Tasmania needs a parliamentary inquiry into conversion practices before the Government proceeds with the Greens’ Bill. Protecting people from harm matters, but good intentions do not justify poorly drafted laws or unintended consequences.
Opposing the Greens’ Conversion Practices Prohibition Bill does not mean opposing protection from harm. It means asking whether the proposed legislation is proportionate, sufficiently clear and supported by evidence.
The debate is heated, yet fundamental questions remain unanswered. What practices are actually occurring in Tasmania? How prevalent are they? What evidence supports the claims being made? And what consequences might the Bill have for people providing legitimate medical, psychological or pastoral support?
These are questions a parliamentary inquiry should examine. That scrutiny benefits everyone.
One major concern is the Bill’s treatment of sexual orientation and gender identity. These are distinct concepts involving different circumstances, yet the proposed legislation brings them together under one framework. This risks creating uncertainty about where legitimate clinical assessment and treatment end and prohibited conduct begins.
Consider a clinician working with a child experiencing gender distress. Rather than automatically affirming the child’s expressed gender identity, the practitioner may recommend a cautious, holistic approach involving active waiting, comprehensive assessment and exploration of the factors contributing to the child’s distress.
Could that approach be interpreted as an attempt to suppress the child’s identity? Could a practitioner face a complaint or investigation simply for exercising independent clinical judgement?
Queensland psychiatrist Dr Jillian Spencer’s experience illustrates the consequences clinicians can face when they take a cautious approach to gender-related distress in children.
Dr Spencer faced allegations and three years of disciplinary proceedings and litigation before Children’s Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service finally apologised.
In its statement, the hospital acknowledged:
“Health practitioners must take a clinical approach to the treatment of gender dysphoria that focuses on the best available research and the child’s best interests rather than directing a child down a pre-determined treatment pathway.”
That principle should be uncontroversial. Children deserve careful, individualised assessments, not predetermined treatment pathways.
Yet the prospect of complaints, investigations and costly legal proceedings may discourage practitioners from providing comprehensive care. Some may decide that treating children experiencing gender distress carries too much professional risk. Children and their families could ultimately be left with fewer options and less access to clinicians willing to explore different approaches.
There is another fundamental issue: the evidence.
In its 2022 report, the Tasmania Law Reform Institute (TLRI) explicitly acknowledged on page 40:
“No data about the nature and prevalence of SOGI conversion practices in Tasmania exists. No scientific study has been published on the prevalence of SOGI conversion practices in Tasmania or Australia.”
The Institute received submissions alleging conversion practices, but these did not establish their prevalence.
So where is the contemporary evidence?
Where does the widely circulated claim that one in 20 LGBTQ+ Tasmanians has experienced conversion practices come from? What period does it cover, and does it establish that these practices are occurring in Tasmania today?
These questions deserve proper answers before Parliament introduces sweeping new criminal offences and investigative powers.
If proponents of the Bill are confident in their claims, they should welcome an opportunity to have the evidence independently examined.
A parliamentary inquiry could hear from affected people, families, medical practitioners, legal experts and relevant organisations. It could establish what is happening in Tasmania, assess the evidence and consider whether the legislation is appropriately targeted.
It should examine the consequences of extending previous legislative approaches without clarifying the distinction between harmful conduct and legitimate practice.
This is particularly important as we await the National Health and Medical Research Council’s new national clinical practice guidelines for the care of children and adolescents under 18 experiencing gender dysphoria.
Tasmania should not rush into legislation without considering the implications of those forthcoming guidelines and the wider evidence base.
Protecting people from genuinely harmful practices should never come at the expense of legitimate medical care, professional independence, children’s wellbeing or fundamental freedoms.
The question is not whether harmful practices should be addressed. It is whether this Bill is the right way to do so.
The Tasmanian Government has a responsibility to get this right. Before creating sweeping new laws, Parliament must establish the facts, scrutinise the evidence and listen to those who will be affected.
Tasmania needs an inquiry before it needs another law.
By Dr Elizabeth Caballero
President, Women Speak Tasmania