The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I rise as the first of two Green speakers today to support the Conversion Practices Prohibition Bill 2024. That will probably come as no surprise: indeed, when
we were asked, during the election, by the South Australian Rainbow Advocacy Alliance, we were very happy to support a ban on conversion practices.

I note that all the political parties in that election were asked that question; it was the number one concern of the South Australian Rainbow Advocacy Alliance (SARAA). If you have not been paying attention to elections and campaigns perhaps you could be excused for not knowing that this debate was coming, but if you are in a political party I would have thought you got that correspondence and you have known about this issue for quite some time.

I also draw members' attention to the fact that back in 2018 the 'Preventing Harm, Providing Justice' document was provided to all Australian attorney-generals. That document outlined the supports needed for survivors of conversion practices and identified areas that required further investigation, particularly the experiences of trans and gender-diverse survivors and those from diverse faith and cultural backgrounds. As I said, that report was sent to all attorney-generals, and was widely publicly available, in 2018—that is some years ago now. I imagine it might make good bedtime reading for some members of this place.

I also draw members' attention to the document 'Improving Spiritual Health Care for LGBTQA+ Australians: Beyond Conversion Practices', a community report under the auspices of the Victorian state government with Macquarie University in Sydney, La Trobe University in Victoria, the Australian GLBTIQ Multicultural Council, and the Brave Network. I seek leave to table this report.

Leave granted; report tabled.

The report is authored by Timothy W. Jones, Jennifer Power, Tiffany Jones, Joel Anderson, Nathan Despott, Maria Pallotta-Chiarolli, Percy Gurtler, Christine Migliorini. Hopefully, it will provide some educative reading should this debate go over the dinner break, and I do encourage those members who say they have never heard of this conversion practice thing, that they do not know where it occurs and that we need to name where and when these issues were raised, to do so. Perhaps it will provide some enlightened committee debate, unlike the second reading debate we have had so far in some contributions.

This bill has been a very long time coming for the many survivors, advocates and organisations who have worked tirelessly to end the harmful practice of conversion, trying to change or suppress a person's sexuality or gender identity. As I noted, it was a SARAA election ask of all political parties who contested the state election and, indeed, the Malinauskas then opposition, now government, responded to that with a commitment to ban conversion practices. That is what brings this bill here today. The Greens also responded to that, and pledged to support that ban.

It is important, of course, to recognise from the outset this actually comes far too late for many. Many who came before us never got to live a life where they were free to be their true selves, where they could live their lives openly with pride and with joy, to be the person that they were, or to be with the person that they loved. It comes too late for those who took their own lives because they were told that they were lesser, that they were broken or that they were unworthy, or that they were sinners, or that their identity was a disorder, that they were sick. Who they really were was erased. They were harmed.

I note that this bill before us is very welcome. I also know that it is not completely what survivors asked for. This bill is not what they wanted in full. They have told that yet again they must wait longer, with no guarantees for how much longer they must wait. It is, however, a good thing that this bill is here for debate. The Greens have consistently opposed conversion practices and ideologies. We have advocated for a complete ban on these things.

I note the words in the New South Wales debate, which I have acquainted myself with earlier today, a debate that went until 6am in the morning, a debate that was in a house with more diversity than this one, where the numbers were not guaranteed. I remind the Labor Party that when the Labor Party votes en bloc, they only need two more votes in this council, and in this parliament, to pass their legislative agenda. I note the two Greens will be speaking and have fully committed to banning gay conversion practice or conversion practices in general, and so you had those two votes all along. You will have those two votes today, and we will raise the issues that have been put to us by survivors as to where you need to improve and do more.

For those who do not know anyone who has been subjected to conversion practices, I remind members in this place of someone who is well-known to myself and the Hon. Rob Simms. In fact, he used to be the Hon. Rob Simms's boss at one point: Dr Bob Brown. Dr Bob Brown, the first openly gay man in the Australian parliament, has spoken openly about how when he was a young medical student in Canberra he struggled with his homosexuality—he was a Christian—and he consented to conversion practice. He received electric shocks while being shown photos of naked men, not just for one session but for multiple sessions.

So if you think that this is mythical and it is not in the here and now, I do not know if you have heard of Dr Bob Brown, former Senator, former Leader of the Greens, but maybe look him up. He is just one of many, many people who have survived this in our community and, unfortunately, the voices of those who took their lives and suffered such harm will not ever be heard because they are no longer here to tell their stories.

The practice Dr Bob Brown underwent as a student was intended to shock him straight. It almost drove him to suicide. That was, of course, a long time ago in the 1960s. I think some of you in this chamber were probably alive then—I dare say, possibly the majority—yet even today this practice does of course continue, albeit to a lesser extent and a more hidden extent.

I note that there have been members of this place today who say that this is an issue that no longer exists, that they have never heard of it happening, that they do not know about it happening and they have never had anyone in South Australia tell them that it has happened to them in contemporary times. There have been briefings. There has been correspondence.

Certainly, I know that the Hon. Rob Simms and myself have sat in rooms with people who are South Australian survivors much younger than Dr Bob Brown who have asked for this reform. So I say, if you have not heard the stories of these people, perhaps you were not listening or looking out for it. I would not be surprised by that because you seem to have missed the memos to date that have been quite publicly put forward in the public debate on this issue.

I want to acknowledge that this is not a new issue even into this council, and the hard work of those who bring this issue before us in this bill today. Some are in the public gallery and some are on our red leather seats, the more comfortable ones. I want to acknowledge particularly, in the other place Minister Nat Cook, and in this place the Hon. Ian Hunter as well as the Hon. Michelle Lensink, all of whom in different ways have raised this issue time and time again. The Greens have been very happy to support your efforts and commend you for the work that you have done for so long.

Of course, conversion practice is a pseudoscience. It is based on archaic and bigoted ideology. It is based on an idea that people from the LGBTQIA+ communities are broken, disordered or unworthy. It has nasty negative impacts on people's lives, and especially so for people of faith. That 2018 report by La Trobe University, the Human Rights Law Centre, and Gay and Lesbian Health Victoria told of the lived experiences of 15 people and their struggle to reconcile their sexuality and transgender identities with the beliefs and practices of their religious community.

That report provided a comprehensive history of the conversion movement in our nation— not in America but in our nation of Australia—together with legal analysis and recommendations for reform. Since then, many other jurisdictions have acted far more swiftly than ours. Indeed, the bill that we debate here today is based on that New South Wales model. It is not the preferred model and the Victorian model has been held to a higher standard and advocated for. I note again and just observe that the numbers were there to move the best model possible, but the political will was not.

However, as with so many other issues regarding sex, sexuality, gender and religion or perhaps women's rights, in South Australia, where we used to lead, we now lag and we are playing catch up. But catch up we are doing today, and that is indeed a very good thing. The stated intent of this bill is to prohibit change or suppression practices and to ensure that all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, feel welcome and valued in our state. Surely that is something that members of the South Australian parliament should all support, so that we allow all South Australians to live authentically and with pride.

However, I do know that there are some weaknesses in the legislation and I draw members' attention to the correspondence of SOGICE and Amnesty International. SOGICE stands for the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Change Efforts survivors' group, and on 16 September 2024 they wrote to some members of this place. I seek leave to table this correspondence from SOGICE and Amnesty International of 16 September 2024.

Leave granted.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: That letter was signed off by SOGICE survivors Nathan Despott, Chris Csabs and Patrick McIvor—real people, survivors. Perhaps the Liberal Party members who oppose this bill and see no need for it might want to look them up and have a chat. Along with National Director of Amnesty International Australia, Sam Klintworth, it is also endorsed by Professor Tiffany Jones, School of Education, Director of Research and Innovation, Macquarie University; Dr Maria Pallotta-Chiarolli OAM, SA Honorary Fellow, Deakin University; and the Australian GLBTIQ Multicultural Council (AGMC), which is Australia's primary community leader body focusing on the rights and inclusion of LGBTIQ+ people from Australia's diverse cultural communities.

These are words that should have been read by members of this place perhaps before making a contribution on this bill if they seem to think that there is no reason for this bill. That letter reads in part:

Critical response to the SA Conversion Practices Prohibition Bill 2024

The current bill has similarities to the legislation passed by the NSW Parliament in March, however this falls short of the standard set by the survivor-led model adopted in Victoria. While we are pleased that the SA government is finally moving toward stopping these practices, it is vitally important that the legislation be designed in a way that allows it to navigate the deceptive and ambiguous—

ambiguous—

nature of conversion practices and their proponents. We have determined that the bill, in its current form, will not be sufficiently effective at preventing harm or stopping it where it is already occurring.

They go on to ask for amendments, which the Greens are very happy to put into this debate today, knowing that it is unlikely that they will get government support, but certainly we hope that the government will make commitments for further action on these areas about the definition of 'conversion practices'.

They also raise their concerns about the conduct directed at inducing a person to change or suppress their sexual orientation or gender identity, the lack of an independent third-party reporting function and that a 12-month window period for complaints under our South Australian equal opportunity commissioner's powers is inadequate. The Greens will be moving not only that that 12-month limitation be removed in its entirety but, should the council not like that approach, we will see if they will accept six years rather than one year being that limitation.

Further, there is insufficient authority for the Equal Opportunity Commission to actually make referrals to other bodies and that is a real weakness here. The South Australian bill does not explicitly empower the equal opportunity commissioner to refer complaints or matters pertaining to conversion practices to any other entity other than the existing powers to refer matters to SACAT and a proposed mandatory referral is to 'the relevant health complaints entity', stipulated in schedule 1. We will seek to amend that to strengthen it.

The Greens certainly do commend those members of the Labor Party and Rainbow Labor who have brought this bill to this parliament today. We urge you to work with us in the Greens to get better laws faster and we hope—certainly, Attorney-General, I know that you have had a longstanding commitment to these issues—that we can continue to progress that work.

It is a good thing that this bill is before us; however, it is disappointing that the New South Wales' approach has been taken rather than the Victorian one. Faith-based practitioners have subjected people to exorcisms and medically abusive interventions, such as chemical castrations, and these things are utterly unacceptable.

I note that the politics around is not to ask for more because we might go backwards and, certainly with some of the debate this afternoon, I can understand the fear of taking on these issues. However, the numbers in parliament are the numbers that they are at the moment and I certainly think it would have been better to have had the best model before this parliament rather than the second or lesser yet again.

The law, of course, as that 2018 report states is only one part of the solution because a ban will not impact the informal practices among adults that we know are prevalent in Australia's conversion movement and may drive them further underground in certain faith communities. That is why that report recommended a multifaceted approach, implemented in partnership with religious institutions and communities to help not harm LGBT people of faith.

I note that there has been a lot of talk about the churches opposing this, but I draw member's attention to another piece of correspondence that we all received earlier this month—19 September 2024. It was written to the Premier, but it was cc'd to all of us, an open letter from the Uniting Church clergy to support the government bill on conversion therapy. That letter read:

We are Ministers in the Uniting Church in Australia from across South Australia, united in our desire to see LGBTQA+ conversion practices banned across our state. We are writing to indicate our support for the Government Bill, which has been introduced to the SA Parliament, prohibiting activities that seek to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of an individual ("conversion therapy"). The Bill seeks to prohibit change or suppression practices and establishes a civil complaints mechanism.

South Australia remains one of the last jurisdictions in Australia to tackle these harmful practices, which are based on the false ideology that a person's sexual orientation or gender identity can be changed or supressed. The life-lasting pain and trauma this causes people has been well documented, with people often driven away from their faith, families and friends. In denying the humanity of LGBTQA+ people, these practices are at odds with religious teachings that we are all children of God and equal in dignity.

These practices have already been banned in New South Wales, Victoria, the ACT and, in part, Queensland. Most recently, New South Wales legislation was passed with multipartisan support and the backing of faith leaders, recognising the vulnerable LGBTQA+ people can be protected from harm while also protecting freedom of expression and freedom of religious belief.

Faith should never be a means to cause harm to others, and we denounce discrimination in all its forms. As Christian ministers, we support this legislation. The scriptures speak of all living creatures being given life by God's spirit (Genesis 1:1-2, 29-30; Ps 104:24-30). God shapes our identity in that process of giving life and bringing to birth the identity of a new human being. Furthermore, all creatures are sentient beings—we have a soul, a state of being and a life fully formed and given by God. All human beings are created with the spirit of God within us

Again, Genesis and Job are cited. The letter continues:

There are no exceptions to this in biblical understanding.

The Uniting Church in Australia has had a long-term commitment to supporting and valuing LGBTQA+ people in our churches and in society, and we see our support for this legislation to be a careful extension of this commitment. 

In 2022 the National Assembly of the Church passed resolutions that recognised that "sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts (SOGICE), often referred to as conversion therapy, are harmful to people's mental health and wellbeing".

We have included with this letter a copy of the UCA National Assembly resource document SOGICE, and we would encourage you and your colleagues to read over this important work.

I am not sure how that memo was lost on members either—it was sent to all of us. The letter is signed off by the Reverend Richard Telfer and the Reverend Deacon Olly Ponsonby of the Church of the
Trinity and the Clayton Wesley Uniting Church respectively. It is also signed by: Reverend Dr Sarah Agnew, Minister, Christ Church Uniting, Wayville; Reverend Dr Jonathan Barker, active
retirement; Reverend Geoff Bridge, active retirement; Reverend Leanne Davis, Wimala Presbytery;Reverend Linda Driver, Minister, Brougham Place Uniting Church; Reverend Nola Gibbons, Presbytery of Southern SA; Reverend Dr Paul Goh, President-Elect and Justice Officer, Synod of SA, UCA; Reverend Deacon Bill Harris, retired;

Reverend Judi Hartwig, Minister, Belair UCA; Reverend Sr Mandy Harvey, Spiritual Care Chaplain, QEH; Reverend Jennifer Hughes, Executive Officer, Mission Resourcing, Synod of SA; Reverend
John Hughes, Minister, Pilgrim Uniting Church; Reverend Geoff Hurst, Minister, St Andrews by the Sea, Glenelg; Reverend David Ingleton, retired; Reverend Leanne Jenski, Chaplain, St Andrew's Hospital; Reverend Peter R. McDonald, Minister, Uniting Communities Inc.; Reverend Deacon Christa Megaw, Minister, Henley Fulham Uniting Church; Reverend Ann Phillips, Minister, Woodville Uniting Church; Reverend Andrea Prior, retired; Reverend Deacon Chelsea Size, Spiritual Care Coordinator, Eldercare; Reverend Deacon Jesse Size, Spiritual Care Chaplain, QEH; Reverend Deacon Adam Tretheway, Presbytery of Southern SA; Reverend Paul Turley, Minister, Scots Church, Adelaide; Reverend Dave Williamson, Chaplain, the Memorial Hospital and Flinders University; and Reverend Deacon Sarah Williamson, Chaplain, Flinders Hospital. That is just to name a few.

Despite the Greens identifying some concerns with this bill today—and as I said there are some weaknesses here—it is a good thing that the archaic and cruel practice of conversion therapy will be banned by the legislation we hope to pass today. Survivors, advocates and supporters will celebrate another gain, but not quite the victory we should have. The government comes to this
place, as I say, secure in the knowledge it only needed two extra votes to pass their legislation, andthey have that in spades. I am sure that other members, other than the Greens, are going to supportthis, and I certainly note again the Hon. Michelle Lensink's contribution.

Reading that debate in New South Wales, that was a far harder debate, I think, a more difficult challenge to get it through that parliament. The South Australian parliament really should have lifted its eyes and looked to the Victorian parliament for the model, but I do acknowledge in particular what is a gain today, that would not have happened without those in the community who have called on us as their representatives to make it so.

I particularly acknowledge the South Australian Rainbow Advocacy Alliance (SARAA), Equality Australia, Brave, the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Change Efforts (SOGICE) survivors, Amnesty International, Thorne Harbour Health, and allies and survivors—Oliver, Anna, Megan, Jace, Leeann, Varo, Becc—all of whom were willing to talk to any member of this place, either to share their stories of survivors or to make it known as allies that they were there for conversations to inform and educate members of this place, should you have simply ever made the effort to email or lift up the phone and talk to them.

I acknowledge also the role of local government in this and that the Adelaide City Council actually moved a motion that was moved by Deputy Lord Mayor Keiran Snape and seconded by Councillor David Elliott back in April 2023. That motion from the Adelaide City Council asked the state government to progress its pledge to ban conversion practices. I am happy to see a nice local government-state government harmony today, that we are finally doing something that the Adelaide City Council has asked us to do. I would say not to get too used to it.

I do believe, in closing, that there are calls today for celebrations at the end of this debate, which I suspect will be a slightly arduous one. I wish the Attorney-General well with answering some of those questions. There will be more work to do and again I urge the Attorney-General to look to the Greens, because we are ready, willing and able to make these things happen with you. We are here today working on this. The job is, of course, far from complete, but we will not finish tonight; we will persist. With that, I commend this bill and look forward to the committee stage.