The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (16:09):

I rise to indicate that I will be supporting this legislation, and am pleased to hear that a lot of us agree that a number of the stories we have heard are distressing and that the practices should not be allowed to continue. Conversion practices are practices, treatments or sustained efforts that consist of more than one event—according to this bill—occurring on more than one occasion that is directed to an individual on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity for the purposes of changing that individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

The harm from conversion practices was recognised by the former Marshall Liberal government. In December 2019 the Chief Psychiatrist issued an internal memorandum to all public mental health services regarding the inappropriateness of such practices, seeking confirmation that they would not be provided. That was also extended to all local health networks, to confirm that they did not engage in such practices.

These practices, and variations of them, use coercive psychological, physical or spiritual interventions, and they have been put forward by professionals, priests and church ministers, even life coaches and counsellors. A number of health practitioner bodies—professional bodies such as the Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, the Psychological Society of Australia, and the Australian Association of Social Workers—have recognised their harm and do not endorse them as therapeutic practices.

In relation to the South Australian legislation, in particular, I would like to acknowledge those in our community who have fought for this and advocated for it, in particular Jace Reh and SARAA. I also acknowledge the Hon. Ian Hunter, who I think shared the concerns I had that this legislation may have been given a quiet burial in the back of the Labor Party election promises. I am pleased to see they are honouring that commitment to bring this legislation forward.

The legislation is quite novel in a number of jurisdictions, and therefore does not go as far as some advocates would like. It has being crafted quite carefully; as the Attorney-General knows, I do not congratulate him on many occasions, but on this occasion I think it has been crafted to take into consideration a lot of the issues that have been raised with me over time by people of faith and people who are concerned about whether this will interfere with the sorts of conversations people might have in the family home with their children, their siblings and the like, in relation to questioning and other things that take place.

In relation to some of the specific clauses, it is quite a high test to be able to demonstrate that significant harm has taken place, and that is potentially one of the things that advocates have commented on, that it is too high. I also note that within normal health practice there are specific clauses—namely clause 4(3) which deals with health services, parts (a) and (b)—to enable them to engage in services or treatments as part of their practice without them fearing they may be prosecuted. Clauses 4(3)(c) and 4(4) provide some exemptions and examples of faith and religious organisations, educators, educational institutions and parents. That is a respectful balance in terms of ensuring those conversations are separated from what is going to result in harm.

There is a chap who has been an advocate in this space for quite some time, Anthony-Venn Brown OAM. Anthony Venn-Brown was a former Assemblies of God pastor who preached in the eighties. I have actually heard him preach as a youth pastor at the Paradise Assembly of God. He is a member of the baby boomer generation, and he has written a book called A Life of Unlearning: A preacher’s struggle with his homosexuality, church and faith.

I read a particular chapter which has been published in a book called Gay Conversion Practices in Memoir, Film and Fiction: Stories of Repentance and Defiance, which is edited by James E. Bennett and Marguerite Johnson. His is chapter 1, and I have taken the opportunity to read it in detail. I think he outlines his process in writing his memoir, which has been a guide for people over many years. He has rewritten it twice and talks about the culture at the time when he was growing up being very much viewing anything other than being straight, for want of a better word, as sexual deviation—and within his family, and certainly within his church, the pressure that he felt to fit in—and therefore viewed what he was feeling as a young man as deviation.

It is quite a detailed chapter. I am obviously not going to go through it in detail, but he went through some horrendous experiences, and I think, like a lot of people who have undergone these practices, felt so bad by the end of it that a number of people that he has known have committed suicide because it was such a torturous thing for them to go through. I think the conclusion that he reached was he had attempted and followed the guiding and the teachings that he was provided by his church leadership. He even was in a residential program and just was not able to be cured of being a gay man. He says at this point:

I’m fortunate to be in a good place now, but many survivors of conversion ‘therapy’ are not. Conversion ‘therapy’, whether informal or informal religious settings, is always harmful because it is based on a false premise that if you are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or gender diverse, something is wrong with you.

He has had a number of people who have read his book, and come across his book, which has been cathartic for those individuals, that they have been able to recognise that they have been through the same experience and, because of the deeply buried shame, it has enabled them to appreciate that they are not the one with the issue; this is the way they are. No matter what teachings or treatments or ‘therapies’ are undertaken, this is not going to change.

He has also written some work in relation to the changes in practices over time, or the changes in language over time. I think it is fair to say that there is less of this activity going on. He talks about some of the organisations—I think Exodus International, which ceased to exist, and some of the individuals who had been involved in that organisation have apologised. Certainly, if you had been a child of the fifties or the sixties or the seventies you may have been subject to this on a regular basis, and it would have been very difficult for you to find others and to fit in with your church. He also says that the American Psychiatric Association removal of homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in 1973 was very significant.

My understanding is that it does still exist today. There are not many people who will be prepared to speak out about this, it is so traumatic. I am certainly not going to read into the Hansard some of these stories because they will retraumatise us all, particularly for the people in the gallery. Anthony Venn-Brown talks about a collective range of language that has been used over the years. I will provide this to Hansard because it has the quotation marks that I think are important. He states:

These include, “conversion therapy”, so called “conversion therapy”, conversion “therapy”, gay “cure”, the “change is possible” message/practices, ex-gay/reparative/conversion “therapy”…pray the gay away, sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts, trying to change or suppress “unwanted same-sex attraction”/gender identity, suppress sexual orientation and gender identity, and the forced celibacy movement, LGBTQ “conversion” practices…

And the like. He goes on:

Whilst terminology has constantly changed over the last 50 years, two things have remained constant. The harm the ideology and practices have caused to 10,000s of lives along with an incalculable amount that took their own lives, when self-hatred, intense cognitive dissonance and failures caused depression to set in.

The harm has been well documented for decades since the end of the 1990s. In 2015, The Columbia Law School brought together a number of peer-reviewed studies published over the last 30 years that addressed the question of whether conversion therapy (CT) can alter sexual orientation without causing harm.

Unsurprisingly, they did. From his book A Life of Unlearning there are a couple of very hard quotes. I acknowledge these are American examples where the practices are much more widespread. Matt from Pennsylvania said, ‘I made a lot of friends in conversion therapy. Out of forty, only six are still alive (one died naturally, the rest suicide).’ Steve, a Mormon who spent 12 years of his life in the Mormon ex-gay program Evergreen, said in a YouTube testimonial that a third of the Denver group he was involved in had committed suicide. Anthony Venn-Brown goes on to say:

Legislation with penalties is a serious wake-up call to people in religious circles who still hold on to the outdated beliefs that being gay or transgender is unnatural/dysfunctional/against God’s order and can be changed. It would be naïve to think that legislation has/will fix everything. Legislation doesn’t change beliefs. So harm will continue to happen in those contexts, covertly and overtly.

He later says:

We can safely say that the work will only be over when every church, denomination, and religious organisation is completely LGBTQ affirming.

I acknowledge his work over many decades as someone who has lived experience and as someone who has been in touch with so many people who have been through these practices. I thank those individuals in South Australia who have reached out to me and been brave enough to tell me their stories. I support the legislation and I am unlikely to support any of the amendments.