Dear Supporters,
We have finally made it to 100,000 signatures! And the number is still climbing.
When I started this petition, I genuinely had no idea that it would take off the way it did, reaching thousands of signatures within hours, and tens of thousands after days.
It has taken a few years but we have finally reached an enormous milestone - an amazing milestone for an Australian petition. I want to thank every single one of you for adding your voice to what is now over 100,000 voices demanding a response in every state and territory across the nation.
This milestone certainly doesn't mean we can rest. SOGICE Survivors and Amnesty International Australia have written a statement regarding concerns about the South Australian bill. I have added an adapted version below, please take the time to read it and write to SA MP's if you can.
Again, THANK YOU for your ongoing support. It means so much to me and to the other advocates working to end the harm.
Chris Csabs
The following text is from a statement prepared by SOGICE Survivors and Amnesty International Australia, endorsed by the Australian LGBTIQ+ Multicultural Council (AGMC) and a range of researchers.
Statement
After several years of survivor-led advocacy by SOGICE Survivors and Amnesty International Australia, we welcome the South Australian government’s decision to introduce legislation prohibiting conversion practices.
We believe that a range of recommendations need to be adopted in order to ensure the effectiveness of the legislation and to avoid the need for further delay in protecting those in our community at risk of conversion practices.
Each of these changes is based in a deep understanding of the complexities of both the application of the law in South Australia, the practice of change and suppression practices globally and in South Australia and the long term impacts of these practices.
Our experiences in other jurisdictions tell us that amendments can be made to bills even in difficult political circumstances, including when the government has a minority in the upper house of a state parliament.
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 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.
To illustrate what this looks like in reality, consider the following non-exhaustive de-identified list of examples of conduct that would remain lawful under the Conversion Practices Prohibition Bill 2024 in its current form:
A university club organising one talk or conversion ideology-oriented speaker, directed toward changing participants’ sexual orientation or gender identity.
Repeatedly telling a person they will go to hell after they die, for the purpose of inducing them to change or suppress their gender identity.
Telling a person that according to a religious principle, homosexuality is unnatural and deserving of death, and they should repent and pray so God can help them not to act on their same-sex attraction.
Using a range of communication strategies with the intention to motivate a trans adult to travel to Perth for a one-day psychoeducational behaviour change program that focuses on the person suppressing elements of their gender expression with the underlying intention of suppression of the person’s gender identity.
Taking a child out of SA for any of the following with the intention of changing or suppressing their sexual orientation or gender identity:
- to a Queensland megachurch for one deliverance prayer on stage.
- to Malaysia for one session with a psychiatrist, or
- to Nigeria for one visit to a health practitioner who provides traditional medicine for self-administered aversion therapy.
An amended definition of conversion practices to cover single acts would bring the above examples into scope of the law, however an independent third party would still not be able to make a report or complaint about the behaviour, activities or inducements enacted by the responsible individuals or organisations until the conversion participant had themselves decided that they wanted a complaint to be lodged.
We also note the lack of clarity and scope regarding the prohibition of actions and conduct performed for the purpose of inducing a person to participate in or undergo conversion practices. This is an essential part of the survivor-led model and is required for protection, prevention and timely intervention.
SOGICE Survivors is concerned about the following aspects of the bill. Please note recommending wording of amendments in the addendum following endorsements at the end of this letter.
Definition of conversion practices.
The requirement that these practices occur more than once before they fit the criteria for the current bill is not an accurate reflection of definitions of conversion practices established by researchers, survivor advocates or other Australian governments.
The heart of an evidence-based definition of conversion practices is the presence of the intention to change or suppress the sexual orientation or gender identity of an LGBTQA+ person. Evidence in research also demonstrates that the form or frequency of activities does not necessarily equate to severity of harm. A single event mediated by a faith leader, family member, or clinician that leads to ongoing self-guided practices can be just as harmful.
The single-instance element of the definition in the current bill fails to account for the long-lasting damage of one event or one family member or one faith leader on the lives of:
- LGBTIQA+ people from multi-cultural and multi-faith contexts who will suppress or conceal their selves or agree to practices to avoid other forms of harm, ostracism or shame from their family or communities, or from their communities to their families.
- People with intellectual or cognitive disability in human services settings, or young people in faith settings, whose supporters or families have one meeting whereby they agree to substantially restrict access to information (e.g., blocking access to basic accessible information about sexual orientation or gender, or information about affirming resources or communities) with the aim of suppression of developing self-awareness of sexual or gender identity.
- Trans people whose psychiatrist or GP refuses or delays a referral with the intention of causing a client to decide to try change or suppress.
Recommendation: The bill's definition of conversion practices should be amended to include single instances, aligning with evidence-based definitions used by researchers, survivor advocates, and other Australian state governments. Even one event or occurrence can cause long-term harm.
Conduct directed at inducing a person to change or suppress their sexual orientation or gender identity. The bill’s current definition does not provide sufficient recognition or prohibition of conduct, actions, practices or sustained efforts aimed at inducing a person to change or suppress their sexual orientation or gender identity. Inducement connotes intention, persuasion and influencing. It is more than simply expressing statements of belief or making generic homophobic, biphobic or transphobic comments. There is clear evidence of the harm and role played by these actions and conduct, and both the National Research Project and civil scheme at Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission have produced content providing guidance on this aspect of conversion practices.
Agents who seek to motivate people to participate in conversion practices are frequently the only actors who clearly hold responsibility for the harms caused to a person in the following examples, all of which are instances of inducement and would not fall within scope of legislative definitions that do not adequately cover inducements:
- A religious leader recommends that a person attend a ‘peer-support’ group of other people who are seeking to change or suppress their sexual orientation, whereby no clear hierarchy (or, potentially, duty of care) exists among those participating in the group. The religious leader does not take part in the group’s activities or organisation.
- A leader in an educational institution regularly interacts with young adults who discretely make it known that they are experiencing internal conflict about their same-sex attraction or gender identity. The leader does not discuss or explore the young adults’ internal experiences, however the leader does consistently recommend books they say former students found really helpful to ‘address the root causes of their brokenness’. The books contain substantive detail about self-guided practices that are intended to change or suppress readers’ same-sex attraction or gender identity.
A central aspect of the survivor-led model of legislation and for the Civil Scheme approach is the appointment of an authority that can deliver education, perform risk assessments, and initiate investigations in contexts that demonstrate clear patterns of action that are most likely directed toward inducement. Examples of these actions are:
- Threatening punishment, ostracism or exclusion (from family, community, God, faith or culture) or withholding necessities due to non-conformity or, conversely, promising spiritual or familial acceptance in exchange for the person attempting to change or suppress their LGBTQA+ identity
- Presenting the idea that it is possible to change or suppress one’s sexual orientation or gender identity and accompanying this information with positive or negative reinforcement.
- Offering or mandating conversion practices or “peer support” with the aim of change or suppression of sexual orientation or gender identity.
- Offering prayer or religious rituals (e.g., inviting someone to participate in rituals aimed at “healing” their identity)
- Advising a person to participate in "mentorship" or assigning a mentor to “correct” behaviour
- Consistently framing change or suppression of LGBTQA+ identity as self-improvement (e.g., encouraging them to see suppression of their identity as part of personal growth or spiritual advancement)
- Consistently promoting figures who have “successfully” suppressed their LGBTQA+ identity as examples to follow.
Recommendations: The bill should be amended to recognise and prohibit conduct directed to inducing a person to change or suppress their sexual orientation or gender identity, which involves intentional persuasion and influence beyond mere expression of belief.
Research shows the harm these actions cause, which is highlighted in survivor-led models and the Victorian civil scheme.
The lack of an independent third-party reporting function.
The Bill establishes a complaints rather than a reporting scheme. This means that victim survivors will have to complain of conversion practices themselves or nominate someone to do so. However, the survivor-led model adopted in Victoria centres the need for a scheme that allows for any person to make a report.
In the vast majority of cases, survivors take years to build the confidence and awareness required to seek justice. For most, particularly children, people with disability, and anyone participating in practices ongoingly, independent third party reporting is a primary method for preventing direct harm.
Without the ability of an independent third party who witnesses a person’s participation in (or inducement to participate in) conversion practices to make reports to the Commissioner, critical intelligence will not become known and systemic issues will not be able to be identified and investigated.
Recommendation: The bill should be amended to establish a reporting function that is open to independent third parties.
It needs to ensure that serious or systemic conversion practices can be identified and investigated, especially where survivors are unable to ask for help or face barriers due to age, disability, personal safety or isolation.
A 12-month window period for complaints under the current Equal Opportunity Commissioner's powers in SA.
This is also problematic, not least because of the reason outlined above. Most survivors need a substantial amount of time – much longer than 12 months – before they are ready to even approach an advocate to make a complaint on their behalf, let alone make a complaint themselves. See the National Research Project’s first report for more details about the extensive timeline required for survivors to recognise the practices they experienced and to consider taking steps towards justice.
It should be noted that the Victorian legislation does not include a strict time limit for reports.
Recommendation: The timeframe for making complaints or reports should be extended to 6 years, aligning with the time survivors typically need, as seen in the National Research Project’s findings and in Victoria’s legislation.
Insufficient authority for the Equal Opportunity to make referrals to other bodies
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 “to the relevant health complaints entity”, stipulated in Schedule 1, in relation to complaints about registered health practitioners.
Our experience in Victoria is that a key role of the Civil Scheme is its capacity to function as a designated centre for expertise, and in particular to offer as a key mediator of referrals to other commissions, regulatory bodies and other places. Section 29 of the Victorian Change or Suppression Practices Prohibition Act 2021 states that “if the Commission considers that a report relates to conduct that would be more adequately dealt with by another person or body, the Commission may refer the report to the other person or body. The persons or bodies to which the Commission may refer a report include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) the Health Complaints Commissioner;
(b) the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency;
(c) the Ombudsman;
(d) Victoria Police.”
Research and evidence about conversion practices in South Australia
The South Australian government now has access to an unprecedented volume of research findings relating to conversion practices – both their prevalence and nature.
In the past week, the National Conversion Ideology and Research Project released its latest report. There were no noteworthy differences in findings between South Australia and other states and Territories regarding the categories of findings from the survey. Of particular relevance to legislation are the following:
Finding: “Of over 1300 LGBTQA+ people of faith [surveyed]:
- 63% reported hearing either conversion ideology messages or messages directly suggesting participation in conversion practices
- 8% had experienced formal conversion practices.
- 45% had experienced informal conversion practices.”
One of the report’s recommendations: “Legislation that centres criminal penalties is unhelpful and it is more productive to target risk factors, build the capacity of a broad range of regulatory bodies, and enhance communities’ ability to guard against conversion ideology and practices. The civil response scheme established through Victoria’s Change and Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Act 2021 (Vic) has been empowered to deliver such community education, as well as to undertake investigations and engage with a range of regulators. Victoria’s civil response scheme also allows third parties to make reports to the scheme and does not rely on survivors alone to make or authorise complaints. This reflects the finding in our research that survivors often require substantial time to identify the harms they have experienced, let alone seek justice.”
Writing Themselves In 4, Australia’s national young adult LGBTQA+ youth and young adult survey (14-21yo), found in 2021 that 4% of this cohort had experienced formal conversion practices. While this survey did not test for prevalence of informal practices, the survey results may be triangulated with comparable overseas surveys in the UK and Canada that suggest at least 10% of LGBTQA+ Australians (both those of faith and those without a faith background) have experienced conversion practices.
The National Research Project’s report also demonstrates that conversion practices have a particularly harmful impact on the long-term mental health of participants and survivors, while also impacting trans people in broad ways:
“Increased frequency of exposure to conversion messages and conversion practices was related to decreased wellbeing, including internalised sexual prejudice for cisgender participants, PTSD, identity confusion and spiritual conflict. Further, increased exposure was linked to increased risks of self-harm and suicide. It should be noted that exposure to conversion messages can be harmful in and of itself; they do not need to be teamed with concrete practices to have a negative impact.”
“Trans and gender diverse participants were more likely to have heard conversion messages than cisgender participants and to have heard messages from a wider range of sources and from an earlier age. Trans or gender diverse participants were also more likely to have experienced conversion practices of every kind. Those who were raised in a religious household or family were more likely than other trans or gender diverse people to have experienced pressure to pass as cisgender or to perform the gender they were assigned at birth.”
These findings further underscore the need for a resourced civil scheme that:
- Can act as a central point of expertise
- Can receive and take carriage of reports so that conversion survivors (or those still participating in practices) are not required to experience retraumatisation.
- Can effectively refer matters to regulatory bodies such as AHPRA, practitioner peak bodies, police, and consumer bodies.
SOGICE Survivors’ engagement with survivors in South Australia
SOGICE Survivors’ response and recommendations concerning the bill are grounded in more than 10 years of experience supporting survivors, working closely on government-funded research project, and advocating for change across the country.
SOGICE Survivors has met with numerous South Australian government ministers in the past two years, including Human Services Minister Nat Cook and Attorney General Kyam Maher. We express our appreciation for their hospitality and kindness, as well as their attention to this issue.
SOGICE Survivors has always taken the view that our public comments around legislation need to truthfully reflect how the legislation stacks up in terms of its ability to actually stop harm. For this reason, SOGICE Survivors cannot support the bill ‘as is’, however we are very hopeful that the government will utilise the extensive survivor-led research and expertise of survivor advocates to make the required changes that will ensure truly protective legislation.
Produced by SOGICE Survivors and Amnesty International Australia
Endorsed by Australian LGBTIQ+ Multicultural Council (AGMC) and other prominent researchers and advocates.