On the proposed NSW Conversion Practices Ban

MEDIA RELEASE - This is the text our Cathedral Dean sent all Members of the Legislative Council of NSW earlier this week.

Dear [Insert Name of MLC],

Extract - front page of the proposed Bill to be debated

I am writing to all NSW Members of the Legislative Council with re. the recently introduced NSW Conversion Practices Ban Bill. I have some suggestions for amendments to this Bill. 

I write as the Dean of Sydney at St Andrew’s Cathedral (Anglican) with 30 years’ of ordained pastoral ministry, and significant experience across a range of social issues in our diocese, including domestic violence prevention, poker machine reform, and pastoral ethics around marriage. 

But first, I support an implicit aim of the Bill – to help those who are vulnerable. Any act of self-harm is a tragedy that we would all hope to prevent. So I am encouraged by the desire to protect people from harm, even if we cannot agree entirely with the solution as proposed in this Bill. 

Secondly, I appreciate that the NSW Government isa attempting to keep its election promises. The drafting of this Bill is less problematic than similar bills adopted in other states of Australia. 

Thirdly, I do support suggested amendments, for improving the Bill, that I would like you to consider. These are as follows, with background and explanation following:

• Define “suppress” properly within the Bill, as “means attempt to eliminate”;

• Clarify that the health practitioner exemption in 3(3)(a) protects  practitioner seeking to assist a person who has undergone some sort of medical or surgical gender transition and now wishes to “detransition";

• Amend 3(3)(b) to protect responses aimed at “meeting the individual’s needs or request” of a person, so that a person’s own assessment of “need” is a relevant matter of consideration for applying this exemption;  

• Expand the parental protection in 4(d) to include a wider range of familial care relationships, such as guardians and grandparents with primary care responsibility;

• Clarify that 4(d) permits a parent or guardian not only to discuss such matters with a child, but also to set rules or behavioural standards for a child under their care, just as in other areas of family life. 

As far as I can see, the main difficulty comes in the prohibition of “suppression practices" alongside "conversion" practices. (For the record, the Sydney Anglican Synod declared in 2018 “the Anglican Church in the Diocese of Sydney does not practise, recommend or endorse ‘gay conversion therapy’”.)

But in this new Bill, "suppression" is not further defined. It is inadequate drafting to rely on a reference in the mover’s second reading speech, where he seemed quite expansive in what suppression could involve.

All this appears to mean that a pastor could teach the historic Christian position that sex should be reserved for marriage between a man and a woman. But he cannot really advocate for celibacy, at least not by giving advice about it. 

So if a single person wishing to live in accord with the historic Christian faith, but struggling with sexual continence, asked me for help, I might be able to pray with them.  

But it seems I could not - legally - give a single person advice about steps to take that might assist them to remain celibate, because this would "suppress their sexual orientation”. 

And I could not advise a married person about steps to take so as not to fall again into sins of adultery (even though they say they wish to avoid such sins), because even a single episode of advice could be a "practice" (according to the AG's second reading speech). 

By the way, notice that this is the case whether a person's "sexual orientation" is same or opposite sex directed. And as far as I can see, s5(4) says this applies whether or not the individual, to whom the conversion practice would be provided, consents!

This part of the Bill seems like highly inappropriate interference with legitimate and consensual pastoral care, which is in accord with historic Christian standards, that are also widely respected today by many as legitimate options in society. 

Yet Labor candidates promised that legislation “must not outlaw individuals voluntarily seeking out […] advice and assistance regarding their personal circumstances.” It is unclear whether the Bill fulfils these commitments.

I am also concerned about the degree under this Bill to which parents would really remain free to explore and express concern about matters to do with their children’s gender identity and expression. 

My concern is all the deeper, when I note, ironically, that this Bill privileging gender transition (as a kind of permitted conversion therapy) was tabled the same day as the English National Health Service indicated it would no longer permit the routine prescription of puberty blockers to children, to aid such conversion, except as part of a clinical trial, due to the lack of good evidence for the safety and efficacy of such treatments. 

It should certainly be made clear that health professionals can assist persons experiencing the pattern of "transition regret" and considering the increasing phenomenon of detransition.

So once again, I summarise my suggested amendments:

• Define “suppress” properly within the Bill, as “means attempt to eliminate”;

• Clarify that the health practitioner exemption in 3(3)(a) protects  practitioner seeking to assist a person who has undergone some sort of medical or surgical gender transition and now wishes to “detransition”;

• Amend 3(3)(b) to protect responses aimed at “meeting the individual’s needs or request” of a person, so that a person’s own assessment of “need” is a relevant matter of consideration for applying this exemption;  

• Expand the parental protection in 4(d) to include a wider range of familial care relationships, such as guardians and grandparents with primary care responsibility;

• Clarify that 4(d) permits a parent or guardian not only to discuss such matters with a child, but also to set rules or behavioural standards for a child under their care, just as in other areas of family life. 

I would be glad to receive your response to these suggestions. 

In conclusion, thank you for your work serving the citizens of NSW. Regardless of the outcome of debate on this legislation, I assure you of the prayers not only of myself, but of the congregation members of the Cathedral I serve for all elected members of the NSW Parliament.

Yours sincerely,

Sandy

A.R. (Sandy) Grant
Dean of Sydney
St Andrew's Anglican Cathedral