Leader of the Labor Party, Chris Minns, has promised that an NSW Labor conversion therapy bill will not interfere with preaching and prayer while wishing to shield young people. But, as he puts it, the bill will be a needle that needs to be threaded.
(But please note an important caveat in this story.)
He was asked about his conversion therapy bill at a faith communities town hall meeting in Parramatta last night. The Other Cheek reproduces his answer in full.
He is responding to a question from Monica Doumit of the Sydney Catholic Archdiocese which mentioned reports of a paper by Westmead Children’s Hospital academics supporting a cautious approach to transgender treatment.
“So look, in relation to conversion therapy, were concerned about the impact of young people in particular who are told that there’s something wrong with them. At a young age, being told there’s something wrong with you and that you have to change, particularly if you can’t change, isn’t healthy and may be very damaging.
“And I’ve said that we’re going to pursue our own bill in relation to this. We’re not just going to transpose the Victorian legislation and implement it into New South Wales.
“We will work with the Attorney General’s Department and the Department of Health via a Working Group. The reason for that is we’ve heard, I guess, a critique of the Victorian legislation from the AMA, who believed that the definition was too broad and that medical professionals who are professionally accredited through their associations, who are in good standing, need to be able to have a seat at the table in relation to their application of their profession through their professional bodies. Now, I’m not committing to that. But that’s the landing zone to which Western Australia ended up committing to. And it’s an example of the complexity that’s inherent in the bill.
“So I need to say … this has got to be directed at an individual’s – the ban or the conversion ban has to be directed at an individual’s sexuality with the direct purpose of suppression. Taking offence at the teachings of a religious leader will not be banned. Expressing a religious belief through sermon will not be banned. And an individual, at their own consent, seeking guidance through prayer will not be banned either.
“It is a very complicated piece of legislation. We know that this working group is important in making sure that we understand the complexities in the law and the application of it. And we believe that we can thread the needle if you like to make sure that young people who are in that position are not damaged as a result. But I’m not standing here and sitting here in front of all of you suggesting that it’s an easy law to land. You’ve seen complexity in other states and it needs to be handled carefully.
“In relation to medical professionals at that senior level. I mean, we’re going to have to see the specifics of it. If you can, send me the particular report. I think you referenced Westmead was it? Of course, we will provide a detailed response to this organisation and yourself of course, but given the complexity of it, given medical professional advice as it relates to this particular area, I need to see and understand the context in which the comments have been made. Thanks, Monica.”
The study from the Westmead team is here. A follow up is here.
The tension between Chris Minns’ desire to shield young people and a commitment to religious freedom was reflected in Bishop At the end of the night Bishop Michael Stead, in a “vote of thanks” speech, summarised this point as “I was also delighted to hear that the Minn’s Labor commitment to conversion a ban on conversion therapy would not extend to people taking offence at preaching or to restricting the teaching or religious doctrine, or of adults seeking prayer.”
Religious discrimination
In response to a question about religious coercion Minns addressed the timetable for his government
“I just want to reaffirm that religious vilification will be acted on in the first 100 days.
“Religious discrimination, we believe, and we’ve already announced, needs to go to the New South Wales Law Reform Commission. But we think that in that context with a full and transparent discussion with people have faith that we can have a positive discussion about it. And I know that there’s been a cross-party committee that looked at the implications of that legislation. And then it’s a tricky thing to keep to compare competing rights and freedom of religion is part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and we understand that we’ve got obligations as a signatory to that convention.
“My suggestion is that, given the complexity of it, we will put that to the Law Reform Commission and make sure that we’ve got a full and transparent process of consultation with people of faith communities. We go into that aware that where there are competing rights, that there needs to be sensitivity about its application. I think that we can do it. And I think that it’s possible to do it, but we would never do it without explaining, talking, consulting and taking advice from people of faith and their religious leaders.”
Perrottet
Premier Dominic Perrottet also addressed a faith communities forum, a few days earlier.
Monica Doumit asked a general question about the independent Alex Greenwich’s Conversion bill.This is his full answer.
“Yeah, thanks, Monica. Well, uh, the, the first point I’d make is there is no place for harmful practices in, in our state. And since this issue was raised, people have raised with me examples, of, food deprivation, electro shock therapy. Well, those practices are wrong, and we will move, uh, to outlaw them at the same time. We will not ban prayer. We will not ban preaching. That is fundamental, uh, to freedom of religion, in this state and in this country. So we can do both. We can ban harmful practices, and we can protect freedom of religion in our state. It’s not one or the other.
“It’s respecting, um, it’s respecting everyone’s perspectives in relation to this, and having a balanced approach. I’ve tasked the Attorney General, to work through that legislation. He will do that in consultation with members of Parliament in consultation with a whole range of stakeholders in this issue. But ultimately, where we will land is the banning of harmful, conversion practices in New South Wales. I mean, at the same time, protecting the right of freedom of religion, prayer, and preaching.”
Asked whether a anti-religious vilification law would be a first step towards a religious discrimination law, Perrottet took a relatively cautious approach. Here’s his answer.
“Well, that’s something else you can work on. That’s another job for the [Religious Affairs] Council. Look, in relation to vilification, well, there’s no place of vilification against anyone.
“And the challenge you have with these laws is that the more you include, the more you exclude. I remember when the previous federal government was working through this issue on discrimination, I raised at the time, which was probably unpopular amongst many religious leaders, was that I just don’t know, uh, whether you’re going to create a bigger problem than the one that you’re trying to fix.
“These laws are very, very difficult and challenging. But in relation to the vilification laws in New South Wales, well, I think that’s something that the council would, [and we] would be very happy as a government to work with you on, to get your advice in relation to, amendments that could be made for the simple reason, that there should be no vilification on anyone’s background. Whether that’s based on your, your faith or no faith, uh, your culture, your nationality, your sexuality, no one should be vilified at all in New South Wales or discriminated against.”
Discrimination
I did have concerns in relation to the previous federal government’s bill. I think the approach the current government’s taking in relation to sending this to Law Reform Commission, uh, is a welcome one. And they can, and they will work through those issues, and then we will respond accordingly in New South Wales. But in direct response to the question on vilification, I think it’s something that we can very much work with the council on, um, in, uh, potentially looking at amendments to the current law in a way that just ensures there is no vilification of anyone, in our state. But as I said, the challenge also always becomes, once you start adding, um, then you exclude, you exclude others. But we’d very much work, uh, like to work with you on, on the advice you can provide. “