“A child in distress deserves a question before they are given an answer.”

That was the powerful message from Tasmanian Liberal MP Felix Ellis as he warned Parliament about the dangers of the state's proposed conversion practices laws.

In a compelling speech opposing the Conversion Practices Prohibition Bill 2026, Ellis highlighted the risks to vulnerable children, their parents and those entrusted with their care.

He asked Parliament to consider a 13-year-old experiencing distress about their gender, and the parents and psychologists trying to understand what might be contributing to that distress.

Anxiety, autism, trauma, bullying, or an emerging sexuality may all be relevant considerations. These are complex circumstances that require careful assessment, compassion, and time.

But Ellis warned that the proposed legislation could make such care legally dangerous.

“This bill turns the most cautious care for a distressed child into some of the most legally dangerous care that a parent or clinician can offer.”

The Bill, which passed Tasmania's Lower House in late October, seeks to prohibit practices intended to change or suppress a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.

While it contains protections for certain medical services, identity exploration, religious teaching, and parental guidance, these are not blanket exemptions.

Ellis raised the example of parents whose 14-year-old child asks their school to use a new name and pronouns.

What happens if those parents ask the school to wait until they have obtained clinical advice? Could that decision be considered an attempt to suppress the child's gender identity?

The legislation leaves uncertainty about where lawful parental decision-making ends and prohibited conduct begins.

Parents should not fear legal consequences for seeking appropriate advice about their child's welfare.

Nor should pastors, youth workers, school counsellors, or other trusted adults fear investigation for offering compassionate guidance consistent with their convictions.

As HRLA has previously warned, the Bill's limited protections for religious teaching and pastoral care do not adequately address these concerns.

There is no dispute that genuinely abusive or coercive practices should be prohibited.

But children experiencing distress deserve access to careful, individualised care, and parents deserve the freedom to seek advice and make responsible decisions in their children's interests.

Instead, this Bill makes providing such love and care dangerous.

Ellis concluded his warning with a simple appeal:

“No parliament should do that to children and to the people who love them.”

Tasmania's Legislative Council must heed that warning and insist on stronger safeguards for vulnerable children, families, and religious freedom.