counsel their children. That is part of family life. It’s their job.

Tasmanians should also be free to seek advice consistent with their own values and beliefs – provided they are not subjected to abuse or coercion.

Similarly, Tasmanians should remain free to express religious or non-religious beliefs, participate in public debate and discuss contested questions about medical treatment and gender.

This is not simply a question about churches or religion.

It is about the proper limits of government power over conversations, personal decisions and freedom of expression.

These freedoms matter to people of every faith, and to people of no faith at all. They matter to me as your representative.

4. A complaint process should not become the punishment

The Bill would allow reports about alleged conversion practices from people who were not directly affected.

It also establishes serious regulatory powers, including investigations into serious or systemic matters, compliance measures and potential legal consequences.

Broad reporting powers make procedural fairness especially important. The concern is not only whether someone could ultimately be convicted of an offence. It is also the potential cost, distress, reputational damage and disruption caused by being drawn into an official process. Even if they are innocent – the social engineering effect is there and it will be real.

A person who has acted reasonably and/or lawfully should not face unreasonable, expensive or stressful burdens simply because an allegation has been made.

That is why I sought much stronger safeguards against vexatious allegations and why I remain concerned about the breadth of the proposed framework.

5. What did the House amendments achieve?

Some amendments were welcome but they were minimal. The House removed a proposed offence that could have made employers and organisations criminally liable for offences committed by employees or agents, including volunteers.

Other amendments narrowed certain retrospective effects, changed investigation thresholds and expanded the matters to be considered in a future review.

Changes were also made to provisions concerning sermons, pastoral care, religious education and guidance provided by guardians. But that of course could mean absolutely nothing because of the clever inclusion of the words, “of itself” referred to above. Deceptive.

But the amendments did not resolve the broad definition, the positive duty or my concerns about the reporting and investigation framework.

A review five years after commencement is no substitute for getting these fundamental issues right before the law begins. I fear that good people will be hurt. And vulnerable kids won’t get the kind of care that most of us know is right and proper.

6. Why was there no proper parliamentary inquiry?

This is a serious concern about the process.

The Greens conducted public consultation on a draft Bill, but the consultation did not come near to the work of a parliamentary inquiry.

During the House debate, Rosalie Woodruff acknowledged that approximately 2,000 email and portal submissions had not been published. Parliament and the wider public were unable to examine a substantial body of consultation material and was made to rush the debate.

The published submissions did not include the important legal criticism provided by people such as Professor Patrick Parkinson AM. The Bill was also changed from its consultation draft, and further amendments were circulated during the parliamentary debate itself – very unusual.

Independent MP George Razay proposed a parliamentary committee inquiry. I supported him. Unfortunately, the proposal was defeated by 21 votes to 11. A committee could have tested the legislation with legal experts, medical professionals, survivors of harmful practices, parents, civil liberties advocates and community organisations.

For legislation with such wide-ranging consequences, that scrutiny would have been very worthwhile.

Thank you to the MPs who opposed the Bill

I want to acknowledge the members who stood against this legislation, including those who argued for stronger safeguards and proper parliamentary scrutiny.

Send a message of thanks

If you appreciate their stand, please consider sending a short personal email to thank them. Click on any name below to open an email addressed to that MP. A few words of encouragement can mean a great deal.

Ten Liberal members opposed the Greens’ bill:

Two non-Liberal members also opposed the Bill:

I particularly acknowledge Professor Razay’s attempt to secure a parliamentary inquiry.

Those members who opposed the Bill deserve recognition for their contributions to this important debate.

What happens next?

The Bill passed the House of Assembly on 29 October 2026 and has now moved to the Legislative Council, Tasmania’s upper house. It is not yet law.

The Legislative Council can examine the legislation, seek further scrutiny, propose amendments, defer consideration or reject it. That provides another opportunity to consider whether the Bill strikes an appropriate balance between preventing harm and protecting individual freedoms.

I believe a parliamentary inquiry would be a valuable next step, particularly given the complexity of the legislation and the substantial changes made during its passage through the House.

How you can contact your Legislative Councillor

Every Tasmanian is represented by one of the 15 members of the Legislative Council.

You do not need to be a lawyer, health professional or political activist to have a view about legislation that could affect your family or community.

Find your MLC through the official Legislative Council members directory.
Write a short, personal email. Explain which aspects of the Bill concern you and why.
Ask specific questions. For example, how will the legislation distinguish abusive conduct from legitimate clinical care, family guidance or freedom of expression?
Ask whether further parliamentary scrutiny is warranted, including referral to a committee.
Request a meeting or telephone conversation if you would like to discuss your concerns directly.

Be respectful, factual and clear. Your own words are far more useful than simply copying a prepared message.

My position

I support protecting people from coercion, cruelty and abuse. But I do not believe Tasmania should adopt a deeply complicated legal framework that risks unnecessary interference with legitimate healthcare, family relationships, community life and freedom of expression.

The House amendments addressed some problems. They did not resolve the central risks.

The Legislative Council should examine this Bill thoroughly, consider an inquiry and ensure that any law is clear, proportionate and properly justified.