Gay conversion therapy has been outlawed in Victoria following a marathon debate in the upper house on Thursday.
The bill passed the Victorian Parliament 27 votes to nine after a 12-hour sitting in the Legislative Council, where Liberal MPs Bev McArthur and Bernie Finn defied their party’s position and crossed the floor to vote against the government’s legislation.
Crossbench MPs Jeff Bourman, Clifford Hayes, Stuart Grimley, Tania Maxwell, David Limbrick, Tim Quilty and Catherine Cumming also voted against the bill.
Under the reforms, anyone found trying to suppress or change another person’s sexuality or gender identity faces up to 10 years’ jail or fines of almost $10,000 if it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that their actions caused serious injury.
The Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission will also get new powers to deal with complaints that do not meet the criminal threshold, and to launch own-motion investigations into systemic issues as part of a new civil scheme for victims. The Family Violence Protection Act will also be amended to make gay conversion therapy a form of domestic violence.
The Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill is the latest in a series of contentious progressive social reforms introduced under the Andrews government, and drew the ire of religious, medical and legal groups.
The Law Institute of Victoria raised concerns on behalf of lawyers that the bill was overly broad and could prevent parents or caregivers from having conversations with their children about gender identity or sexual orientation.
Debate started about 11am and finished just before 6pm before the bill headed to the “committee stage”, when each clause of the bill was examined and scrutinised in detail. The final vote to pass the proposed legislation took place just before 11pm.
In an emotional speech, the Victorian Parliament’s only openly gay MP, Harriet Shing, spoke of the emotional trauma of being denied the ability to express your sexuality and be accepted.
However, six minutes into her speech as Ms Shing began reading the names of lower house Coalition MPs who refrained from voting on the bill, Liberal MPs David Davis and Edward O’Donohue raised points of order that effectively cut short her speech time by about four minutes. The opposition denied Ms Shing’s request to complete her speech.
“It is very, very easy to say that we are not broken and that we do not need to be fixed,” a teary Ms Shing said.
“These are important messages, particularly from our allies, particularly from our leaders … from so many members of this government and from so many members of the opposition who privately acknowledge to me the importance and necessity of a bill just like this — in the form that has been presented, unamended — to recognise the pain and the trauma and the hurt of victims and survivors.”
She called out the “cognitive dissonance” and the “doublespeak” of MPs who were opposing the bill and had said they supported same-sex attracted and gender diverse people.
“Shame comes in so many layers, and people who grow up in a family or in a faith that says that they are not good enough, that they are wrong—that we are wrong—that says in fact that love is conditional upon us either denying who we are or agreeing to change, or in certain tragic circumstances, too many of which I am aware of personally, are forced to change.
“It is not acceptable that in a debate like this victims and survivors and our communities —my communities — are denied the opportunity to have our equality, our pain and hurt and trauma, on a footing which is of the utmost importance.”
In a statement to The Age, Ms Shing accused the Liberal MPs of “literally shutting down the speech of first and only openly gay woman in the Victorian Parliament”.
Liberal MP Bernie Finn had described the proposed law as an “attack on basic freedoms” and described elements of the bill as “social engineering”.
“None of us support some of the practices that have been used on gay men and lesbians, what can only be described as torture, in the past—just appalling, inhumane and, as I say, just straight-out barbaric,” Mr Finn said.
“We know that gender dysphoria is a condition that is dealt with very effectively by the medical fraternity. We do not need the sort of social engineering that this bill brings about. We have already seen a great number of children go to the children’s hospital, for example, confused about their gender … It has gone from half-a-dozen a year to well over 1000, as I understand it. That in itself is a worry. This bill is just going to add to that.”
The debate came after the Law Institute of Victoria wrote to the government about concerns it had received from members.
Law Institute president Tania Wolff and chief executive Adam Awty wrote in a letter to the Justice Department that it had received “concerned feedback” the bill was “overly broad” and could prevent parents or caregivers from having conversations with their children about their gender identity or sexual orientation.
“Is it the department’s intention that the bill intends to cover such conversations between children and their parents, family or caregivers?” the letter asked, while also stating the institute supported the intent of the ban.
“To be clear, the LIV understands that the bill does not seek to preclude guidance, counselling or general parental conversations between children, their parents and other family members in relation to gender identity or sexual orientation. It is currently unclear whether the bill reflects this understanding.
“If this is correct, it may be appropriate that the bill clarify that general familial conversations, including general words of guidance and counselling in familial settings, do not constitute a change or suppression practice.”
In response, Justice Department deputy secretary Anna Faithfull said the bill was aimed at criminalising conversations only where a person “[intended] to change or induce that person to change or suppress their sexual orientation or gender identity”.
“The definition provides exceptions for conduct which is supportive or affirming of a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, or appropriate practices by a health professional,” she wrote.
“Conversations between children and their parents or other family caregivers about sexual orientation or gender identity matters would only be captured if the conversation satisfies the above three elements and does not fall within an exception.”
Start your day informed
Our Morning Edition newsletter is a curated guide to the most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up here.
Most Viewed in Politics
Source: Read Full Article
