Tasmania's Conversion Bill: Who's Left Exposed?

Written By Michael David

When the Tasmanian Parliament resumes on 27th October 2026, it will have to grapple with the unworkable Conversion Practices Prohibition Bill.

In our view, the bill reads more like a counselling practices ban, and it would create criminal offences for trying to change or suppress a person's gender identity.

Our major concern is that this bill could become a vehicle for medicalising and transitioning young people, many of whom may simply grow up to be lesbian, gay or bisexual. We do not believe children are born in the wrong body.

The Greens put a draft bill out for consultation in July. The tabled version grew by more than a third, from 64 to 88 pages. Most significantly, it now rewrites the definition of sexual orientation in the Anti-Discrimination Act. That change was not in the consultation draft, so it was never part of the bill the public was invited to comment on. The Greens say they adopted a definition proposed by the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner to include asexual and aromantic people.

The Anti-Discrimination Act currently provides:

sexual orientation includes –

(a) heterosexuality; and

(b) homosexuality; and

(c) bisexuality;

The Greens are now proposing to amend it to:

sexual orientation means –

(a) a person's emotional, affectional and sexual attraction to, or intimate or sexual relationship with, persons of a different gender, the same gender or more than one gender; or

(b) a person's absence of emotional, affectional or sexual attraction to, or intimate or sexual relationship with, any person of any gender;

Do you really believe Bob Brown fought for the right to be same-gender attracted?

So who does this bill leave exposed? It contains a specific exclusion for health services provided by Ahpra-registered health practitioners, such as doctors, psychologists and nurses. To rely on it, the practitioner must consider the service appropriate in good faith and comply with all relevant legal, professional and ethical requirements. The bill also says that some conduct by "health practitioners" does not, of itself, constitute a conversion practice. That covers providing information in good faith about treatment and non-treatment options, exploring identity without directing, predetermining or seeking to influence the outcome, and discussing detransition.

Counsellors, psychotherapists, social workers and school counsellors are generally not registered with Ahpra, so they cannot rely on the health-service exclusion. The newer protections refer to "health practitioners", a term the bill does not define, leaving it unclear whether these professionals are covered at all. What clearly remains for them is a general exclusion for genuinely helping a person with coping skills, development or identity exploration.

Even health practitioners are protected in exploring identity only if they don't seek to influence the outcome. Imagine a therapist exploring whether a girl's distress may be connected with same-sex attraction, autism or trauma. Under this bill, the young person doesn't even have to complain. Anyone can report the therapist to the Commissioner alleging a conversion practice has occurred. A report does not establish wrongdoing. But when someone outside the therapeutic relationship can start the process, that should concern anyone who values confidential, open-ended counselling.

We've seen concerns raised in Victoria about access to open, exploratory therapy. Tasmania should not repeat that mistake.

Read the bill, the consultation draft and the Greens' list of changes:

Michael David
Next

Have Your Say: Medicare Funding for Gender Surgery