More than 50 Tasmanian doctors and other health practitioners have backed a proposed ban on LGBTQ+ conversion practices, telling MPs the practices are harmful, ineffective and incompatible with contemporary healthcare.
More than 50 Tasmanian health professionals have signed a statement urging state MPs to support the Conversion Practices Prohibition Bill 2026 ahead of expected parliamentary debate later this month.
The statement has been sent to every Tasmanian MP, with organisers choosing not to publish the names of individual signatories because of concerns for their personal safety.
The bill, introduced by Greens leader Dr Rosalie Woodruff on 10 September, is currently before the House of Assembly. It seeks to prohibit practices intended to change, suppress or eradicate a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
Statement organiser Dr Miranda Hann, a Tasmanian GP who specialises in LGBTQIA+ and gender-affirming healthcare, says medical professionals often see the consequences experienced by people subjected to conversion practices.
“Doctors and other health practitioners strongly support the conversion prohibition bill because conversion practices inflict deep harm, and often we are the ones who have to pick up the pieces,” Hann said.
What does the evidence say?
Equality Tasmania cites research indicating around one in 20 LGBTIQA+ Tasmanians have experienced formal conversion practices.
It also says survivors are between three and four times more likely than other LGBTIQA+ people to experience post-traumatic stress disorder and to have attempted suicide.
The Tasmania Law Reform Institute reached similarly strong conclusions in its 2022 review.
After examining the evidence and receiving 256 public submissions, the Institute concluded that contemporary clinical evidence does not support conversion practices as effective medical treatment and that they carry risks of serious and lasting harm.
The Institute ultimately recommended that Tasmania introduce legislation targeting sexual-orientation and gender-identity conversion practices.
Doctors say legitimate healthcare would remain protected
One of the major arguments against conversion-practice bans has been that they could interfere with legitimate healthcare, particularly when young people are exploring questions about gender.
Hann rejects that interpretation.
“The existing clinical guidelines for healthcare providers are clear and the bill’s provisions will not change those guidelines in any way,” she said.
“Health practitioners have not been put in a difficult position by conversion legislation interstate and won’t be in Tasmania either.”
The Tasmanian Law Reform Institute has previously drawn a distinction between conversion practices and legitimate clinical care.
It said healthcare professionals should still be able to assess patients, discuss treatment options and provide appropriate mental-health support according to evidence-based professional standards.
In other words, discussing the potential benefits and risks of a treatment with a transgender or gender-diverse patient is not itself a conversion practice.
The concern is with interventions built around the premise that being LGBTQ+ is inherently defective and should be changed, suppressed or eliminated.
Can someone consent to conversion practices?
The issue of consent has also become a major point of contention.
Hann argues meaningful informed consent is impossible when people are not properly informed about the lack of evidence supporting conversion practices, their potential harms or the qualifications of those providing them.
The Tasmanian Law Reform Institute heard similar evidence during its inquiry.
According to its findings, peak medical bodies and public-health officials argued that conversion practices cannot be treated as legitimate therapies simply because somebody agrees to undergo them, particularly where the practice itself is based on unsupported claims about sexual orientation or gender identity.
Health bodies have previously backed prohibition
Equality Tasmania says every peak health organisation and public-health official that made a submission to the Law Reform Institute’s inquiry supported regulating or prohibiting conversion practices.
Those organisations included AMA Tasmania, the Australian Psychological Society, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, the Mental Health Council of Tasmania and Women’s Health Tasmania, among others.
Equality Tasmania spokesperson Rodney Croome says the new statement from more than 50 practitioners reinforces that medical consensus.
“It is a reminder that the bill will improve mental health outcomes for Tasmanians and not have all the negative impacts the bill’s opponents predict,” Croome said.
Opposition focuses on religion and free expression
Not everyone supports the legislation.
Deputy Premier Guy Barnett has described the Greens’ proposal as “fundamentally flawed” and raised concerns that its provisions could capture some religious conversations and prayer.
Those objections reflect one of the central tensions in conversion-practice legislation around Australia: where lawmakers draw the line between protecting religious expression and preventing practices specifically intended to change or suppress someone’s sexuality or gender identity.
Supporters of the Tasmanian bill argue ordinary religious teaching, prayer and parental conversations would remain lawful unless they formed part of a conversion practice as defined by the legislation.
Equality Tasmania also points to laws already operating elsewhere in Australia and argues that the sweeping consequences predicted by opponents have not materialised.
Parliament will decide what happens next
The bill has completed its first reading but has not yet passed its second-reading stage.
Tasmania’s Parliament is scheduled to return on 27 October, when supporters expect the proposal to return to the political agenda.
Two competing parliamentary petitions are currently open: one supporting the bill and another calling for it to be rejected, reflecting the political divide surrounding the proposal.
For Hann and the health practitioners supporting the legislation, however, the central issue is medical rather than ideological.
Their argument is that sexual orientation and gender identity are not illnesses requiring a cure — and that practices claiming otherwise can leave health professionals dealing with the consequences years later.
