Tasmania’s proposed ban on so-called “conversion practices” is raising serious concerns about religious freedom, parental rights, and freedom of conscience.

The Conversion Practices Prohibition Bill 2026, introduced into the Tasmanian Parliament in September, seeks to prohibit practices intended to “change, suppress or eradicate” a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

Proponents of the Bill claim it is about dealing with coercion or abuse.

But religious and parental-rights organisations argue the bill goes much further, potentially affecting ordinary conversations between parents and children, pastoral care, prayer, counselling, and professional healthcare.

The Australian Christian Lobby has warned that the legislation could apply where a parent, pastor or counsellor encourages someone to live consistently with their sex or with their sincerely held religious beliefs, even where that person has voluntarily sought that support.

That strikes at a fundamental question: who should decide what beliefs parents may teach their own children?

Parents should be free to raise their children according to their convictions, including their religious beliefs about sex, relationships, and human identity.

Churches must likewise be able to teach their doctrines, pray with people seeking spiritual guidance and provide pastoral care without unreasonable interference from the State.

Supporters of the bill dispute that these ordinary activities are threatened. But while the bill does provide exceptions for certain parental discussions or expressions of religious beliefs, critics argue the protections are insufficient.

These concerns are not confined to Christian advocacy groups. Premier Jeremy Rockliff has said there are “legitimate concerns” that the bill goes too far and has stressed that any legislation must protect freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

Other Tasmanian MPs have publicly raised concerns about parental guidance and professional judgement.

Protecting people from genuine abuse is an important objective.

But that protection should not come at the expense of the basic freedoms of families, churches and individuals to speak, believe, pray, and seek counsel according to their convictions.

Those freedoms require strong and unambiguous protection.