Tasmania is one step closer to introducing what would be Australia's most extreme conversion practices law, despite serious concerns about religious freedom, parental rights and freedom of conscience.

In late October, the state's House of Assembly passed the Conversion Practices Prohibition Bill 2026, with support from Labor, the Greens, several independents, and three Liberal MPs.

The Bill now moves to the Legislative Council for consideration.

HRLA warned last month that the legislation goes far beyond prohibiting genuinely abusive or coercive practices.

Despite amendments in the Lower House, those fundamental concerns remain unresolved.

The Bill prohibits conduct intended to change, suppress or eradicate a person's sexual orientation or gender identity, even where that person has willingly sought assistance.

It contains provisions stating that religious teaching, prayer, pastoral care and parental guidance do not, of themselves, constitute conversion practices.

But these are not blanket exemptions.

A parent discussing Christian beliefs about sexuality with their child, or a pastor providing individual spiritual guidance to someone seeking to live according to their faith, could still face complaints where that conduct is alleged to cross the Bill's broad definition.

The legislation would also allow third parties to report alleged conversion practices, even when they were not personally affected.

This Bill goes beyond protecting people from genuine abuse, and threatens ordinary religious expression, voluntary pastoral care and the rights of parents.

If the Bill passes, only Western Australia and the Northern Territory will remain without comparable conversion practices laws, although Western Australia has also been considering legislation.

The Tasmanian proposal would, as it stands, be among the most intrusive laws of its kind in Australia.

But Australia is part of a worldwide trend.

In the United Kingdom, the Labour Government's draft Conversion Practices Bill is currently undergoing parliamentary scrutiny, with critics warning that its broad provisions threaten ordinary family conversations, religious expression, and freedom of conscience.

A recent report by barrister Akua Reindorf KC and former Equality and Human Rights Commission chair Baroness Kishwer Falkner warns that the UK proposal could criminalise parents who seek to discourage their children from pursuing gender transition.

The parallels are deeply concerning.

In both countries, legislation presented as protecting vulnerable people risks giving the State unprecedented influence over private conversations, family relationships, and religious practice.

The Tasmanian Legislative Council now has an opportunity to insist on stronger protections.

No Australian should have to fear legal consequences for respectfully expressing their religious beliefs, raising their children according to their convictions or seeking pastoral guidance consistent with their faith.

These are fundamental freedoms, and they deserve explicit protection in law.