[5.48 p.m.]
Ms BURNET (Clark) - Honourable Speaker, I rise to speak to this Conversion Practices Prohibition Bill.
Members interjecting.
The SPEAKER - Order. If there could be silence in the Chamber, please. The honourable Deputy Speaker has the call.
Ms BURNET - I thank the Greens and Dr Woodruff for bringing this to the House for debate. In a way, forgoing your matter of public importance time this morning, made way for what is arguably another matter of great importance. I particularly want to thank those brave people who have described to me, as to other members of this place, what it is like to be subjected to conversion practices. We have heard those numbing, devastating stories relayed earlier in the second reading contributions by the honourable Leader of the Opposition, and other members of this place in their contributions. It has been acknowledged how hard it is to tell these stories repeatedly. I would like to think that this ongoing trauma can be replaced by a sense of hope after this debate. I wonder how you cannot have empathy, cannot come closer to understanding the trauma, hurt, and despair after hearing of those legacies of conversion practices.
I will, firstly, reflect on the limitations of the previous bill introduced by the government in 2022 and hear some of the concerns reported. Equality Tasmania's Rodney Croome said:
The bill will allow conversion practices to continue both in health and religious settings under the guise of ill-informed terms like 'support', 'assist', 'care' and 'guidance'.
And another quote:
It will also allow conversion practices to continue if there is consent, despite the fact that it is impossible to consent to a treatment that doesn't work for a condition that doesn't exist. There are holes that conversion practitioners will crawl through so they can continue to inflict their cruel and discredited therapies.
So where are we now? From a 12-page government bill to the Greens' comprehensive 88 pages, the bill sets forward protections that were not afforded to those impacted by conversion practices in the government's bill. We have before us a bill that has been informed - and I say informed, by the Tasmanian Legal Reform Institute report of 2022. It's not word for word, as the honourable member for Bass, Mr Ferguson, has tried to point out, but this report was instrumental and very informative in how this bill was crafted.
The bill will reduce the impacts of conversion practices, considers the need for education - and this is fundamental in the beauty of this bill. It's been something that's highlighted in reviews in other states and from submissions. The ability to pursue religious and spiritual freedom is still afforded, and it identifies and distinguishes the medical and psychological practices for transitioning and de‑transitioning. It doesn't prevent parents, guardians, pastors, clerics, doctors, educators and psychologists from talking to those questioning or exploring their sexual and gender identity. It does not. These conversations do not fall foul of the law proposed by this bill. They are quite different from the deliberate attempt to change or coerce someone into fixing something that is broken or deviant, or that does not fit into the binary heterosexual world.
I thank those people who raised genuine concerns for themselves or on someone else's behalf, from both sides. This issue of conversion practices is one that conjures many emotions. From the LGBTQIA+ community, the personal experiences are raw for anyone subjected to these practices or who has an understanding of what LGBTQIA+ friends, family and colleagues have gone through. It is also difficult for those who support conversion practices, who see the threat of allowing this to be addressed through legislation, through criminal penalties set down in legislation. But I think this is something that we will be talking through with amendments. That's why the protections afforded to people practicing in good faith are important. For medical and health practitioners, educators, parents and members of religions who should be there for guidance and support for often young people considering matters of sexuality and identity, this bill provides those protections for opponents of the bill and those supporting the bill alike.
I've heard from many interested parties, have spoken to advocates and religious groups who harbour fears for freedom of religious practice. Members of the Muslim community I spoke to had concerns about what the proposed legislation might do if it were weaponised. I tried to allay some of their concerns, and I hope some of the conversations that the Greens have had with the Islamic community and various members of religious faiths have had some of those concerns allayed.
I've spoken to people in the medical profession who want a legal framework to stop the harm caused by quasi‑scientific practices that set about trying to make people heterosexual. It is important that these concerns are allayed about the medical chilling effect where a person may need treatment for gender dysphoria, transitioning, de‑transitioning, for example, but where the medical practitioner is concerned, any advice would be misconstrued as conversion practice by a patient. I believe the Greens, to their credit, have listened to those concerns and amended accordingly, but are still not weakening the intention of the bill for protection of some of the most vulnerable members of society who could be subjected to conversion practices.
Fundamentally, conversion practices are harmful. This bill is a statement from parliament that they are wrong and must stop. This important bill before the House is the first conscience vote that the Liberals have been afforded since I've been elected to this parliament and it is something I commend the Premier, Mr Rockliff, on. Indeed, I thank him for his thoughtful and stirring contribution and leadership on this issue. There are strongly held views from across the parliament. Whilst I feel there has been misinformation peddled in relation to this legislation, it is a matter of hearing all perspectives, as these are a reflection of broader Tasmania.
Here we are, four years from the previous attempt at introducing a bill around conversion practices by the Attorney‑General and after the 2022 independent report of the TLRI on this important law reform. Since then, we have an expanded crossbench whose views, whilst they differ, will be very important. They will be considering this very carefully, no doubt all of the amendments as well. In some ways, the time is now ripe for this debate, for a respectful reflection and ultimately the most effective legislation we can muster. It's not lost on me that this minority parliament is making a big decision with significant benefits for a minority population.
It is challenging, however, to have been provided amendments that go to the heart of the bill at the eleventh hour by the Deputy Premier. Respect for each other should extend in providing and sharing information, any explanation of amendments beyond what is said in these second reading speeches. I'm very pleased that the amendment to send this to a committee was lost. I think this unfortunately shows a lack of good faith and is disappointing.
This bill is a reminder to all of us that words matter. There are people, such as the young folks invited by the honourable member for Braddon, Craig Garland, to meet with members of the crossbench earlier in the week from Youth Network of Tasmania (YNOT), from Working It Out, and other individuals who told us of the way conversion practices make them feel, of the shame for being who they are. This debate is important for pushing back on the misinformation that has been peddled. It is important for those young lives subjected to conversion practices and it is important for those people whose lives have been damaged by conversion practices along the way.
Some things happen when they do for a reason. I acknowledge that the LGBTQIA+ community and victim/survivors have waited too long for this discussion. However, here we are. I believe we must provide protections for members of our community who have been or could be coerced into horrendous, damaging, scarring conversion practices. We owe it to the people who have taken their own lives because of these practices, and we owe it to those who have advocated for these changes.
I mentioned earlier of religious practices and faith and sometimes the way debates are put, even in the large numbers of Tasmanians who have signed petitions for or against conversion practices, we can often make a binary decision for or against conversion practices, for or against an issue, but I think the reality is much more nuanced. We know that faith is important to a lot of people, and we know that if you're gay or trans or straight, no matter what, you should have a chance to practice your faith. It should be the same for one person and the next person. It can be a fundamental part of who we are.
I think that is a good thing, that this bill could also bring an improvement for faith-based organisations and even restoring some people's faith in religious institutions, knowing that conversion practices are banned. When there is a clear understanding that faith‑based organisations, according to Tasmanian law, cannot engage in conversion practices, this sends a very strong message to all who believe in that particular gospel or creed.
I'm not so naive as to think there will still be people who cannot accept anything beyond the man/woman binary view of the world, but this parliament will send a very, very strong message that there is no place for conversion practices, to devastate lives should this pass.
To the LGBTQIA+ community: we celebrate your diversity. You are a part of who makes us stronger and who, as Tasmania, we are. If some people felt that they wouldn't be put through conversion practices then it would actually improve how they felt about their faith too. These are human rights‑based matters rather than values. All children should be able to enjoy their freedoms, preserve their identity and be free from abuse and maltreatment.
In closing, Honourable Speaker, I'd like to, again, acknowledge the work of the Greens over many, many years, who have doggedly worked on bringing this legislation to this house and whose staff I know have put in many, many hours to hone this piece of legislation. I'd also like to acknowledge former leader Cassy O'Connor, now member for Hobart, who has been one of the driving forces with wanting to put an end to conversion practices. To advocates, stakeholders, the victim/survivors, people who have advocated for so long for a better Tasmania, Rodney Croome AM, who's here in the Chamber, and other members of Equality Tasmania, Working It Out, YNOT, who advocates for the young people of our state, for those religious organisations and members of the community who want to see an end to these practices and for members of health professions, who have worked so hard to get this legislation to such a place with as many checks and balances as possible, I thank you.
I will hear the amendments and vote accordingly on these, but I commend this this bill.