Thursday, 10 December 2020

Bills

Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Ms HENNESSY:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Government amendments circulated by Mr PAKULA under standing orders.

Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (10:08): I rise today to speak on the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020. This is a very important bill. It is something that certainly has received lots of attention. I must say lots of people through my electorate and others have made contact with me, and I wanted to begin by acknowledging those people that have made that important contact, knowing that this is something that goes to the core of a lot of things and certainly attracts a lot of passion in terms of many of our beliefs.

Could I begin by saying that certainly the Liberal-Nationals support outlawing harmful LGBTIQ conversion practices that have no basis in medical science and can certainly lead to long-term trauma. We know that, and I am sure many of us have spoken to people from the LGBTIQ community that have given firsthand experience of the trauma of certainly experiences that they have had to deal with during their lives and issues in terms of them being treated equally and in terms of them being able to identify who they are and being able to lead a life like all of us should be able to lead—in a free way, in a way that certainly supports the ability for you to practise your life and live your life in the way that you wish to live.

One thing that I as well as many others in the Liberal Party have had a very strong belief in is around freedoms—around freedoms of expression, around freedoms to live your life, around freedoms of speech and around freedoms of religion and being able to practise a religion. As someone who is of the Jewish faith and who has a core centre in terms of my belief, I know that it is very important to protect that freedom. In terms of this bill, we need to look at getting the balance right when it comes to those freedoms. There has been a lot of discussion about how we ensure the freedom of the individual and the freedom of the person who wants to identify being able to identify without fear or favour. There is no place for hatred in a general sense—I say that in a very broad sense—in a whole range of different ways. In the Parliament at the moment a committee of which I am a member is looking at hate laws more generally and at how we deal with that when it comes to disability, when it comes to anti-Semitism or racism and when it comes to hatred for those from the LGBTIQ community when it comes to sexuality and identity. That is all really important, and we need to ensure that we, as a society, champion and support that.

The bill certainly does look at the issues, particularly around that of conversion. Fundamentally there is no place at all for conversion, as traumatic as we have seen it to be in the past. But the bill goes further and addresses the ramifications when it comes to conversations. I am not referring to the specifics of whether that conversation is about suppression or about conversion; I am talking about that conversation a young person who is at a questioning age is able to have with their family, with somebody of their faith or with somebody who can provide medical or psychological help. All those things are very, very important going forward. Therefore we must look at getting the balance right when it comes to ensuring that we have that conversation.

I have to say that when it comes to these issues, I have always been a very strong believer in having a conversation, because the only way we change things in our society is by having a conversation. In schools at the earliest possible age we need to have a conversation when we start to see bullying and when we start to see somebody being harassed because of their sexual preference. A lot of that is starting at very, very early ages at school and a lot of that is done because of those young people not having an understanding. Again, as somebody with a Jewish background I have seen anti-Semitism right at the heart. We have seen it happen in schools more recently, and I know the government has had reports and is looking at some of this. In those instances it is not about taking the hard line of the law to this; it should be only used as a last resort. What it is about is changing the systems, making sure people are properly educated and making sure that there is an appropriate support basis around those schools for those kids going forward. That, for me, is very, very important in ensuring that there is that conversation. But what does concern me is that the ability of a parent to work with their child and have that conversation may effectively be limited by this bill going forward in terms of what their rights and responsibilities are for that child. Now, we know there are certain circumstances where there are very, very unhealthy situations in families and we have got to respond to that accordingly. But we know, and even in the case of this government in many instances, the importance of keeping the family unit together. We know that. There are situations where, particularly with this bill, there is the opportunity for a child potentially becoming a ward of the state or a parent having legal action taken against them because a conversation may be questionable and that parent is trying to work through some of these issues with their child.

Again, in the briefings that we have had with the government certainly some of those questions were asked, and the government has responded in terms of the details of this bill around the specifics of when it refers to a child who is broken—and these are the words that are used in the bill—and needs to be fixed and that parent or that religious leader or that medical practitioner is espousing to fix the child, therefore that is where it crosses the boundary and potentially breaks the law. But a lot of this is without detail and subjective. What we might be talking about today might certainly differ tomorrow in terms of that interpretation. What concerns me is certainly not about an 18-year-old and certainly not about an adult but more about that child from the age of 10 that is questioning their sexuality and their identity, as many do and rightly so, where conversation is important, discussion is important, soul-searching is important, but medical intervention should in fact be the last resort after that conversation has taken place.

We know of many instances—we have had a number of people from a whole range of organisations who have contacted us to talk about it—of medical intervention. We know some of that medical intervention is obviously irreversible in nature and, particularly when we are talking about children, you do not get a second chance. That is why this is so important. That is why fundamentally the bill that is in front of us is so important—because these are our kids, these are our families and these are decisions that our kids and our families are making.

I absolutely get it. I absolutely get it from the aspect that we do not want to suppress somebody’s sexuality. We do not want to be in a situation where a young person is living in a situation that harms them long term from a psychological perspective. But this has been a very, very interesting period in terms of talking to a number of people about this bill—people from a wide spectrum, many people that have converted in their sexual identity and many that had initially gone down that path and decided to step back from that into where they originally had identified from. There is a whole range obviously of different emotions and feelings. What that says to me is that we need to be very careful as legislators that we do not overreach. We need to ensure that we do as legislators have the ability to protect people, have the ability to certainly ensure that there are boundaries on the basis of respect, of tolerance, of freedoms, and that those freedoms are protected at all lengths—the freedom of the parent, the freedom of the child, the freedom of the family, the freedom of the individual, the freedom to live the life you want to live. And certainly the freedom of religion, as I said, is very, very important. I have been talking to many people from different faiths and backgrounds and others, other stakeholders, through this. Even last night through Hanukkah we had rabbinical leaders here, and when I asked for their perspective on this, some of the details were lacking because they had not had the consultation about the bill and their obligations going forward. Some are dealing with these very issues right now in terms of their own people within their congregations and they do not have that information. So it is with that said that I move this amendment to the bill that is in front of us:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until urgent further consultation is undertaken with all stakeholders and inherent significant issues with the bill can be addressed and appropriate amendments made, including express clarification of the following specific concerns:

(1) the rights of children and their parents, particularly in relation to seeking assistance with gender identity and sexual orientation issues including gender dysphoria;

(2) the legal competence of children/adolescents (under 18) to provide informed consent for gender transitioning hormonal (puberty blocker) drug treatment;

(3) the rights of individuals to voluntarily seek assistance for gender identity and sexual orientation issues including via pastoral care and faith organisation counselling services;

(4) the rights of faith organisations to provide such pastoral care and counselling services to individuals who voluntarily seek assistance; and

(5) the rights of healthcare professionals to provide assistance and care to individuals who seek help for gender identity or sexual orientation issues’.

Now, I say this consultation should be conducted as a matter of urgency over the summer break and an amended bill which details and which clarifies the points above should be reintroduced back to the Legislative Assembly no later than the end of February 2021. Can I ask for the amendment to be circulated.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Carbines): The matters will be circulated to members.

Mr SOUTHWICK: This is absolutely important, and I want to say right off the cuff that this is not kicking the ball down the line. What this is doing is it is using the summer break to ensure that the government have the consultation which should have been done in the first place so that we have stakeholders properly consulted and have the ability to consult on the details that we now have before us in this bill.

I know the Minister for Health has said that this is something in terms of an election commitment, and I respect that. It was an election commitment of the Andrews Labor government to ban conversion therapy. I have no issue with that and the opposition have no issue with banning conversion therapy, but there is a lot more detail in this bill. There is a lot more detail, and we believe we owe it to every child, every man, every woman, every family—everybody in this state—to ensure that they have that consultation so we get it right.

Let us remember this is the last sitting day of Parliament for 2020. It is the last in 2020. We will go on a summer break. We will come back here in February. Let us use that time to consult and let us come back in February and make sure that we have had that opportunity. Then bring this bill before the house again and let us look at those details that need to be looked at, let us take it to the upper house and then let us ensure that we have had that proper consultation and given people the ability to have the consultation that this deserves.

I remind the government we have had similar situations in the past in the Attorney-General’s portfolio where bills have been taken through—and, again, I am not talking about top line; I am talking about detail. We have only seen this detail in the last week. We have only seen the detail of this bill in the last week—not in the last month, not in the last year; in the last week. We put questions to the government in our bill briefing last week. We got answers to those questions back yesterday afternoon. It is not enough. When we are dealing with a child having the potential to have medical intervention, we need to ensure that we get it right. It is simple. We need to ensure we get it right. We support the ban on conversion therapy; that is not the issue. The detail here is what we need to get right.

I remind the government that earlier this year we alerted the government to a bill that was rushed through in 2019, the Open Courts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2019, that was aimed at reducing the number of suppression orders issued by courts. The legislative change caused issues with the open courts act, which was chiefly aimed at reducing the number of suppression orders issued by the Victorian courts. We up until recently were the suppression capital of Australia when it came to victims of crime being able to speak. There were sexual assault victims and family violence victims not being able to speak—that were gagged. The government brought in a bill in 2019. We know in April they got it wrong. We know in April they got it wrong and it had to be brought back in here. It took from April to November to get it back in here. And we know that a number of sexual assault victims could not speak. The government redrafted the bill, again in a hurry, and we debated it in here and we found that those families of murdered victims—Jill Meagher’s mum came out on that day and said that she was gagged and could not speak about her daughter’s brutal attack and death. And what happened in that situation? We fought for amendments and the amendments came through, and it was all about consultation. And we spoke about consultation then—we spoke about the need for consultation. We had victims of crime come out publicly in the media. The Let Us Speak campaign came out in the media and spoke about being denied the opportunity to be consulted upon a bill that gagged them—a bill that gagged them from speaking. And it was only through the opposition—that moved amendments, that raised the issue and that, in line with victims of crime, ensured that those amendments happened—that the bill was changed, and that was in the 24th hour. We debated that a couple of weeks ago. Those changes were made a couple of weeks ago, and if there is any example of rushing something through in terms of detail, that should be one that all Victorians should think about today. We gagged victims of sexual assault, murder victims and rape victims. Mums and dads and families could not speak. We did that, and because we stood up, that changed.

Now what we are saying is very, very simple. This bill should be given the opportunity that it deserves because this is a big game, and what we need to do is we need to ensure that the consultation does take place. Now, again I remind the government: nothing will change. We are talking about a month at best over something in terms of years here. Nothing will change. The consultation would happen over summer. We will come back in February. This is not a never-ending opportunity. This is an opportunity to get it right. It is simple. This is not kicking the ball down the road until a time in the long-distant future. This is about bringing it back in February, having the consultation, talking to people and giving them the opportunity to express their views.

Only last week the High Court in the UK ruled on a case looking at children and children’s rights when it comes to this issue, and what it says in terms of responsibilities with the law, what it says in terms of obligations, is that these are all issues that need to be considered properly. It has got nothing to do with the overall election commitment of this government, which we have said that we support and which the federal government has supported. I remind the government that at the last federal election the now Prime Minister himself made that comment in terms of the importance of supporting this. It is very, very important to do so.

Now, there has been lots of consultation, as I said, so far from some people to us—in the last 24 to 48 hours and last week—but many of those people that have spoken to us have not had that consultation again with the government. I want to thank the Law Institute of Victoria, the Victorian Bar, Thorne Harbour Health, the Liberal Party Pride branch, the Australian Medical Association, the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, Equality Australia and Pride for their conversations.

Melinda Jones has been a very strong advocate in this area. She is the current president of the National Council of Jewish Women, a legal practitioner—a feminist human rights lawyer—a disability advocate and a Jewish educator with over 40 years of experience. She talks about a whole range of issues and a whole range of things that need to be explored going further—things like the importance of freedom of speech, the medical treatment of gender dysphoria, protecting the rights and integrity of children, the compliance of children to consent and the role of the court to intervene. Also Melinda Jones speaks about the UK’s decision in the Bell case, a lot of which confirmed, with medical treatment being provided to children, the importance of understanding the age of children and understanding the issues around consent in terms of the age of the child. She raises a whole range of really, really important points, and I think Melinda is one of those people that would really benefit the government to talk with. Melinda talks a lot about the idea of conversation and the concern around medical intervention, specifically with young people at an early age of as young as 10, who do not necessarily have a formed ability to make many of those decisions. And again, that is really important going forward.

We know in other areas the government takes quite a different view in terms of the mental capacity of a young person to make a decision. In my police and corrections shadow portfolios we are looking at the issue around spent convictions, and I know there is discussion in terms of anyone under 18 having a conviction spent as an acknowledgement of children not having the capacity—reflecting the brash behaviour of a young person that makes these decisions when they commit a crime. So that is in the area particularly of the criminal justice system. We know that certainly Jesuit Social Services is looking at raising the age of criminal responsibility, and they refer to the fact that experts maintain that children between the ages of 10 and 14 are not developmentally mature enough to be fairly tried in the criminal justice system. The report that they released in 2019 talks about how research into brain development consistently shows that young people lack the ability to make comprehensive judgements and that the prefrontal cortex of the brain, which is responsible for impulse control, planning and decision-making, is not fully developed until roughly 25 years of age.

Now, that is specifically in the area of the criminal justice system. I make reference to that, and that is looking at lifting the age of consent but it does talk about young people. I think for me the biggest issue that I have is getting this right with a young person. This is not about suppressing a young person. This is not about not giving a young person an opportunity to have a conversation. It is absolutely not about any type of conversion, which we absolutely do not accept, but what this is about is giving a family member, giving those close, the ability to have a conversation—not the ability to tell you how to live your life but to have a conversation. Kids are questioning. There is no doubt at that age kids have the right to question, as they do. Kids go through many different changes within their life, and it is important that they have that support. I think one of the things in terms of looking at some of these amendments and looking at some of the things that we need to look at over summer is the ability to know when a parent, when a religious leader, when a psychologist, when a medical practitioner—they need to know on what basis they are able to have that conversation with a young person and on what basis they are able to provide that support. That is all we are asking. We are saying that it is really important that the details are the things that count here. It is the details that count. It is about getting this right. We are dealing with young people making decisions.

We know the government’s view, and we know certainly the conversation that we have had around a lot of the stuff, particularly in the births, deaths and marriages part for people to change the identity on their birth certificates. We know we now have the ability to change that identity multiple times—on a yearly basis. We accept the fact of the government’s definition of the ability to be gender fluid, to be able to make that decision, to be able to change your identity. What we have concern about here is the potential to lock that in without the consultation and without the ability of that young person to have that conversation and most importantly to get it right. That is all—most importantly to get it right. I think we owe that to everybody. I think we owe that to the LGBTI community. I think we owe that to families. I think we owe that to everybody that has an important part to play in this bill.

This bill, as I say, has raised a lot of interest, as it should, and a lot of concern by a lot of people. I know, regardless, we have got to land somewhere that protects everybody going forward—that protects the child and that ensures that conversion therapy is banned, because that is something that none of us accept—but ultimately is something we can all live with going forward. These are important decisions that we all make. They are difficult decisions that we all make. I appreciate that for the government this is an election commitment, but I also appreciate we have had a week to look at the detail. We now need to give the community that same opportunity to look at some of this detail and to come back with their perspectives to ultimately ensure that we get the legislation right to protect everybody—to protect all children, all families, all Victorians.

Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Equality) (10:38): I rise to support this bill, which will help end practices that hurt people and deny the basic right to be recognised for who you are. It is a bill that will protect the rights of LGBTIQ Victorians from the still prevalent practices that seek to change or suppress people’s sexual orientation or gender identity. It delivers on this while ensuring the protections of faith and other communities where evidence shows, sadly, some groups on the margins of these communities still perpetuate these activities. In doing so it deliberately and specifically avoids intrusions into doctrinal or other beliefs provided that they do not hurt or harm people in the manner in the way that is set out in the bill.

There is a very high bar of serious criminal harm and damage to establish this offence, and rightly so. Mainstream faith communities have nothing to fear from this bill. Moreover, LGBTIQ Victorians should take great heart that we are delivering on our election commitment and that these antediluvian practices will be both banned and called out as harmful. It rejects the idea that lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, gender-diverse and queer Victorians are somehow broken and need to be fixed. It provides a mechanism for engagement, for change, for the conversations that have just been referred to, for recognition, I would hope for healing and for building from shared values of universal approaches to decency and compassion. Whilst I am not one to generally rely on Scripture for support, in this instance I make an exception as I think that Paul to the Galatians got a universal message of compassion right when he wrote:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Supporting this bill will provide the basis for change and constructive engagements based on rights and empowerment and the notion that we are all God’s children. This bill is in the interests of not just LGBTIQ Victorians but all Victorians who see strength in our diversity. It is a bill that should unite us. That it comes from an extensive process of reporting, review, consultation and debate over a number of years should give this house every confidence that the issues have been thoroughly canvassed and considered. Last-minute calls for a pause should be seen as an attempt to delay and to reprosecute arguments—however deeply held—that have been addressed, considered and in many cases, under a proper reading of this bill, addressed.

I want to first address the amendment that will be made to the bill in this house. The amendment is to correct a minor typographical error in clause 59. Currently the bill reads:

“gender identity means a person’s gender-related identity, which may or may not correspond with their designated sex at birth, and includes the personal sense of the body … and other expressions of gender, including dress, speech, mannerisms, names and personal preferences;”.

A ‘p’ slipped into ‘references’. The amendment seeks to alter it to the original intent of the bill: ‘personal references’. This is the way in which individuals speak about themselves and their pronouns, for example.

Change or suppression practices are also, I might say, wrongly known as ‘conversion practices’. They are specifically not referred to as ‘conversion’ in this bill or as an offence under that title because of the deep spiritual significance of that term to many faith communities. That is why the government uses ‘change or suppression’. Nobody should be in any doubt that these activities leave a trail of destruction in people’s lives. These practices often involve the subtle and repeated messaging that a person can change or suppress their sexual orientation or gender identity.

It is important for us to recognise that these practices occur in a range of settings and they can take many forms: counselling, psychotherapy and support groups. While there is a focus on fringe practices amongst some communities, survivors tell us that informal practices, such as rejection or exclusion from families and communities, can be amongst the most harmful consequences, indeed deadly. In any case, aside from being based on deeply wrong held beliefs, these practices have no evidence or basis in science. This bill has been inspired by and shaped by people who have experienced such practices firsthand. They are survivors in every sense. Given that their experiences are at the heart of the bill, it seems only right for me to focus on their experiences today.

Our government made a commitment to ban change or suppression practices following the last election and recommitted to that in February 2019 following an extensive investigation by the health complaints commissioner. She found that people subjected to these practices experience long-term psychological harm and distress. To support the development of this legislation we ran public consultations between October and December last year. This involved speaking to hundreds of people and organisations, including survivors, LGBTIQ+ support groups, advocacy organisations and all the established multifaith forums that consistently governments have consulted with. During this process many survivors shared their personal experience of change or suppression. A consultation report was produced dealing with some of these harrowing stories. To reflect on but one, a person commented:

I was ten years of age when I had my first crush on someone of the same gender. I was also heavily involved in a Christian community from a young age, until … the age of 39 … I grew up in a regional town in a community of people who had very conservative views of the Bible. I heard it preached in church, at school, Sunday school, kids club and youth groups. I listened to the adults talk. I knew to hide. By my mid teens I already understood that being queer was an abomination to God and I would need to be fixed. I believed the rhetoric of brokenness for enough years that I went to prayer therapy with a small group associated with a break away … church in NSW who thought I needed to fix my “sexual deviance” by casting off demons that had been passed down family lines. I internalised my feelings of shame to such a degree that my mental, physical and spiritual health all suffered. Suicidal ideation was an ongoing lived reality in my life alongside two failed suicide attempts and a complete breakdown which required hospitalisation. … It is a matter of life and death.

I end that quote. I would like to recognise the bravery of this survivor and many, many other survivors who have shared their stories to inform this bill and the groups who advocate for them. Their generosity will help us ensure that future generations are not subjected to the same shameful and damaging practices which told them they were broken.

This is a bill that points out the way ahead for how the system works. Survivors have helped us develop this bill in a way that I believe both denounces and prohibits change and has protections in it. The bill sets out the process and the definition of ‘change or suppression’ that requires three elements. Firstly, the conduct must be directed at an individual. This ensures that the conduct generally directed, such as sermons expressing a general statement or doctrinal belief, is not captured. Secondly, the conduct must be on the basis of the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity; and thirdly, the purpose of the person engaging in the conduct must be to change or induce another person to change or suppress their sexual orientation or gender identity.

This definition has been carefully crafted and is not designed to capture religious practices or teachings that do not meet these three criteria to prevent people seeking religious counsel. Our government recognises it is important for people of faith, including LGBTIQ people of faith, to be able to practise religion freely. While we need to ban change or suppression practices, it is essential that we protect, as we do, freedom of speech and freedom of religion. This bill strikes the right balance between protecting LGBTIQ people and respecting these crucial freedoms.

The definition of ‘change or suppression’ does not allow an adult to consent to these practices, based on feedback from survivors about how insidious and coercive these practices are. The prohibition of change or suppression practices will be supported by a scheme which has been shaped by supporters and will continue to be influenced by them when it is implemented. This will be run through the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, who will be responsible for the civil response part of the system.

This bill places criminal sanctions on people who subject others to change or suppression that causes injury or serious injury. The bill will provide for an independent review of its effectiveness two years from the ban commencing. This will allow the impact of the bill to be assessed and potential improvements to be made. The bill will commence one year after royal assent and will allow enough time for us to establish the civil scheme to support it.

This government has made great strides towards achieving equality for Victorians through LGBTIQ+ communities in recent years. There is much to still do. We also know that the strength of Victoria’s LGBTIQ+ communities lies at the heart of their organisation—their capacity to be who they are. We cannot undo the damage of change or suppression activities that has already been done for many people, but we can help stem the trauma by supporting this important bill. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr D O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (10:48:198:): When the government made its announcement ahead of the last election that it intended to outlaw conversion practices, personally I was opposed. I personally did not think it was good. I have a predisposition, I guess, that banning things is not the way to go, and if there is a situation where a person of their own free will wants to seek assistance, wants to seek guidance or wants to seek therapy, then they should be able to do so. I have had reason to change my view on that, and that has come about from a bloke I have had a fair bit to do with over the last few years. His name is Patrick McIver, and he was formerly my district council president for The Nationals. Patrick was—I believe still is—a very, very strong Christian. He led a campaign against same-sex marriage very strongly within our party and indeed within our branch. But Patrick left his church a couple of years ago, and about this time last year, from memory, he wrote his story—his experience of conversion therapy, if you want to call it that.

What Patrick’s story has told me is that if this legislation, if this decision that the government has taken, was about banning shopfronts that say, ‘Come here and pray the gay away’, and stopping that advertising and stopping those formally doing it or offering a service for money, it would be easy, it would be really easy, and I think everyone would support that we stopped that. But what Patrick’s story told me was the informal, nuanced nature of what goes on in many of these situations—and many of them, most of them, are within churches or faith groups—is not that simple.

I make a general comment, too, that when we are dealing with issues of sexuality, of people’s sense of self, there are no simple solutions or simple questions here, and I say that to people on both sides of this debate. It is not straightforward. I want to read a couple of lines from Patrick’s story, which is on his wife’s blog, kitkennedy.com, so you can search it. So I am not giving away any confidences here; this is a public story. Patrick says this:

Conversion therapy did indeed break me. But I also thought it was remaking me.

And after about 20 gruelling fortnightly sessions … I was still attracted to men.

He goes on—he was using a process or a program called Living Waters:

In hindsight, my Living Waters guidebook was nothing short of a death manifesto, a long winded oxymoron to help me find God’s love through self-hatred. An instruction manual on ways to self-harm, but wrapped up as love and delivered with kindness.

And on that point I would like to say that I am sure that most if not all of those offering these sorts of therapies do so from a position of kindness and do so in the depth of a very deep, spiritually held belief about what is right and wrong and what is simple and what is not. But I guess Patrick’s story explained to me the harm that that brings to people—the absolute harm to young men and women who are already going through a difficult process. Patrick goes on to say:

Denying my sexuality hadn’t changed it. Praying didn’t fix it. I finally allowed space for the possibility that after 13 years of trying to be fixed, I might never have been broken to begin with.

I think that is the key point. The therapies that do go on in this informal manner that seek to fix someone because they are broken are wrong from the start. Again, I respect people’s religious beliefs and I respect their teachings, and I do not believe this bill will necessarily change that. I acknowledge, too, that there will be some people who say they have been through these therapies and that it did fix them—that they have been able to pray the gay away or whatever particular situation for their circumstances. Whether that is accurate or not I do not know, but I am not here to judge people or to judge them on their experiences. What I would say, though, is that that informality, that nuance, that deeply complex situation that Patrick’s story gave me enlightenment on is the same reason why putting this ban in legislation is fraught and is difficult—because there are grey areas.

I am sure all members of Parliament have received the emails. We have all received many emails about concerns about religious freedom, about concerns about schools being able to teach a particular faith-based position and indeed about parents being able to counsel their own children about their gender or their sexuality. I understand that there is a fine line, and it is absolutely important that we get this right through this legislation. I look at clause 5(3)(b) in particular, which includes the definition of what a ‘change or suppression practice’ is—5(3)(b) includes:

carrying out a religious practice, including but not limited to, a prayer based practice, a deliverance practice or an exorcism …

Now, it is important to acknowledge that that definition is in respect of trying to change or suppress an individual—not about general preaching, not about general teaching of a particular point of faith, but about a particular individual.

So I personally do not think that there is a particular problem in suppressing religious freedom in that clause and in some of the other clauses that have been raised in the emails to me, but I do understand that there is a grey area there. And I think that is why I do support the reasoned amendment moved by the member for Caulfield—that we should pause on this. Literally we got this legislation 10 days ago. There had been, frankly, emails telling us to vote against it well before the legislation was even presented publicly, people saying that there were clauses that are an attack on religious freedom when we had not even seen the bill. Some of those you have to dismiss. But I also say to the government: if the government is genuine about its desire to end the harms associated with these practices, it needs to listen. The government is not the font of all wisdom on this or any other legislation—and I go to, I guess, a strange source. The Age editorial is not one I read a lot, and it is not one I often agree with, but in an editorial this week the Age said:

… addressing the concerns put forward by Archbishop Comensoli and other faith leaders regarding how the bill will work in practice can only strengthen the legislation in the final analysis, and avoid its use as a wedge issue between or within political parties.

It goes on to say:

Meanwhile, though it may be impossible for the government to satisfy the bill’s opponents on every point, reaching out to them now will ensure that the government is able to proceed in good faith.

I think that is actually very, very important—that the government needs to listen to the advice, to proceed in good faith, to explain to the community more broadly all the clauses in this legislation and how religious freedom is protected. There are statements in the second-reading speech that I certainly take comfort from, noting that the second-reading speech does have some legal weight, but addressing some of those issues that people have raised with me and, I am sure, with all members of Parliament would be the right thing to do.

It is incumbent on the government to get that right, and in terms of timing it does not change anything. This bill will pass the Assembly this week, but it will not get to the Council until next year anyway, so it will not become law any faster or slower if the government accepts this reasoned amendment. I think the important thing is to get it right. We have got to get it right because religious freedom is critical. Patrick’s wife, Clare, wrote an epilogue to his story just yesterday I believe, and in it she says:

We must realise that religious freedom is not the freedom to abuse.

And I agree with that too. But we must get this balance right. It is not the freedom to abuse, but also we cannot abuse religious freedom. And we have to get this right for Patrick’s sake, for all the other Patricks out there and for the many Patricks to come. And so I urge the government to support our reasoned amendment and make sure we do get this legislation right.

Ms CONNOLLY (Tarneit) (10:58): I too rise to speak on the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020. This bill is all about putting a stop to outdated, ineffective and, in some cases, truly barbaric practices that cause a lifetime of trauma and harm to LGBT Victorians. And I do want to start by saying to all LGBT Victorians: you are valid, you are loved and you cannot be fixed, because you were never broken; you are not broken to start with, and do not let anyone else tell you otherwise.

Now, it goes without saying that modern conversion and suppression practices today do not resemble the downright medieval practices of those in the 1950s. These days they are a lot more subtle but unfortunately no less damaging. They take the form of spiritual counselling and healing for sexual brokenness and are almost always hidden in the guise of religious and pastoral services. Now, in the extreme cases we know of it has also involved more abusive acts like beatings, electrocution and even rape, and I think it is obvious to all of us here today just how mentally scarring these practices really are and can be. It is definitely something that I have never had to worry about happening to me, but that does not mean that I do not know that these practices do not work; we all know they do not work. And it is not just us. Every credible medical authority in Australia, from the Australian Psychological Society to the Australian Medical Association, and even the United Nations, has condemned conversion therapy as lacking medical and scientific validity.

It is estimated that up to 10 per cent of LGBT Australians are vulnerable to conversion and suppression practices, and the long-term impacts, we know, are far worse. Just last year 16 per cent of LGBTI youth between the ages of 16 and 27 reported that they had attempted suicide. For bisexuals aged 18 and up, that number jumps up to 27.8 per cent. On top of this nearly 40 per cent of LGBT people aged 16 and over were diagnosed and treated for mental disorders in the last three years. These statistics are far, far too high, and these practices only add to these statistics. We need these numbers to come down, and we need to do that by making sure that LGBT Victorians have the right to feel safe, they have the right to feel valid and they most certainly have the right to feel loved, no matter who they are, where they go to school or, most importantly, what their family looks like.

I have had a lot of emails sent to me over the last week, and they have all raised very similar points. There are concerns that this bill aims to destroy freedom of religion in the family and that it stifles free speech, and there are concerns over gender identity and transgenderism. I thought it was appropriate to take this opportunity today when speaking on this bill to bust some of these myths, essentially, surrounding what this bill is truly about. It is important to start off by clarifying just exactly what conversion and suppression practices are defined as. The bill sets out three requirements. The conduct must be directed towards an individual, the conduct must be on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity and the conduct must have the intention of changing their sexuality. What that means is that people can only engage in conversion practices if they single out an individual person on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity and they seek to change them.

One of the biggest complaints that I have heard about this bill is that it is an infringement on religious freedom. You know, for the life of me I cannot see why banning conversion and suppression practices would necessarily stop someone from going to their local church or from holding their beliefs or their values. I think we need to make this clear: freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. Just as you have the right to practise your faith, others also have the right to not practise your faith. That is why I think it is a right on the part of LGBT Victorians to be kept safe from religious practices that are designed specifically to fill them with feelings of shame and feelings of disgust over who they are. We know that is not okay. Your faith does not give you the right to determine that someone else’s sexual orientation or gender identity is a problem that you can solve. Having interacted with a number of religious communities in my electorate, including Christians, Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus, I can assure the house that they have enough positive aspects of their faith to pray on and act out without engaging in conversion practices. But more to the point, the bill does not actually make it illegal for you to follow your faith’s belief on sexuality, however much we may disagree. It does not ban statements, sermons or religious counselling in which one’s views on sexuality are stated.

Some of the concerns I have also heard are that this bill seeks to stop religious schools from teaching and practising religion, and that could not be any further from the truth, because this bill does not stop religious education and it does not stop schools from teaching the values and teaching the beliefs of their religion. But what it does do is that it stops schools from promoting, from encouraging or forcing a child to undergo practices that seek to change their sexual orientation and gender identity, such as sending them to the school chaplain for religious counselling. I think this change is appropriate. I say this, and I know this, because my children go to a local Catholic primary school, and let me tell you I do not know any teacher in that school that would subject a child to those kinds of practices. Because as much as our local religious schools are religious institutions—we know that—they are schools first, and like any other school, they owe their kids a duty of care. They have a duty to keep them safe, and that includes LGBT Victorian students. Let us be clear. Most LGBT kids do not choose which school they go to, especially at such a young age. They should not be punished for who they are because the school happens to disagree, and that is exactly what this bill makes clear.

Now, another key issue I see raised with the bill revolves around gender identity and transgenderism. I most certainly accept this is something that not everyone in our local community fully understands. It is complicated. But I do think there is a lot of misinformation out there about transitioning treatments and gender dysphoria. Misinformation about puberty blockers, hormone therapy and gender reassignment surgery that seems to have been circulated in relation to this bill all fail to consider that existing laws are in place right now here in Australia relating to gender dysphoria and these treatment procedures. So for starters, no child will be subject to gender reassignment therapy because it is an adult surgery, and you need to be 18 to have that. You cannot begin to undergo hormone therapy until you are at least 15 or 16 years of age and then only after consulting with a paediatric endocrinologist, a psychiatrist and another mental health professional—and even then you need to go to court to get court approval and test for competency before you can go ahead with transitioning. This is not something that you just decide to do and go ahead and do overnight.

Nothing in this bill changes those procedures. I want to assure people out there in my community who worry about gender identity and transitioning procedures: you do not have to worry. The laws that govern these procedures are not a question of facts or feelings. They are based on medical guidelines and surgical standards. They are matters of psychiatry as much as biology. But what this bill does make clear is this: what children with gender dysphoria need is to speak to trained psychiatrists and speak to trained medical experts who want to understand what they are feeling and what they are going through, rather than go to counselling to change it.

Now, this bill certainly ensures that LGBT Victorians are given the protections they deserve from ineffective and harmful practices predicated on the belief that who they are is wrong. So by making conversion and suppression practices an offence, our government is sending a clear and powerful message that LGBT people here in Victoria are valid and equal. And that is why I am proud to commend this bill to the house.

Ms STALEY (Ripon) (11:08): I rise to speak on the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020. Gay conversion, as it is understood in common usage, refers to discredited practices, including by psychiatrists and by priests, to attempt to convert a person from same-sex attraction to heterosexuality. As the same-sex attraction is an innate and normal sexual orientation, such attempts were not only often barbaric, they were fundamentally useless. To put beyond doubt that Victoria rejects any attempt to change that which is not broken is to be applauded. I support that intent of the bill.

I now turn to the gender identity aspects of the bill. I stand with Ryland and I stand with Keira Belle. For several years I have taken a strong interest in the growing marginalisation of women’s and girls’ rights as subservient to gender identity activists. Let there be no doubt: for decades I have worked and continue to work for the emancipation of the female state. I support female adults—women—and female children—girls—participating fully, authentically and without fear of violence in all spheres of life. This bill is bad for women and particularly bad for girls. I look at the bill and what I see is the erasure of lesbianism as a protected ground in the Equal Opportunity Act. Under this bill, any mention of lesbianism is relegated to a footnote in that act. Instead, we are offered an amorphous blob of gender identity. Memo to the woke: whom a person is attracted to sexually is not the same as her gender. I look at the bill and what I see is the affirmation approach put forward as the only valid approach for trans people. Affirmation, as practised by the Royal Children’s Hospital (RCH) and at the Tavistock clinic in the UK on girls is too often a conveyor belt to puberty blockers, hormones and then later double mastectomy and hysterectomy.

I believe we will look back at this period of affirmation supremacy with regret. ‘What were they thinking?’, we will say to doctors who caused infertility, mutilation and lifelong drug dependency. And a parliament in the future will say sorry and will pay compensation. My concern is for all trans boys. What I see is a growing cohort of girls identifying as trans boys rather than as lesbians. I see a growing cohort—the RCH data suggests as high as 45 per cent—of girls on the autism spectrum identifying as trans boys. I see a cohort of girls with depression, anxiety and gender dysphoria having their dysphoria affirmed before or instead of treating their depression and anxiety.

The British High Court in Bell v. Tavistock characterised the treatment regime of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones as experimental, with very limited evidence as to its efficacy. The judgement noted that the research put forward by Tavistock in support of its claims found the treatments delivered:

… no overall improvement in mood or psychological wellbeing using standardized psychological measures.

The judgement was also scathing of the lack of curiosity and data collected by Tavistock. Bell v. Tavistock is seminal and directly related to this bill. The court was asked to determine a very narrow question: can a child or young person under 16 consent to puberty blockers for gender dysphoria? The court found one cannot. No child under 16, no matter how genuinely distressed at his or her biology, can understand what the lifelong consequences of changing identity and potentially giving up fertility and orgasm means. The Tavistock clinic has now suspended all puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for children under 16.

This bill in clause 5(1)(b) outlaws a change or suppression practice for the purpose of:

(i) changing or suppressing the sexual orientation or gender identity of the person; or

(ii) inducing the person to change or suppress their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Clause 5(2) makes it clear that it is not a change or suppression practice if it:

(a) is supportive of or affirms a person’s gender identity … for the purposes of—

(i) assisting a person who is undergoing a gender transition; or

(ii) assisting a person who is considering undergoing a gender transition …

For the avoidance of doubt, let us be very clear here. Changing or suppressing gender identity means not assisting a gender transition when a female child, a girl, expresses gender dysphoria. In this bill it is a suppression or conversion practice to not affirm the child as a trans boy. In Queensland a 15-year-old female child who identifies as a trans boy was removed from his parents by police and put in state care because his parents will not consent to testosterone treatment. Under Bell v. Tavistock, the child could not be found competent to receive those hormones. The bill before us would make it a suppression practice for the parents to refuse consent.

In September this year the RCH had 538 patients, of whom 68 per cent were female, yet historically transgenderism was predominantly male to female. Something has changed. The trans activists conveniently attribute the change to more girls realising they are trans boys, yet it is mainly trans women—that is, males—making that argument because it is mainly trans women who are active in the public debates. Those activists want us to go straight to self-affirmation rather than interrogating what is behind the onset of dysphoria. I know to even make that statement will unleash a torrent of abuse that I am transphobic because I have expressed concern about the increase in female children self-identifying as trans boys.

Dr Lawford-Smith unravels this argument as adopting one from the gay rights movement that there was no real explanation for why it should be objectionable that there are more gay people unless there is something wrong with being gay. As Dr Lawford-Smith explores, and I summarise and I hope I do her work justice, because there is no harm at all to affirming as gay people who are not gay—more gays, fewer gays; it does not matter—by contrast, affirming trans people is not as straightforward, particularly for children and young people. To begin with, if it is only affirming their trans identity instead of underlying issues, where is the support for autism, sexual abuse history, mental health problems or same-sex attraction? Secondly, being gay does not result in puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, double mastectomies and hysterectomies.

Feminists need to interrogate why there is an increase in girls feeling such intense dysphoria and taking such drastic measures to get away from being female. In an age where we have gay marriage and lesbian role models in politics, sport, business and the arts, why do we have girls concluding, if they are same-sex attracted, that it is not that at all and they must be trans? How have we let down girls that the pleasures and joy of being female, whether straight or gay, are not seen? How has society allowed womanhood to be so defined as feminine that butch women, non-gender-conforming women, do not think they are women at all?

I conclude by speaking in support of all females, particularly lesbians coming into puberty. You are valued, you are normal and you are beautiful. Whether you adopt feminine norms or masculine norms, I and the broader female sisterhood embrace you.

Ms RICHARDS (Cranbourne) (11:16): I rise today to support the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020, which outlaws a cruel and indecent practice known as conversion therapy, and I do it with great pride that this might be the last bill I speak on for 2020. I think that this is a bill that really matters in so many ways to the community that I represent. Although it is called ‘therapy’, that gives it far too much credibility, because these practices have no basis in medicine or any evidence for that matter. I thank the Attorney-General, her staff, the people of the department and the people who have been fighting for a long time for this important change. I also thank the Minister for Health, who is at the table here today, for the ongoing and many years of work to make sure that people can freely practise their sexuality and gender without guilt, shame and trauma.

I noted this week that there was commentary from Melbourne’s Archbishop Comensoli on this bill. I was looking forward to a thoughtful contribution from this very senior member of the Catholic Church, a church to which I belong. I was looking for an assurance that this is very specific legislation, that the conduct must be directed at an individual and that that ensures that conduct such as sermons and expressing general statements is not captured. I admit that I had arrogantly entered into discussions with Catholics in my life that this was not a practice in mainstream churches and certainly not in any Catholic church I had attended. I thought it was a bit of a fringe issue. But I paused and I reflected on a story from my childhood. It was the mid-1980s and I was at mass with my family. My father, who was chair of the parish council, was on duty that week as a lector. He was reading at mass, and he needed to read from the Bible and he also needed to be involved in the recession out. At some point near the end of mass a parish priest during what would normally be the discussion about the casserole bank and the location of the parish picnic started on some sort of presentation that turned his face red like a beetroot. I cannot remember the content, but I remember that he was enraged at some new change and some new journey towards equality.

To my absolute teenage mortification my father made a huge scene and stormed out. He said that there was no place for that sort of ugly tone in a place of grace. He also left them without a person to perform a really important ritual. I was mortified. I do not remember my father speaking much about equality in the terms that we use today—his language might not have been particularly evolved—but he saw a mean-spirited attack on people and he thought that they were vulnerable. His language was probably the sort of language that was akin to what was used about racism. But I regret that sometimes I am not my father’s daughter. In 2017 I was on duty as a lector in my own parish when a woman was invited to the altar to discuss the protection of marriage in light of the awful plebiscite being inflicted on this country. She was a woman I knew a little bit, but I was not alert to what was to come. Most weeks there was a presentation of some sort, again about fetes and raffles, but what came next was terrible, ostensibly in support of traditional family values. To my great shame I sat there.

I watched as grandmothers who were responsible for church flowers stormed out. Hell hath no fury like a grandmother in protective rage at attacks on her son and grandson. I sat and watched while others walked out—teachers at Catholic schools, many old people. I became aware though of the teenagers around me and realised none of them had walked out; none of them had a choice. And to my great shame, nor did I. The reason I did not walk out was because I felt that I had a job to do. I had to be part of the recession. I was not my father’s daughter after all.

I questioned why I had sat there. I was shaking with anger, and I wrote a long email to the priest, a wonderful man I considered a good friend. He is not Father Bob, but his theology probably lines up with what a lot of us in this place might consider to be theology we see commonly distributed by Father Bob. I sent off that email a couple of days later after sitting on it, and my phone rang immediately. We had a great conversation and I reminded this friend that there were many families there who did not accept their children’s sexuality. I told him about the shame that I felt in sitting there, and then we spoke about the consequences, the dire consequences: that many of the young people at mass had no choice and, more than that, that their identity is wrapped up in their faith. He told me he had not thought about it in those terms; he would never allow that woman to speak at mass again.

Today I am contributing to this bill as my father’s daughter, a man who embarrassed his teenage daughter but stood up. He was also a man who loved Latin. I will not do him credit—he loved Rerum Novarum, a well-known papal encyclical on the rights and duties of capital and labour, and he saw it as a matter of great pride. He was a moderate man, but it was a matter of great pride as both a Catholic and a Labor man whenever there was legislation that was changed that absolutely made a difference to people’s lives. It talks about, in slightly dense language, misery and wretchedness being inflicted on people.

When the Andrews Labor government announced workplace manslaughter legislation, I felt great pride too as my father’s daughter. I looked to the Archbishop of Melbourne’s Twitter account. I was quite enthusiastic to see what his response would be, but there was nothing there. So when we passed wage theft laws, I looked to the Archbishop of Melbourne’s—Archbishop Comensoli’s—Twitter page to see his response, and there was nothing there. I looked to the cathedral where my younger daughter was confirmed, where my daughter had been an altar server, and I saw nothing. When there were statements recently from the Vatican, as recently as 2015, about the care for the common home—I am going to butcher the Latin here: Laudato sí—about the environmental degradation and global warming, and when this Labor government made incredible changes to the emissions that are going to be inflicted on people in this state, I looked to see what Archbishop Comensoli would say, but there was nothing. When we made a commitment to an extraordinary and unprecedented resource allocation to social housing, I looked to the cathedral to see where the support was from Archbishop Comensoli—the support that aligned with Catholic social teaching: preferential option for the poor. Again, I saw nothing. So I ask the Archbishop: when all of these pressing issues of social urgency are on us, why has he waded into the public domain so enthusiastically to defend this abhorrent practice, to defend this practice that—while I did not like the sermons that were applied in the churches that I went to, both in 2017 and the one that I heard when I was a child—this legislation does not capture? Why, as a Catholic, am I watching the most senior Catholic in Victoria rally the faithful to this cause?

My grandfather had spent many years training to be a Jesuit before fortunately leaving to marry my grandmother, so I have a bit of an affection for Pope Francis. I did go back and check what he had to say:

Homosexual people have a right to be in a family.

They are children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out or made miserable …

Indeed he has said, ‘Who am I to judge’ as one of the very early statements he made when asked about gay priests, and of course recently on camera he said people deserve respect—LGBT people deserve respect, including civil recognition of their relationships. It turns out that the Pope made those comments to a Mexican network, Televisa.

I also have an affection for another Jesuit, Father James Martin, the editor of America magazine and a person who has written a book called Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community Can Enter into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion, and Sensitivity. He has made some really interesting statements in the last couple of days, and I really want to acknowledge the good work of so many people looking to bring peace and harmony to what has been an incredibly difficult and hurtful period. He asked:

Why are so many of the most vociferous moral watchdogs revealed as less than moral in private?

This was only a couple of days ago. He talked about people who had interior feelings of shame, hatred and confusion about their sexuality.

So with regard to Archbishop Comensoli, I look forward to hearing from him as he enters into a different type of discourse—a different type of discourse that encourages us to look to the best way to support those members of our community who need the support. In the last couple of days I have been speaking to Catholics for Equality and to Acceptance Melbourne. They have been absolutely enthusiastic about their support, but they have also talked about how difficult it is to find a place where they can practise their faith.

This is about safety. I had a call from Reverend Ray McCluskey, the local Uniting Church minister yesterday, a lovely message. He had joined with us when we celebrated birth certificate reform and has always been at the forefront of this discussion. I thank him for the solidarity. I thank so many people who have suffered through an abhorrent practice for their solidarity, for sticking with their faith in what has been an incredibly difficult journey. Be assured, this is the right thing to do. The detail is there. This will not undermine practice. It will do what is right.

Mr ANGUS (Forest Hill) (11:26): I rise today to speak on the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020. I want to say from the outset that I absolutely do not support the historic so-called gay conversion practices that have occurred in the past. Many of these practices occurred in the medical setting and not the faith setting. Most occurred many years ago, and I do not support them. I also note that in my view this bill goes way too far and restricts various important freedoms. Freedoms that are cornerstones of our society are overridden by this bill. Freedoms such as the freedom of speech and freedom of religion, as well as parental rights and responsibilities, are quashed by this bill. Sadly for Victorians, this is now a common approach for this extreme Labor government and is a complete overreach.

The front-page headline of the SundayAge on 6 December summed it up well when it said, ‘Conversion laws “threat” to religious freedoms’. I totally agree with that headline. Consequently I support the reasoned amendment as proposed by the member for Caulfield, which states the following:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until urgent further consultation is undertaken with all stakeholders and inherent significant issues with the bill can be addressed and appropriate amendments made, including express clarification of the following specific concerns:

(1) the rights of children and their parents, particularly in relation to seeking assistance with gender identity and sexual orientation issues including gender dysphoria;

(2) the legal competence of children/adolescents (under 18) to provide informed consent for gender transitioning hormonal (puberty blocker) drug treatment;

(3) the rights of individuals to voluntarily seek assistance for gender identity and sexual orientation issues including via pastoral care and faith organisation counselling services;

(4) the rights of faith organisations to provide such pastoral care and counselling services to individuals who voluntarily seek assistance; and

(5) the rights of healthcare professionals to provide assistance and care to individuals who seek help for gender identity or sexual orientation issues’.

This bill removes support for LGBTI people seeking it. Clause 5(1) states that:

In this Act, a change or suppression practice means a practice or conduct directed towards a person, whether with or without the person’s consent …

This means that a person who is voluntarily seeking assistance is unable to receive it without criminalising those offering support. In my view this is a gross breach of an individual’s freedom to seek advice or assistance and places the person asked for advice or counsel in an invidious position. Do they speak when asked to do so and risk being jailed, or do they remain silent and ignore the request of the person asking? It is worth noting that this bill covers any person, not just people of faith, medical professionals and counsellors. The breach of various human rights appears clear, including the right of freedom of religion, especially when considered in light of clause 5(3)(b) of the bill.

In researching the issues in relation to this bill I have met with a number of people who have formerly identified as being LGBTI. I listened to the stories of these people, who each said words to the effect that they got to a stage in their life journey where they wanted to speak to somebody about these very personal and often complex issues, and they were able to do so. They found it very helpful and positive for them to have this input. This bill will remove that ability for any LGBTI person to receive that input even when they request it. I am also familiar with an organisation called the Coalition Against Unsafe Sexual Education (CAUSE), who conducted a survey of 70, and I quote, ‘self-proclaimed former LGBT participants who, at one time, lived with same-sex attractions or gender dysphoria’. This survey found the following in relation to the respondents, and I quote:

1. They changed their sexual orientation and gender identity.

2. They did so by extensively accessing professional and/or religious counselling, which today is placed in the category of “conversion therapy”.

3. The majority reported that their change is long lasting, indicating the change is permanent.

4. The data reveals that the change in participants’ lives and/or the counselling they received is associated with extensive improvements in the quality of their lives.

5. It should be well noted that not one participant made any mention of the claimed abuses in the La Trobe Preventing Harm, Promoting Justice paper. However, it should be well noted that a number claimed harm from counsellors who discounted their wishes and even berated them for wanting to change their lives.

Critically this study also found, and I quote, that:

75% of participants had a notable average baseline reduction in suicidal ideation of 40%.

I think a study like this provides some very important perspective on the potential consequences of this bill, and I thank Mr Ed Sparrius and his colleagues from CAUSE and the participants for their work on this very informative survey.

I note that the bill is actually based on a report entitled Preventing Harm, Promoting Justice, which looked at the experiences of 15 LGBT people and was referred to at least six times by the minister in her statement of compatibility. The minister’s statement outlines various human rights and how this bill breaches these human rights and then concludes by saying that everything is fine—an absolutely extraordinary and illogical conclusion. I would encourage the minister to do some more work on this bill and consult more widely.

Additionally, the government’s approach to this whole area appears completely inconsistent and confused. The minister in her second-reading speech said that change or suppression practices:

… are practices which have no basis in medicine; there is no evidence that sexual orientation or gender identity can be changed or suppressed.

However, her government legislated last year in the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Amendment Bill 2019 that an individual can change their gender on their birth certificate once every year. This is inconsistent with the provisions in the bill that criminalise conduct that induces a person to change gender identity. Similarly, the Labor government’s radical Safe Schools program teaches that gender is fluid, yet in this bill it indicates that a person’s gender cannot be changed. The government needs to explain these inconsistencies to all Victorians.

The Coalition of Activist Lesbians Australia Inc. wrote to me and noted its great concern with the bill and stated:

The proposed Bill is confused and internally inconsistent …

And further:

We are extremely concerned about the proposed Bill …

I share these sentiments. This bill also potentially criminalises parents who, for example, are seeking to guide their children away from radical gender changes, including the use of hormone replacement therapy. I know this is a real issue for many families, and to think that loving parents could face hefty fines, jail or even having their child removed by the state for trying to do the best for their children is unthinkable.

I have contacted numerous faith leaders both Christian and non-Christian about this bill, including many members of Victoria’s multicultural community. Most of them expressed great surprise about its introduction, with many saying they were unaware of it and had not been consulted about it. Having subsequently looked at the bill and its implications, each faith leader was very concerned with the direct, adverse impact it would have on their ongoing work with both their faith community and the broader community. I urged them to contact the Premier, the Attorney-General and other MPs to express their concerns. I have been contacted by countless people, including experts in various fields such as psychology, education, law and religion, all expressing extremely serious concerns about the bill. I share their concerns and thank them for their input.

I have a range of other concerns about this bill, including that some of the sanctions include up to 10 years imprisonment and fines up to $100 000, in clause 10. The increased role of the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, as noted in part 3 of the bill, is extraordinary. I note that one of its roles will be to have a so-called educative function, as noted in clauses 18 and 20. Clause 40 notes that informants to the commission can be anonymous, which is hardly an ideal situation in my opinion. I have a range of other concerns, but I will not have time to go into them. I note that many issues were raised at the government briefing that we had recently. There were many questions and few answers, which I think is an unsatisfactory situation.

In conclusion, I have grave concerns regarding the bill, and in my view and the views of the hundreds of Victorians who have contacted me, the bill breaches several fundamental human rights and is deeply flawed in many areas. I support the reasoned amendment put forward by the member for Caulfield and urge the government to withdraw the bill immediately and then for the government to consult more widely, especially amongst the faith communities and the multicultural communities, and to bring the bill back in a more suitable form.

Ms KILKENNY (Carrum) (11:35): I am so very proud to rise to speak in support of the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020. Can I start my contribution by acknowledging the harm and hurt that has been caused to so many Victorians and to so many Victorian survivors of conversion practices. I want to thank all the people who have advocated for these changes. These are changes that should have been introduced years ago.

There are many things that young people need, but breaking them and making them feel broken because of their sexual or gender identity is not one of them. In fact it is inexcusable. Our young people deserve acceptance, support and love. To the young people who question their identities, suffer from bullying or struggle with what it means to come out, today is your day. Your voices have been heard. Today we will vote on a bill that will seek to end some of the intolerance, the oppression and the bullying. I call on all members to show leadership on this issue, do the right thing and support this bill.

Back on 24 May 2016 the Premier led the 58th Parliament in making a state apology for past laws that criminalised homosexual acts. Victoria became the first Australian state to do so. The apology was supported by all members of this house, including the then Leader of the Opposition, who said:

… we now as a Parliament apologise to the victims of policies of intolerance and repression that resulted in outcasting, depression and, sadly, even suicide.

To the member for Caulfield and to others who are trying to divert or pause this bill, please show some leadership and reassure your respective communities. This legislation does not stop parents having a conversation about sexual identity with their children. This legislation does not restrict people practising their religion. Things like giving a sermon, teaching a religious studies class or even a faith leader counselling a person on what their faith teaches about sexuality would not be a change or suppression practice under this bill. What this legislation will do is this: this legislation will prohibit harmful practices that attempt to change or suppress someone’s sexuality or gender identity. These practices are opposed by the United Nations, the Australian Psychological Society, the Australian Medical Association and many numerous other professional health and human rights bodies in Australia and across the world. There is nothing confusing about this. No further consultation is needed; no pause is needed.

Back in February 2019 at the year’s Pride March, the Premier made a promise to prohibit harmful conversion practices that target LGBTI people. This promise followed recommendations from the health complaints commissioner inquiry into conversion therapy in 2018. The report prepared by the commissioner found that not only were these suppression and change practices occurring in Victoria but they were also happening outside the medical field. These practices seek to change or suppress an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. They are sometimes referred to as gay conversion or conversion therapy. These practices are not therapy. These practices have no basis in medicine or scientific evidence, and they are based on an ideology—an ideology, according to one survivor, that teaches people that to be LGBTQI is to be broken, damaged, sick, perverted or even possessed. They are based on an ideology that manifests in beliefs and values that include this:

Through consistent long-term Christian discipleship; committed involvement in a ‘Bible believing’ faith community; spiritual mentoring; the avoidance and suppression of all lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans or queer influences; connection to an ex-gay/ex-trans support group; and/or ongoing counselling, a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity can be restored …

No, they cannot, because there is nothing that needs restoring—there is nothing broken, there is nothing in need of fixing or saving or mending. These practices harm people. The inquiry heard that people who have undergone change or suppression practices experienced long-term psychological harm and distress, including increased incidence of suicide. We cannot—we must not—stand by and let this continue for one more day. It is incumbent upon us to stop the harm and to save lives.

To those opposite and to those in the community who either do not support this bill or want to delay this bill let me say this: it is time, and we are going to guide you through this and take you on this journey because we owe it to all Victorians, but especially LGBTIQ Victorians, to ban these unethical, harmful, reckless and cruel practices. We are going to ban change and suppression practices in Victoria, and we are going to make it a criminal offence for any person to engage in change or suppression practices which cause injury to another, because these practices must stop; because every Victorian has the right to recognition and equality before the law; because every Victorian has the right not to be treated or punished in a cruel, inhumane or degrading way; because every Victorian child has the right to be protected by society and the state; and because every Victorian has the right to personal dignity.

Change and suppression practices impinge upon these rights and undermine the dignity of those subjected to them. We know this because those who have been subjected to these practices have told us. In the consultation for this bill more than 600 submissions were made, and obviously and rightly it is the perspective of the survivors of these practices that is so important. It is the lived experiences that must be crucial in helping to shape this response. I want to acknowledge those victim-survivors who shared their stories. They have told of lifelong trauma, of shame, of guilt, of self-hatred and of self-loathing. They have told us that these messages have been ingrained from a young age, like for the person who shared this story:

In youth group we had regular sermons about sex and purity. It was made very clear that homosexuality was sinful and that it was perverted and unforgiveable. By the time I reached adulthood that message was reiterated so regularly that I started to teach it to youth. “Love the sinner but hate the sin.” Young people came to me questioning their sexuality and I would echo the words I heard: purity and celibacy are necessary for those perverted thoughts. I felt uncomfortable teaching it but I didn’t know anything else. It took me a long time to reconcile my faith and sexuality because I didn’t think I could be Christian and queer. I only knew that if I admitted my sexuality I was admitting that I was perverted and sinful … Now, my mental health is shaky and I get overwhelmed at the thought of having a leadership position in church if I admit my sexuality. It has been and will continue to be a process to unlearn the theology which has damaged me and those I influenced.

Both the health complaints commission and the earlier work conducted by the Human Rights Law Centre have highlighted that many modern LGBTI conversion practices are religious rather than medical in nature in that they involve or consist entirely of pastoral and prayer activities. This prohibition must necessarily extend beyond health services and registered health practitioners to capture the wide and nuanced range of conversion practices that are still occurring within religious communities, because while the right to the freedom of religion protects religious beliefs through religious practice, this right is not absolute. Freedom of religion does not permit causing harm to others. Religious activities, behaviour and practices that infringe on the rights of others and cause harm, whether that is physical or psychological, cannot be permitted under the banner of freedom of religion. You can pray to whoever you like—that is an eternal right, and that is absolute—but there is no absolute right to manifest that belief where to do so causes harm to another. Harm is harm. Even under the guise of love, care or prayer, religious freedoms should not override the right to be free from torture or cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.

I wish to acknowledge all of the religious organisations and all of the people of faith who are supporting this bill. They are voicing their support. One religious organisation said in support of this bill:

we do not believe there are any ethical treatments or practices that are aligned with modifying, or attempting to modify, an individual’s identity and/or expression …

This is about human rights. This legislation prohibits conduct by anyone that specifically tries to suppress or change someone’s sexuality and imposes civil and criminal responses. It is the right thing to do. It is the proper thing to do. It protects human rights. I commend this bill.

Mr HIBBINS (Prahran) (11:45): I rise on behalf of the Victorian Greens to speak in support of the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020. I will start by acknowledging the survivors of this harmful, insidious practice and also those who did not survive this incredibly damaging practice and this ideology that at the heart of it believes there is something inherently wrong with people who are same-sex attracted or transgender and has the goal of changing or suppressing people’s sexual orientation or having trans people identify with the sex that they were assigned with at birth. It is a practice and an ideology that has caused incredible harm to so many people and that continues to this day. That is why it is so important that this bill has been brought before Parliament. I commend their advocacy, their research, their lobbying and their sharing of their stories, which have brought the issue to the fore and have resulted in this legislation—this strong legislation—that we commend.

We commend the government for listening to survivors and bringing forward this bill, which should be effective in helping stamp out this abhorrent process. They are the brave survivors of sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts and the wider LGBTQI+ conversion movement. Certainly I feel that without their efforts there would have continued to be a misconception within the wider community that conversion practices were no longer occurring, that the practices of the past had disappeared and this was no longer an issue or that it could be addressed through the regulation of existing rules for psychologists and counsellors or the banning of advertising.

It was survivors that brought this issue to my attention shortly after I was elected. They told me that it was still happening and how it was occurring—the vast range of practices. In response to them I put a question on notice to the Minister for Equality back in 2015 about what the government was doing to stamp out gay conversion practices, and interestingly enough that was the first reference. I have looked up the first references to gay conversion on record in Hansard until the Health Complaints Bill 2016 was introduced sometime later, and that does show that this was not at the fore of our state’s efforts and the wider efforts for LGBTI equality. So it is certainly testament to the survivors and advocates who put this at the fore and put this in front of MPs and the wider community.

I formed the view at that time that I felt a parliamentary inquiry was the best way to go to fully understand the extent of the practice and to look at how best to stamp it out, given the whole range of formal or informal practices and the range of ways it occurs, and importantly give survivors a chance to tell their stories if they so wish and also shine a light on the dark recesses of organisations where this was occurring—to have an open inquiry and hold them to account. While I appreciate—and I will talk about this a bit later—that the government went down a different route with the health services commissioner, I still think it may be necessary to keep that prospect of a parliamentary inquiry or a more open inquiry on the table, because they have dealt with similar sensitive issues in the past and we should feel with this issue that the light will always be shone where this is occurring.

I think another really substantial moment in the push or the campaign to outlaw gay conversion practices was the investigation by Farrah Tomazin of the then Fairfax papers on conversion therapy back in March 2018. This was a really important investigation. I commend Farrah and the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald—those newspapers—for investigating, for researching, for giving survivors, again, the chance to tell their stories and recount what had occurred to them and the effects that it had. It related to both same-sex attracted and transgender survivors, to young people. That article, again, made it clear that this practice, this ideology, was still occurring in Australia, and to quote from that investigation:

Australia had about 40 active ministries devoted to changing sexual orientation two decades ago. They were part of a broader global “ex-gay” movement, named after the evangelicals at the helm who often claimed their homosexuality had been “cured”.

While many ministries have officially disbanded, Fairfax Media has found about 10 groups that still operate, tapped into an informal network of churches and counsellors here and overseas.

In doing just a little bit of research online you will see that Courage International, who were named in that investigation, still have a website here in Australia, they still have contacts here for people in Melbourne, and they state that they offer:

… pastoral support to men and women experiencing same-sex attractions who have chosen to live a chaste life.

And their goal is:

To live chaste lives in accordance with the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality …

They are actively looking to suppress people’s sexuality under the guise of, ‘Oh well, we’re just assisting people to live in accordance with their faith’. But as Nathan Despott pointed out in that investigation:

The approach is totally grounded in the ideology that being same-sex attracted is problematic; that being gay is a form of brokenness needing God’s attention and needs to be submitted to prayer.

It is incredibly damaging to those people. Listening to the member for Forest Hill, who appeared to indicate in his contribution that that is okay, it is just incredible to think that in the debate in this chamber people are thinking that that is somehow okay and not recognising the damage that it does to people. It is incredibly harmful.

That was a really important investigation, and I was really pleased that the government announced in May 2018 that they were instructing the health complaints commissioner to undertake an inquiry. I thought that was really good. It was two months after we called for an inquiry, so it was really good; I really supported that approach. While I feel it would have been good for a larger report rather than the essentially two-page summary of findings and recommendations, it was an important report from the health complaints commissioner. I will just read out some of the key findings and recommendations from that report:

• Survivors experience acute distress and/or ongoing mental health issues such as severe anxiety and depression;

• Survivors experience feelings of guilt and shame about their sexuality, reporting being “overwhelmed by guilt” and guilt that is “always there”;

• Conversion therapy/practices reinforced homosexuality as a form of ‘brokenness’ …

And the recommendations were:

… that a legislative response sends a very strong message to the community that conversion therapy/practices are unacceptable—

and—

Funding for counselling and psychological services, together with legislation, would provide a very clear message to the community that conversion therapy/practices are not condoned in Victoria.

So the evidence is there. The evidence has again shown just how damaging these practices are. I also want to acknowledge the subsequent work of La Trobe University, the Human Rights Law Centre and Gay and Lesbian Health Victoria for their really important report, Preventing Harm, Promoting Justice: Responding to LGBT Conversion Therapy in Australia. Throughout their report they again shared the words and experiences of survivors and evidence that this is still occurring and there is a need to stamp it out.

Just going through this again, I read from these reports because this is the evidence that has been researched, coming from survivors themselves, with the terrible impacts of self-hatred and shame, of grief and loss, from people who have been separated from their family and their faith community. I really want to acknowledge all those LGBTI members of faith communities. Some of you have found fantastic faiths and fantastic communities that are supportive; others have gone through a very, very difficult and challenging time. Whilst there is no doubt that in many denominations acceptance is growing, there is still a long way to go in many faith communities.

That loss and separation I can imagine would just be incredibly difficult. The collateral damage to family and friends—people who might have pursued relationships, thinking that that might fix them, and the hurt that that would have done to those other people—the loss of intimacy and connection through not being able to form intimate relationships, mental health problems and self-harm are just devastating impacts affecting the very core of a person, the very being. These are just devastating impacts that the evidence has found and are all the more reason why we need strong and comprehensive laws to stamp this out. Again I quote from Nathan Despott and Chris Csabs:

Conversion practices tinker with LGBTQA+ people’s minds, attachments, and their deepest sense of self, ruining family connections and causing suicidal ideation rates that are among some of the highest of any cohort of the population.

This bill provides for both criminal offences and civil processes and importantly covers the broad range of formal and informal practices. That broad definition is so important to capture the informal practices that occur, with both the threshold of causing injury and serious injury and then the civil scheme as well, with the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission playing a strong role for those allegations that fall short of the criminal standard and being able to investigate serious and systemic change or suppression practices and enforce the outcome—two really important elements.

As I discussed with the Minister for Equality during recent estimates hearings, it would be good to see some funding allocated alongside this bill to support the reforms—to support the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission to undertake their tasks in supporting these reforms but to provide counselling and support and redress for survivors as well, a really important element that needs to go along with this bill.

We are now with this bill—and I hope for its successful passage through Parliament—addressing and intervening in some of the conversion practices and conversion ideology. Where previously intervention had come at the pointier end—with therapy, with trained counsellors from churches or private practices—we are now seeing it come into this wider movement. Whilst the law will impact it at a certain level, I think it is now important, as I said before, that in denominations, faith-based organisations, religions and communities there is growing acceptance among people who are part of those communities and people in areas of hierarchy, but there is still more to go.

I think this bill sends a very clear message. The law will come into effect at a certain point, but there still needs to be a continuation of the cultural change that is going on in faith-based communities. I am really always very pleased when on occasion I am invited to attend a service at a church in the Prahran electorate. A lot of LGBTI members within the Prahran electorate attend services, and it is really pleasing to see how welcoming they are to LGBTI members of the community—that is something that is no doubt growing amongst faith-based communities. Again, I acknowledge all those LGBTI Victorians of faith and the challenges that they have often faced, and it is really good to see that so many of them can practise their faith without having this conversion or ex-gay ideology being imposed on them. They can safely practise their faith and be with their faith communities.

This bill also amends the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 to modernise the definitions of sexual orientation and gender identity. It adds sex characteristics as a protected attribute from discrimination to better protect intersex Victorians. We really welcome this change. It is certainly something that the Greens have been calling for for some time—

Members interjecting.

Mr HIBBINS: Well, it is true. I literally produced a draft bill with similar changes. I am not—

Members interjecting.

Mr HIBBINS: All right—as part of broader reforms to the Equal Opportunity Act. On passing this bill we now look to move further reforms to protect LGBTI Victorians, and we do need to have broader reform to the Equal Opportunity Act to get rid of those exemptions allowed for faith-based or other organisations who are providing housing or health services or are running schools. Those exemptions, instead of protecting people from discrimination, actually legally allow discrimination. It relates, I think, very much to this particular bill because people, particularly young people, who have been discriminated against, with faith being the reason given, are then very much more reluctant to attend a housing service, a health service or another service if that is a faith-run service, because even if that service is welcoming and non-discriminatory—as many are, as most are—the insidious nature of that is that they are not going to go. If they fear that behind that door is discrimination, well, they are not going to go to that housing service; they are not going to seek that help. That is why—and I note the Premier is in the chamber today—those laws need to be changed. I hope that that is the next reform, the next cab off the rank, in terms of LGBTI equality.

There was a debate around schools, around faith-based schools, and students and teachers. I know the government’s position has been to wait for the federal government to act and then fill in the gaps. Well, the federal government ain’t going to act. It was always going to be a bit of a stretch to wait for them to act to protect students and teachers at faith-based schools from discrimination. So now it is time for the government to step up to make those changes, to get rid of those exemptions from the Equal Opportunity Act and to protect our students and our teachers at faith-based schools but also at other faith-based organisations—our housing and our health services.

I know the Premier previously, when he spoke on that, said, ‘Well, you can discriminate against the maths teacher but not the gardener’. Well, I think we all understand that that approach now is not the approach that we need to take. Now everyone, no matter what service or school you go to, needs to be protected by our Equal Opportunity Act.

So to conclude, we support this bill; the Greens strongly support this bill. The arguments against have been put forward by the Liberals—I mean, freedom of religion does not give you freedom to harm. The bar of injury or serious injury has been set in this law. If you feel your practices are causing injury or serious injury to LGBTI people, well, then you need to have a look at what you are doing, you need to have a look at your practices. So we support this bill. We commend the government for bringing forward these strong laws. We wish it a speedy passage.

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (12:05): It is not often that I have the opportunity to speak in second-reading debates, but I am very pleased to have been able to find the time to speak on something that I think is a profound reform for our state. I will try not to take my full 10 minutes so as to allow others to make their contributions.

I wanted to approach this in a slightly different way by at the outset telling a story of only just a few months ago. Some months ago I had an online meeting with a group of frontline health workers, people who every hour of every day put themselves on the line to support others. It was a truly humbling thing. Of course at the heart of the discussion was the coronavirus, but like so much of 2020 it was a moment to reflect on other important things. We have been called to do that quite a lot throughout the course of this year like no other. I had cause to reflect, because as one nurse told me her story of being infected and inadvertently infecting her partner I could not help but notice something very personal. As she spoke of her partner she was noticeably careful—in speaking with the Premier of the state—not to mention that person’s gender. She was in effect self-censoring—she was editing, she was omitting. Later that night I spoke with a senior member of my staff, and she confirmed for me that this is what you do. It is the product of a lifetime of prolonged silences, awkward stares and sometimes much worse, much worse indeed.

I left both these discussions with a real sense of sadness. Imagine not being able to tell your truth because so many had revealed theirs: prejudice, fear and judgement. No-one should have to hide who they are or who they love, let alone apologise for it. Stigma and prejudice are everywhere for our LGBTQI communities—sometimes subtle, always brutal. Sometimes it is about employment, sometimes it is about faith, sometimes it is about family. Sometimes it is in the glance or comment of a stranger, and sometimes it is in the rejection of those who ought love and care for you unconditionally. It is toxic, it is dangerous and it is deadly. Each of us deserves to be safe, valued and respected for being who we are—no more, no less. To be told you are broken, you are wrong, you are a sin, you are unwell—infected even—just for being who you are is deeply offensive. Most of all, it is cruel.

To wrap that bigotry in faith is an insult all of its own. I speak infrequently of my faith—it is personal and it is private—but in this debate some faith leaders have been critical of these provisions, critical of a law to ban the worst form of bigoted quackery imaginable. This is not kindness and love or the protection of the vulnerable and persecuted. This is not something to be proud of. This is not what I pray for. Victoria is a secular state. If equality is difficult for you, then that is on you. That is your issue and your problem.

To suggest that the problem lies with those who simply want to be treated equally, fairly and decently is the very heart of this issue. That view is why we have conversion therapy. That view is essentially a message to every LGBTIQ Victorian that something is wrong with them. Well, there is nothing wrong with them. On the contrary, I would say those who struggle with equality are the Victorians who have the problem. After all, they are the ones who for the longest time have inflicted the pain, created the stigma and intruded through the worst kind of moralising, often with the clang of hypocrisy, on the basic human rights of so many.

This bill will change lives, and I am convinced this bill will save lives. It should have happened years ago, and it must happen now—not after the summer, it must happen now. Every person has the right to be proud of who they are and who they love and should never be required to hide away, let alone apologise for, their identity. You are not broken. You are not in need of treatment. You are you, and you are equal. I commend this bill to the house, and I commend both the concept and the practice of equality to all Victorians.

Mr MORRIS (Mornington) (12:11): This certainly is an extremely important piece of legislation because these so-called suppression practices and these so-called conversion practices are completely abhorrent, and the obvious outcome of this bill is a ban on those practices. The notion that anyone is broken because of their sexuality, the notion that anyone is broken because of the way they identify in terms of gender, is complete nonsense. But it is dangerous nonsense. It is nonsense that destroys lives, and it is nonsense that takes lives. Growing up is hard enough for anyone, but growing up with doubts about your sexuality or growing up with doubts about your gender identity must be that much harder. The last thing anyone, whether it is an adult, a young adult or a child, needs is pressure to be something that they are not.

When we look at the figures reported by the National LGBTI Health Alliance, LGBTI young people are 11 times more likely to attempt suicide than others. Almost half of transgender and gender-diverse people, adults and children attempt suicide. If you compare that almost 50 per cent figure with around about one in 30 for the rest of the population, I think those figures speak for themselves. If there is systemic change that the Parliament can make, then we should make the change. If there are outside influences contributing to the stress, to the sense of despair that drives people down the path to consider taking their own life, then we must address those issues. Certainly that I know is the intent of this bill, and I do welcome it.

As the member for Caulfield noted, the opposition believes the bill could be improved by encouraging greater input between now and the next parliamentary sitting, and that of course is the intent of the reasoned amendment. If time permits, I will return to that a little later. But I do need to say that, in my view, to present the bill in the way that the government has I think is a really wasted opportunity, because there was a real opportunity here in bringing forward the legislation to use that process, to use that occasion, to heal divisions in the community.

Unfortunately the government elected to let that opportunity pass. Wider consultation, as the member for Caulfield said, certainly was an election commitment. We understand the commitment, and we are keen to see the intent of the bill implemented. But the consultation, to be frank, has not been particularly wide. When you have that wider consultation and when you have that wider discussion, it does help to drive cultural change. It drives understanding, and that leads to cultural change. After all, that is what this process is about. There are not many pieces of legislation you see come through a parliament where the parliament is explicitly, in passing the legislation, committing to cultural change in the community, but this is one of them. As I said, it is certainly a good change.

If I go back to the early days of my time in this house, in 2008 the Brumby government proposed a bill that became the Relationships Act 2008. It was only 12 years ago, but in some ways it seems like a world away. But despite the fact that there were strong views on both sides, it was largely a respectful debate, and in my view it was a debate that broadened the understanding of the Victorian community on matters of sexuality. It did encourage that discussion, and certainly it encouraged a greater awareness of the issues. I have no doubt that debate and the conversation that ensued from that contributed to the outcome of the marriage law postal survey. Now, I understand there were issues with the mechanism, and I do not wish to enter into that debate today, but when you look at the outcome, the highest level of support for a yes vote was in the state of Victoria. The highest participation rate was in the state of Victoria, and that I think is the best possible outcome. That confirmed beyond all doubt that the overwhelming majority of Victorians prefer tolerance and inclusiveness to intolerance and division. In bringing forward this piece of legislation the government really had a similar opportunity to that that existed for the Brumby government in 2008. Unfortunately they have chosen to handle it quite differently.

I should also, however, say I do not for a moment doubt the genuine motivation of many members of the government and many who have spoken today. I am frankly rather cynical about the motivation of some who seem to be taking the opportunity to manufacture division where little exists. Instead of seeking to fan the flames, there was a real opportunity here to bridge that chasm. It is a shrinking chasm, thankfully, probably a rapidly shrinking chasm, but there was an opportunity here to bridge it, and I think it is deeply unfortunate that opportunity has not been taken.

I just want to comment on a couple of issues with regard to the commentary of the second-reading speech. The minister’s second-reading speech talks about the definition of change or suppression practices being carefully crafted and not being designed to capture all religious practices or teachings. I am a little bit concerned that the speech then goes on to say the definition would likely not capture conduct where, for example, a person goes to a religious leader seeking advice on their feelings of same-sex and so on. The keywords there being ‘likely not capture’. The speech goes on again to say they would likely not capture conduct where, for example, a person confides in a religious leader regarding their gender identity.

I think the fact that we have legislation in the house where even the minister’s speech says ‘will likely not capture’ means that it is open to interpretation. I have been very clear for the whole of my time in this place that in my view it is up to the Parliament to make the rules, not the courts, and it does concern me that we have a situation where there is an opportunity for interpretation in an unintended way. That is the risk with that. I also note that the bill will not allow an adult to consent to change or suppression practices. I understand the reasoning for that, and I certainly support the intent; I do, however, remain uneasy about limiting the actions of an individual in this manner.

So despite the concerns about the process and the somewhat ambivalent language in the second-reading speech, I think this is an opportunity to achieve real and lasting reform. Whether we elect to deal with the issues of concern here or whether we leave it to the courts to interpret those issues, the legacy of this bill will be significant cultural change. This is a reform that I have no doubt aligns with the views of the overwhelming majority of Victorians, a reform that will outlaw an abhorrent practice, and while it could be improved and I hope it will be improved, it is a reform that must succeed.

Mr FOWLES (Burwood) (12:22): I thank the member for Mornington for his reasoned and sensible contribution around this bill. We have heard on both sides of the chamber some passionate and heartfelt contributions, and I think that is a very, very good thing. This legislation seeks to prohibit change or suppression practices, also known as conversion practices or conversion therapy—practices which attempt to change or suppress the sexual orientation or gender identity of a person—and it is an area in which I have significant personal experience.

The government committed to outlawing these practices in response to the health complaints commissioner’s inquiry into these practices, which uncovered evidence of serious harm caused by attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Change or suppression practices can occur in a variety of ways, from informal counselling to physically abusive methods, but let us be clear: irrespective of the method, these practices are harmful. At their core they contain an assumption that lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and gender-diverse, intersex, queer and questioning people are broken and need to be fixed. This is not true, and it has never been true. The idea that LGBTIQ people are different or worse or defective is fundamentally at odds with an inclusive, fair and modern society. Nobody should be led to believe that something so innate to who they are is fundamentally wrong, no matter their age, no matter their background. Nobody should ever be led to believe that any practice could change their sexual orientation or gender identity. Sexuality and gender are simply part of who you are. That does not preclude, of course, a self-directed journey of discovery about those things.

The government has consulted widely on the development of this legislation and has heard from experts and the Victorian public, and additionally individual consultations have occurred between the Department of Justice and Community Safety and faith groups, LGBTIQ groups and survivors of change or suppression practices. So what does this legislation do? It creates a broad definition of what conversion practices are so as to capture the existing breadth of them and declares them unlawful. It creates a civil scheme to capture practices that do not cause injury, as determined by the Crimes Act 1958, and deals with that through voluntary facilitation between the parties and community education. It also empowers the VEOHRC, the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, to investigate serious or ongoing activity, and it creates a criminal scheme to capture conduct that leads to serious injury. It prevents people from taking victims outside of Victoria and prevents the advertising of these practices.

But there are some important things this legislation does not do. It does not ban or affect prayer or religious teachings in schools, at home or in religious institutions unless that activity is directed at a specific individual with the intention of changing or suppressing their gender or sexuality. It does not penalise free speech. It does not penalise thoughts or ideas, nor does it place a prohibition on faith leaders informing people of their faith’s view of sexuality or gender. And it does not penalise anyone explaining the tenets of their faith. It does not coerce people into transitioning; this bill in fact is directed at outlawing coercive behaviour.

I want to turn to some of the contributions that have been made from the other side of the chamber today. The reasoned amendment references a concern about the rights of individuals to voluntarily seek assistance for gender identity and sexual orientation issues, including via pastoral care and faith organisation counselling services. That assistance if given, if directed towards changing someone’s sexuality or gender identity, is harmful. That is the reality. That is what we are seeking to preclude under this bill. Let us be clear: these are not just conversations; they are harmful conversations. In just the same way that we do not voluntarily let people use tanning beds or inject crystal methamphetamine, we should not be voluntarily letting them engage in this behaviour that is harmful to them.

The member for Ripon—well, talk about mischaracterisation of this bill—in her submission said that she was acting in support of all females, that there was some betrayal of the sisterhood by young girls who might seek to identify as male who become trans boys. And I say to the member for Ripon: it is just not the case that girls are becoming trans boys because it is easier than being a woman. They are not doing it as some sort of betrayal to the sisterhood. That is just rot. I say to the member for Ripon: do not pile the pressure on, do not be yet another voice condemning girls who feel like boys, do not take the easy way out, do not take the low road. These journeys are hard enough. They are hard enough without piling on yet more pressure to children dealing with the absolute existential trauma of having to come to terms with these matters. Do not be yet another voice added to the pile, to the sheer volume, of pressure that these kids are already going through. Do not become one of the many who, sadly, seek to ostracise or condemn those who are struggling with very, very real and very, very personal issues. Those journeys should only be undertaken in an environment of support, of full support—support like the magnificent support provided by the Royal Children’s Hospital for families undergoing this journey. A practitioner of the RCH told me a while ago that he wanted to express on behalf of the team at the gender service how grateful they were for the support of the Andrews government over the past five years:

The funding that has been made available … by the Victorian government has been essential to allowing us to support hundreds of young people …. As you probably know—

he said—

Victoria has really led the way in Australia in providing specialist gender services to children and adolescents, and even now other states such as NSW are really struggling to provide any care whatsoever.

Well, what could be more important than providing care to these kids, to these families, dealing with a really, really complicated and difficult set of issues? Now, in my experience that journey has been undertaken with a breadth of support in my family, in my extended family, but that did not mean it was not challenging, it did not mean that we could have done it without the support networks that were there and it did not mean that I did not have to shield my child from some of the prejudice, some of the outrageous prejudice, that exists in relation to young trans people—outrageous prejudice. These are enormously confronting issues for any Victorian family who might be seeking to support a child through a journey that could not in many respects be any more difficult, a journey that starts in a way that it is uncertain and continues, I hope, for many families in a way that affirms that child’s sense of self, affirms that child’s sense of their place in their family and in their community and affirms that they are special and unique and loved, because nothing could be more important than that.

Nothing could be more important than making sure that young people are supported at every step of the way with all of the challenges that travel with being a young person in this day and age. The very least we can do is ensure that they are not subjected to this sort of prejudice, this sort of harm, these sorts of behaviours and the implicit criticism that comes with any view, faith-based or otherwise, that somehow there is something wrong with them. There is nothing wrong with them. There is nothing wrong with them at all.

I appreciate that many in our community have strong views on gender and sexuality and that in many cases those views are aligned with or derived from their faith. Whilst I might disagree with some of those views—perhaps many of them—I accept that they are genuine views, in many cases validly held. There is in my mind no question about Victorians being able to adopt a belief set consistent with their own values. The question for government, though, is different. The question for government is: should those views be imposed on another person? And to that question this government says no. And to that question I say no. I commend this bill to the house.

Mr ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (12:32): From the very outset I acknowledge and respect the deeply held views and the stories that have been shared by many members in this place in relation to this bill and in the course of this debate this morning. I also want to be clear about my own position on this bill. It is my very strong view that cruel and inhuman practices have no place in any civilised society, and that includes so-called conversion practices. There should be laws in place to safeguard against such archaic and harmful practices ever being used, and on this point I believe that there is broad agreement. It is wrong to force upon another person a view of the world that seeks to undermine the very fundamentals of who they are. Other members in this place have said and said very eloquently that everyone has the right to be loved, to be valued and to be respected, and I could not agree more.

But equally one of the core purposes of any government should be to protect the right of every individual to exercise choice in their lives. This is not just a core value of any government but also a core belief of a democracy such as ours. In my reading of this bill in its current form it fails this test for me, and I would struggle to support the bill in its current form. But I do support the opposition’s reasoned amendment for consideration of the bill to be paused for broader community consultation to take place and for the government to return to this place with a bill that gives greater certainty and protections to parents, medical professionals, teachers and religious communities.

In my reading of this bill the freedom of consenting adults to seek counsel, support and assistance with pursuing their freely made life choices are at risk of becoming illegal in Victoria. In practice this bill removes the freedom of parents, medical professionals, teachers and trusted adults to robustly and freely assist consenting individuals to navigate what may be considered as complex life circumstances. This bill seeks to remove certain freedoms both on the part of individuals and faith groups. One interpretation of this bill is that the state now seeks to dictate what a faith leader utters in their prayer. This is an extraordinary imposition by any government.

In Victoria under this bill, change or suppression practices or conduct for this purpose encompasses activities directed towards a person with or without that person’s consent, whereas in Queensland and the ACT, where similar legislation exists, they only ban conversion therapy being directed to a child or a person with impaired decision-making capacity. In those jurisdictions adults with a capacity for legal decision-making are permitted to access treatment as they wish. This is a freedom that is extended to adults in those jurisdictions. Unlike those jurisdictions, in Victoria, in the current draft of this bill, the state is seeking to determine for adults what activities may be directed towards them or otherwise, therefore removing the freedom of those individuals to choose for themselves. Again, as I said at the very outset, it is my strong view that conversion practices should be banned in Victoria, but these are important matters that have been raised with me. They have been raised with me by individuals in my community—educators, faith leaders, medical professionals and members of the LGBTI+ community—some agreeing with the bill we are considering today and some expressing grave concern with the bill.

There are criminal liabilities in this bill for those found to have caused serious injury to others. There is up to 10 years imprisonment for individuals and a $200 000-odd fine. For corporate entities the fines are much larger. There is also civil liability here. Where an individual engages in change or suppression practices but does not cause injury or serious injury, civil liability may still be incurred. This can be pursued through the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, so any person, not just those allegedly affected by a practice, may make a report to the commission, and that report can also be anonymous in relation to alleged change or suppression practices. The commission may then commence an investigation into and compile a report on this alleged conduct. The commissioner’s broad powers to investigate reports of change or suppression practices can compel the production of documents and compel individuals to appear and give evidence.

Perhaps the greatest concern I have with the civil liability element of this bill is that there is no statute of limitations, and with the passing of time a conversation between two consenting adults could be reinterpreted or could be misinterpreted and cause injury to a person without due cause. It has been raised with me that there are already sufficient and existing legal protections in place. Torture, for example, is already an illegal practice. Electroconvulsive therapy, psychosocial treatments, surgery and other interventions which might be considered torture are limited to the practice of a medical professional. These practices are highly regulated under the Mental Health Act 2014. Section 4(2) specifically prevents such interventions on the basis of a person’s sexuality. These are protections already in place. Under article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Australia is a signatory, cruel and unusual treatment is already forbidden.

As I said at the outset, I have received a number of points of advocacy from many members in my community—individuals, educators, faith leaders, medical professionals and members of the LGBTI+ community—some agreeing and some expressing grave concern. I have received a note from Mark Sneddon, a former Crown counsel to former attorneys-general Robert Clark and the member for Keysborough, who wrote to me, saying:

I have grave concerns about the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020 which is being debated in the Assembly on 10 December. These concerns are not just about freedom of religion and of speech, issues which are very important and well ventilated. My concerns also extend to effects on families and counsellors and therapists and those people who wish to change their sexual orientation from gay to straight and those people who having transitioned gender, regret it and wish to de-transition.

In my view the Bill needs substantial restricting in scope to target only non-consensual aversion therapy or like the Queensland legislation only targeting the actions of registered health practitioners, not parents and friends and community and religious leaders.

Something for the Parliament and for members of this Parliament to consider.

I would like to conclude where I commenced and say that, as I said from the very outset, there should be laws in place to safeguard against harmful and archaic practices ever being used. There should be laws in place to ban conversion therapy. We should always seek the right for everyone to be loved, to be valued and to be respected for who they are, but my reading of this bill is that it goes far beyond that to restrict people’s rights and freedoms.

Ms GREEN (Yan Yean) (12:42): It gives me absolute pleasure to join the debate on this bill, and I want to begin firstly by acknowledging my dear friend—and usually my seat buddy, pre-COVID, when we are sitting where we are supposed to be sitting—the member for Burwood and offer him my profound thanks for him telling the personal story of his family, being the preceding government speaker to me. I just think it is telling these stories that actually conveys why we need to do this, and I want to thank him for sharing his family’s journey.

I do not know how anyone could not be moved by hearing that story, so I have decided to tell a little bit of the story of my family. The member for Mornington, who I deeply respect—and I agreed with almost everything he had to say, the member on the other side—mentioned the Relationships Act that was passed in this Parliament during the Brumby government in 2008. My beautiful son Blake Rizzo-Green was sitting in the gallery. He was in tears, because he felt like he was respected. He heard some members on the other side, and he said, ‘Mum, how can they say such hurtful things? How can they say such hurtful things?’. He is an adult now and he was an adult then, and he said, ‘It really hurts. It really hurts’—and it does. I think we like to think that being gay is not a way that people are discriminated against. A lot of this bill talks about gender-diverse young people who have way more hurdles than simply being gay does, but my son Blake, when we had that very hurtful plebiscite on same-sex marriage which was initiated by the Turnbull government—and it should not have needed that; governments need to lead on these things because people do get fearful, a minority of people get fearful—said, ‘Mum, during that debate I thought that I would be out there singing from the rooftops saying why we needed to do this’, and he said, ‘Mum, I was in a fetal position at home most of the time’. He said, ‘I just couldn’t cope’ with the things that people were saying about him. You know, it cuts deeply. The member for Burwood talked about his young child, but for someone who is now 38 years old, it still cuts deeply.

I remember when he first came out—he was about 13 or 14—to me. He was very serious and he said, ‘Mum, I need to have a talk to you. It’s something really serious and I don’t want you to be upset’. He was all concerned about my feelings, and I said, ‘Come on, honey, spit it out, what’s up?’. He said, ‘Look, I know it could be a stage I’m going through. I’ve read it could be that, you know, but I think I might gay’. I have got to tell you I burst out laughing. He said, ‘Why are you laughing?’, and I said, ‘I thought it was something serious’. And we just hugged and we talked and I just said, ‘Darling, you don’t need to put a label on yourself. You are you, and you will be loved by your parents and your family for who you are and whoever you love. Our love is not conditional’. He said, ‘How do you feel, Mum?’, and I said, ‘Darling, I love you. There’s no difference about that’.

The only thing I said to him was, ‘Look, let’s just leave it for a while with your brother’, because his brother is seven years younger than him and hero-worships him. I said, ‘Just like you have been able to go through your journey of discovering your sexuality and who you might love, you need to let your brother have that journey himself, so just be you, and let’s respect his journey as well’. But I also said to him, ‘The only thing I am concerned about is I wanted your life to be easier than what mine was’. Being a single parent, having had him when I was just 19, I suffered a lot of discrimination. I remember being stood over when I was largely pregnant on the train, when I had my ticket for ticket inspectors and handed over the ticket. I did not have a wedding ring, and so they were asking my name and they kept asking loudly my marital status. I was 18 years old. It was horrible. So I said to him, ‘I just want your life to be easier’.

At that time we lived in the inner city. I said, ‘Not everyone will welcome this’. He went to Northcote High School. It is now a very, very supportive school, but it had transitioned from being a single-sex school to a co-ed school only about five years before Blake started there, so a lot of the classes were male only and so he did suffer bullying. He had long blond hair when he started high school. I said, ‘Darling, you might want to get a haircut’. This was before he came out. He said, ‘Why? You’ve always said I should express myself’. I said, ‘Oh, sometimes high school kids can be a bit more judgemental. Have a think about it’. He said, ‘Well, no, I’m not going to’. But within a week he had his hair cut because he was being bullied as a result of how he looked.

This still goes on, and governments need to show leadership, as the member for Burwood said, as the Premier said and as the Minister for Equality said. I am so proud that we are in a government that has a Minister for Equality. That sends a message. I want to say that I respect everyone who has emailed me with their concerns, people in my community, and I want to particularly give a shout-out to Reverend Richard Wilson from the Presbyterian Church in Doreen. He invited me to his home on Monday and expressed his concerns. He said to me, ‘Danielle, I don’t know anywhere, any church, that has these practices. But now, through reading about it, I’ve discovered that it does happen and I’m horrified, but obviously our teaching through our church does say that it is a sin’. We had a really good talk and I really respect his conversation about it.

I want to say to every parent in particular who has emailed me about this that the world is not going to fall in. Your kids are not going to be led astray. They are going to be loved, they are going to be supported. And that is what we all have to do.

I went to a Catholic school. The fundamental teaching of Jesus was not about judgement. It was about love. At the end of the Last Supper he said to his disciples, ‘Love one another as I have loved you. You must love each other’. And everyone is in God’s image. You are all children of God. That was the fundamental message of Jesus in the New Testament. I would say to people of faith: just return to that. As the member for Burwood said, being a teenager is hard enough. Do not be part of the pile on.

Honestly, if you are worried about your kids, lecturing people and giving them therapy and treating them like they are broken is going to drive your kids away. They are not going to love you. You cannot judge them; you have got to love them. And they will love you back.

I lost my dad at 19. He was a pretty strict disciplinarian. He was pretty unhappy with me being a sole parent. But, you know, I would have loved to have had conversations with Dad, now I am a parent, and I have parented differently to him. It did not mean that he did not love me, but Dad used to bang on about cigarettes. He banged on about cigarettes all the time. I was a swimmer; I do not think I ever would have touched cigarettes, but Dad kept banging on about it. Then he kept banging on about marijuana, and I thought, ‘Gee, better try that too’. As a parent it is not your job to bang on about what is wrong with your kids or what they should and should not do. You have actually got to have a bit of trust and support and love around them.

I am proud of both my kids—absolutely both my kids—and the way Carlo, my second son, loves his brother unconditionally. His brother was his best man at his wedding. Paola and Carlo, at the start of their wedding, said they wanted everyone to be able to choose who they love and marry, and I was really proud of them saying that. Blake now has a loving partner in Glen Moore, and they are inviting us the weekend before Christmas to meet his parents—and I really hope that they might say they are going to get married. They love each other—

A member: No pressure!

Ms GREEN: Yes, that is the pressure of a parent. They love each other. We love them. Thank you to the Premier for this bill. It is necessary. Thank you to the Minister for Equality. I commend this bill to the house.

Mr WAKELING (Ferntree Gully) (12:52:102:): I am pleased to rise to contribute to this debate on the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020. This is a bill that clearly is one that needs to be dealt with with a great level of sensitivity, and I am pleased to see that there has been a level of civility on both sides of the house on this important bill.

Can I start by saying that I denounce practices that seek to convert someone purely on the basis of their sexuality, and I think that is broadly supported across the Victorian and the Australian community. It is something that is clearly a position that has the support of the Liberal Party, and I know that Scott Morrison, the Prime Minister, has said that he does not support gay conversion therapy—does not recommend it, never has—but it is ultimately a matter for the states. It is also a position that has been further emphasised by the Liberal Party in terms of our clear position in this space. As the Prime Minister rightly pointed out, it is an issue for the states. Queensland and the ACT have created laws in regard to the specific issue, and the New South Wales government has indicated their preference for a national approach to be developed.

Can I say that whilst there is no reported evidence on studies of the prevalence of conversion therapies in Australia, a 2018 Human Rights Law Centre and La Trobe University report cites that the United Kingdom is a reasonable comparison. That report contends that the UK’s 2018 national LGBT survey saw 2 per cent of respondents report that they had undergone conversion therapies, with a further 5 per cent reporting that they had been offered it.

So the starting position is that these practices are not supported, and the people that I have engaged with across my community have also broadly indicated their lack of support for specific practices. However, as has been mentioned by many of my colleagues, there have been concerns raised about the breadth of this bill before the house. The member for Caulfield has moved a reasoned amendment which seeks the debate on this bill to cease for the purposes of further consultation with the community, with faith sectors and with others within the community that have raised legitimate concerns about the practical application of this bill, particularly around the areas of the rights of children and parents; the legal competence of children under the age of 18 to provide informed consent for gender-transitioning hormonal drug treatment—namely, puberty blockers; the rights of individuals to voluntarily seek assistance for gender identity and sexual orientation issues, including via pastoral care and faith organisation counselling services; the rights of faith organisations to provide such care; and the rights of healthcare professionals to provide assistance and care to individuals who seek help for gender identity or sexual orientation issues.

I understand that this is a deeply personal issue for many within the state. Whether it is for those individuals within the LGBTI community, for their families or for their friends who support them, I deeply understand that. But I also understand that if the bill has unintended consequences to move into areas that go beyond the issue at hand of suppressing or changing practices such as these, it is imperative that it is properly and thoughtfully determined. That is why I believe it is imperative that the government undertakes that consultation.

During the briefing on the bill the department indicated that there had been consultation with stakeholders. But it was also clearly pointed out by the department that there is still a lack of understanding of the practicalities of this bill by many organisations in the community, and it was put to the opposition by the department that if the bill were to pass, then that consultation would need to occur with community stakeholders to determine and to understand how the bill would actually apply to them. For myself, I clearly think that provides the perfect opportunity for the government to say, ‘We acknowledge that there are aspects of this bill that many in the community are concerned about’. It might be a genuine misunderstanding on their part, or it may be a differing of opinion as to what legislative reform they wish to put in place. But I think it is imperative on such an important issue like this that the bill should be held over for the purposes of consultation and that that consultation should be undertaken to give all parties the opportunity to have their say.

On any critical piece of legislation that comes before the Parliament, it behoves the government, of any political persuasion, to ensure that it has adequately engaged with affected stakeholders. I understand that governments ultimately make decisions and will introduce legislation, and that is the will of the government of the day to do that. I am simply saying there is an opportunity here for the government to undertake the consultation, to engage with affected communities, to provide greater clarity as to the application of this bill and to directly address the concerns, the legitimate concerns, that have been raised regarding the rights of parents, the rights of faith-based organisations and others within the Victorian community who believe that they will be impacted indirectly as a consequence of this legislation.

I do not think that position is one in any way that casts any aspersions on the LGBTI community, because as I said from the outset, those practices are abhorrent, they should be denounced and they should be eliminated. But we cannot then in addition to that create a whole set of other legislative reforms that impact on the freedoms of families, of individuals, of communities and of organisations, particularly faith-based organisations, as a consequence. People’s rights are precious, and it is a balancing act. It is difficult at all times to get it right. I call upon the government to undertake that consultation before this bill proceeds.

Sitting suspended 1.00 pm until 2.01 pm.