NSW
NSW "Conversion Practices" bill
The Conversion Practices Ban Bill is a genuine effort by the Government to fulfill its election promises to protect religious freedom. We thank the Government for their commitments before the election to protect religious freedom and for their good-faith consultation with faith leaders in recent months.
However, at several points the Bill remains unclear. The Bill introduces criminal sanctions for Conversion Practices. Criminal provisions should not be vague or unclear.
For a detailed description of our concerns, read the full letter from faith leaders.
The key term “suppression” is undefined
The legislation uses the vague word “suppression”, which the Attorney General defined as “‘to keep in or repress’ something or ‘put an end to activities’.” This is too broad, and could include any religious teaching, including:
- telling a young person to reserve sex until marriage;
- counselling a married, heterosexual man to not have an affair with another woman;
- encouraging a homosexual person who wants to live accordance with their religious beliefs to remain celibate;
- consensual prayer with an individual along the lines of “Please, God, help X stay faithful sexually”
In the Second Reading speech, the Attorney General said that the key term suppression, which is not defined in the Bill, has its ordinary dictionary meaning, being “‘to keep in or repress’ something or ‘put an end to activities’.” This is too broad, and could include any recommendation or exhortation to restrain behaviour, including:
- telling a young person to reserve sex until marriage;
- counselling a married, heterosexual man to not have an affair with another woman;
- encouraging a homosexual person who wants to live accordance with their religious beliefs to remain celibate;
- consensual prayer with an individual along the lines of “Please, God, help X stay faithful sexually”
Our request: Define suppress as “means attempt to eliminate”
Circular reference in religious protections
The legislation gives an exemption for “an expression that a belief or principle ought to be followed or applied.” However, that section limits those protections if the teaching was “directed to changing or suppressing an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity”.
The effect of this section is to say, “a religious teaching is not a change or suppression practice unless it is a change or suppression practice”. This makes the exemption circular and risks a lack of clarity as to how it will be interpreted by a court or tribunal.
Combined with the broad definition of suppression, this renders the exemption meaningless, giving no certainty as to whether a particular religious teaching is a “suppression practice”.
Our request: Clarify the religious exemption in 3(3)(c) so that it does not use a circular reference to “change and suppression”
Expand parental protection
The legislation only protects “parents discussing matters … with their children”. However, this excludes the broad diversity of modern family relationships – excluding guardians, grandparents with primary care responsibility, and other similar familial relationships.
Our request: Expand 4(d) to include a wider range of familial and care relationships.
Legislation only explicitly protects parental “discussion”, however parents do far more than discussion as they raise their children, including setting family rules and behavioural standards. The right of parents to raise their children consist with their moral and religious beliefs should be respected.
Our request: Clarify that 4(d) permits a parent or guardian to set rules or behavioural standards for a child under their care.
Allow individuals to get the help they request
The Premier promised that “an individual of their own consent seeking guidance through prayer will not be banned” and Labor candidates promised that legislation “must not outlaw individuals voluntarily seeking out […] advice and assistance regarding their personal circumstances.”
It is unclear whether the Bill fulfils these commitments.
The legislation provides protection to “genuinely facilitating an individual’s coping skills, development or identity exploration to meet the individual’s needs”. However, it is unclear who decides what the individual “needs”. A tribunal or court could impose its own view about what the individual really needed, regardless of what the individual asked for at the time.
When a person seeks assistance or support, the person from whom they are seeking support needs to be able to respond to the expressed needs, without having to second guess what a court might determine was a true “need” in retrospect.
Our request: Amend 3(3)(b) to protecting “meeting the individual’s needs or request.”
Authorised by Mike Southon, Freedom for Faith, 168 Chalmers St, Surry Hills NSW