Some prayer, but not sermons, banned in NSW Conversion Bill

The Conversion Practices Ban Bill 2024, introduced into the NSW Parliament yesterday, seeks to ban “conversion practices” aimed at changing or suppressing a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity captures some forms of prayer and counselling, but not sermons or teaching religion.

“We have heard clearly that, especially with religious beliefs or principles, part of that expression can also include expressing that such beliefs should be applied to one’s life,” Attorney-General Michael Daley said in his second reading speech. “The exclusion has been carefully drafted to preserve the ability for people to express their views and their beliefs. That includes the expression of a belief or principle about specific matters, such as through a sermon or one-on-one conversations. For instance, explaining that a religious text states homosexuality is a sin would not be a conversion practice. That exclusion also confirms that private prayer, including personal prayer and reflection, will not be a conversion practice.”

The Attorney General pointed out that the NSW bill while drawing on the experience of other states, was not a copy of other legislation. It was a NSW bill for NSW.

However, the NSW bill will likely restrict some religious practices, including certain prayers, when targeted at an individual. Victoria’s prayer ban is wider than the proposed law in NSW.

“Ahead of the consultation, the New South Wales Government was clear that neither taking offence at the teachings of a religious leader nor expressing a religious belief through sermon will be banned. It will also not be illegal for an individual, of their own consent, to seek guidance through prayer. That exclusion is consistent with those positions. The bill does not impact a person’s ability, of their own consent, to seek counsel or guidance from within their faith. Counsel and guidance can still be given, provided they are not directed to change or suppress.”

That last sentence expresses a tension in the Bill. For many Christians, what the Bible says is authoritative – so to explain what the Bible says is to suggest that people follow it. “Counsel and guidance” by a Christian minister can be expected to apply the Bible’s teaching.

The Bill attempts to resolve some of the tensions by including examples.

“To avoid doubt, the following are examples of what does not constitute a conversion practice under this section—

1. (a)  stating what relevant religious teachings are or what a religion says about a specific topic, 
2. (b)  general requirements in relation to religious orders or membership or leadership of a religious community, 
3. (c)  general rules in educational institutions, 
4. (d)  parents discussing matters relating to sexual orientation, gender identity,  sexual activity or religion with their children.”
   
   

Attorney-General Daley amplified these examples. “Paragraph (c) confirms that general rules in educational institutions will not be considered conversion practices. For example, this might be a general requirement in relation to school uniforms. Much like rules for religious office, these are requirements of a general nature not targeted to a person on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Such practices are not conversion practices.
“Paragraph (d) confirms that parents discussing matters related to sexual orientation, gender identity, sexual activity or religion with their children will not be a conversion practice. This ban was never intended to stop parents from having discussions, even challenging discussions, with their children about these matters. This example makes that intent very clear.”

The clause (3 (3) c) specifying an exemption for prayer states:

“A conversion practice does not include… The following expressions if the expression is not part of a practice, treatment or sustained effort, directed to changing or suppressing an individual’s sexual  orientation or gender identity— 

1. (i)  an expression, including in prayer, of a belief or principle, including a  religious belief or principle, 
2. (ii)  an expression that a belief or principle ought to be followed or applied.”

But an AAP report had further comments by Daley: “While loathe ruling in and out hypothetical practices, he said it would remain legal for a religious leader to preach to a group that “in our faith, being a homosexual is wrong and it’s a sin, and you can go to hell”.

“That’s not a conversion practice,” Mr Daley said.

“Sitting down with someone and directing that practice to them with the intention of ‘praying the gay away’ – that is.”

Or as the Attorney General’s speech puts it: “In both cases, the exclusion applies only if the expression is not part of a practice, treatment or a sustained effort directed to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. That is the critical question as to whether the exclusion applies—whether it is directed to change or suppress. That exclusion makes clear that the ban does not prohibit general expressions of religious beliefs, principles or teachings.”

Public prayer to a congregation would seem unaffected. Prayer targeting an individual in an attempt to bring about change is within the scope of the bill.

Where the Attorney-General’s speech said, “private prayer, including personal prayer and reflection, will not be a conversion practice,” it most likely means prayer by oneself.

By contrast, any prayer for an individual to change or suppress their gender expression or sexual orientation is banned in Victoria.

The Bill sets up a civil complaints scheme with the Anti-Discrimination Board as the first port of call. Complaints can be made by individuals, on behalf of another, or by a class of persons. The board’s president can refer complaints to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The tribunal has the power to award damages to the complainant. In addition, failure to comply with an order of the tribunal can result in $100,000 in damages.

Conversion practices that cause substantial mental or physical harm are an offence under the proposed law, subject to imprisonment for up to five years.

Did Labor keep its election promise?

The Other Cheek was present when the now Premier addressed a faith communities town hall meeting in Parramatta during the election campaign.

Responding to a question from Monica Doumit of the Sydney Catholic Archdiocese, Minns answer included. “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. …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. “

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 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.”

People can seek prayer as promised – but under this bill, it appears that praying with a transgender or LGBT person for change or celibacy appears to be banned.

However, it is likely that the Christians present would take ‘Adults seeking prayer’ to mean people praying together, one-on-one or in a group. Given this understanding, Labor has fallen short of keeping Minn’s undertaking.