Women Speak Tasmania has released its 16-page analysis of the Tasmanian Greens’ Conversion Practices Prohibition Bill 2026.
Women Speak Tasmania supports protection from coercive, abusive and degrading practices directed at a person because of their sexual orientation. The history of attempts to shame, punish or forcibly alter same-sex attraction provides a legitimate basis for legal protection.
The question before Parliament, however, is whether this Bill has identified with sufficient precision the conduct it intends to prohibit before attaching criminal, regulatory and civil consequences to it.
WST considers that the central problem begins with the Bill’s definition of a “conversion practice”.
The Bill combines sexual orientation and gender identity within the same definition and prohibition. It then builds a substantial legal framework around that definition, including criminal offences, reporting and investigation powers, organisational responsibilities, vicarious liability and potentially very long-term civil liability.
What exactly is being prohibited?
Section 5 defines a conversion practice as conduct directed towards a person, with or without their consent, on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, for the purpose of changing, suppressing or eradicating that orientation or identity, or inducing the person to do so.
The Bill does provide important protections. It states that certain conduct does not, of itself, constitute a conversion practice, including public debate, religious expression and prayer, parental discussion, legitimate health practitioner advice, identity exploration and discussion of detransition, desistance or changes to transition.
But this raises a fundamental question: if the legislation must rely so heavily on exclusions to explain what is not prohibited, is the underlying prohibition sufficiently clear?
As Emeritus Professor Patrick Parkinson AM has also observed in his analysis of the Bill, the legislation does not clearly identify the problem it is seeking to prohibit or provide sufficient examples of the conduct it intends to capture.
For legislation carrying criminal consequences, WST considers that the prohibited conduct itself should be clearly identifiable.
Sexual orientation and gender identity are not interchangeable
A central concern for WST is the decision to regulate sexual orientation and gender identity together.
Sexual orientation concerns patterns of emotional, affectional and sexual attraction and relationships. Gender identity concerns a person’s internal sense of gender. They may intersect in an individual’s life, but they are not the same concept.
This distinction matters particularly when legislation may affect parents, counsellors and health practitioners working with young people experiencing gender distress or uncertainty.
The Bill itself recognises that identity exploration, desistance and detransition may occur. WST therefore considers that legitimate exploration and clinical inquiry must be protected by the core definition of the offence, rather than relying primarily on exceptions.
Clinical inquiry must not become conversion
WST’s concern is not that gender-related healthcare is necessarily harmful, nor that medical treatment should never be provided.
Our concern is that Parliament should exercise caution while Australia’s national evidence review remains underway.
The NHMRC is currently developing national clinical practice guidelines for the care of trans and gender diverse people under 18 with gender dysphoria. The evidence review is ongoing, with interim advice concerning puberty suppression expected for public consultation in late 2026 and the full guidelines still some time away.
In this context, clinicians must remain able to ask questions, consider alternative explanations for distress, discuss sexuality and relationships, assess mental health and other circumstances, and discuss the risks, benefits, limitations and uncertainties of treatment.
Protection from conversion practices must not become protection from clinical inquiry.
The purpose of clinical care should be to understand the individual patient rather than predetermine the answer.
Schedule 1 raises a separate legal issue
The Bill also proposes to change the definition of sexual orientation in Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Act 1998.
The current definition refers to heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality. Schedule 1 would replace this with a definition referring to attraction to persons of a “different gender”, the “same gender” or “more than one gender”, as well as absence of attraction.
WST considers this to be a substantive change in Tasmanian statutory language.
It also raises questions about the interaction between the proposed definition and Tasmania’s existing legal framework for registered gender. Parliament should establish exactly how these provisions are intended to operate together, including whether and how a change in registered gender could affect the statutory classification of sexual orientation.
The consequences of getting the definition wrong are serious
The Bill does not simply establish a statement of principle.
It creates a framework involving criminal offences, reporting and investigation powers, compliance notices, organisational liability and vicarious liability. The Commissioner may also initiate an investigation without a report being made.
The Bill also proposes changes concerning civil claims relating to conduct directed towards a person while they were a minor, potentially allowing claims many years after the alleged conduct occurred.
The more serious the legal consequences, the more important it is that the underlying conduct is precisely defined.
Parliament should establish the facts first
Before creating this legislative framework, WST believes Parliament should establish what is actually occurring in Tasmania.
A proper inquiry should examine:
- what alleged conversion practices are occurring in Tasmania;
- how many people have experienced them and when;
- whether allegations concern sexual orientation, gender identity or both;
- whether existing criminal, health, child-protection or anti-discrimination laws already address the conduct;
- what evidence exists of physical or psychological injury;
- whether legitimate contemporary clinical practice has been incorrectly characterised as conversion practice;
- the experiences of people who have desisted or detransitioned;
- what protections are required for people exploring or reconsidering their identity; and
- what legislative gap remains after existing laws are considered.
Given the intimate nature of these matters, WST also recommends confidential submissions and in-camera hearings where necessary to protect anonymity.
WST’s position
WST does not regard the problems with this Bill as minor drafting defects that can be fixed by adding another exemption or changing an individual penalty.
The concerns begin with the central definition and extend through the legal consequences attached to it.
WST therefore recommends that the Bill does not proceed in its present form and that Parliament first establish a proper inquiry into alleged conversion practices in Tasmania.
Any future legislation should contain clear definitions and concrete examples of the conduct Parliament intends to prohibit, while expressly protecting legitimate clinical assessment, differential diagnosis, discussion of sexuality, discussion of risks and uncertainties, identity exploration, and support for people who later desist, detransition or reconsider their identity.
Clarity must come before criminalisation
Women and men, children and adults, should be protected from coercion, abuse and degrading treatment.
That objective does not require Parliament to abandon legal clarity. Indeed, it requires it.
The first task should be to establish the facts.
The second should be to define the harm.
Only then should Parliament determine whether new criminal or civil law is required.
Read the full 16-page Women Speak Tasmania analysis of the Conversion Practices Prohibition Bill 2026 here:
Read the analysis by Emeritus Professor Patrick Parkinson AM here: