Religious leaders in Victoria, Australia, have called on their Government to roll back its oppressive conversion therapy ban, warning that it criminalises conversations between parents and children, and prevents ministers from offering pastoral advice to those seeking it.
by The Christian Institute
Victoria’s infamous Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Act criminalises any practice deemed to be ‘aimed’ at ‘changing or suppressing’ an individual’s ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘gender identity’. The penalty is up to ten years in prison or a maximum fine of over A$200,000.
Not only does Victoria’s ban make it unlawful not to affirm a person’s declared gender identity, but official state guidance on how to avoid prosecution under the law also prohibits prayers about sin and repentance. Just as alarming, the guidance even said a parent discouraging their child from taking puberty blockers would be guilty of unlawful conversion therapy — this was only deleted following public backlash.
This video was created for the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission two years ago. It shows how committed the government is to promoting gender ideology, and to minimising religious practise in Victoria.
Four years on from the Act coming into force, the Victorian Law Reform Commission has launched a review of the legislation.
In their submission to the review, a group of religious leaders with pastoral oversight for more than two million Victorians warn that the Act extends far beyond addressing harmful practices, and that its “broad overreach, ambiguity and ill-defined concepts of faith, has caused confusion in the community”. They say this is most notable among religious leaders and parents, who “appear to be disproportionately affected by the Act”.
Representing a range of religious traditions – including Anglican, Catholic, Sikh, Hindu and Muslim – the leaders go on to say there has been “a chilling effect, particularly on religious leaders, many of whom feel constrained or unable to provide appropriate pastoral care to those seeking guidance for fear of breaching the law”.
Joanna Timm, Senior Public Affairs Officer at The Christian Institute, commented:
“For years, activists have championed Victoria’s conversion therapy ban as the model for the UK to follow. That is why this latest intervention from religious leaders in Victoria is so significant.
“It puts paid to the claim that concerns about a UK conversion therapy ban are alarmist, and pulls back the curtain on the impact such laws have on ordinary church work and parenting. With the Westminster Government doubling down on its commitment to legislation, Victoria shows us what happens when activist demands are written into statute.”
NOTES
• There are already robust protections in law against abuse and coercion. Independent legal advice from multiple KCs is clear that any extension of the criminal law could breach no fewer than four rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights by criminalising ordinary church work, parental guidance and gender-critical beliefs.
• The Westminster Government confirmed in the King’s Speech that it intends to publish a draft ‘conversion practices’ Bill for England and Wales.
Republished from The Christian Institute. The Christian Institute exists for “the furtherance and promotion of the Christian religion in the United Kingdom and elsewhere” and “the advancement of education”. It is a nondenominational Christian charity with more than 60,000 supporters throughout the UK, including more than 5,000 churches. The Christian Institute is committed to upholding the truths of the Bible which we believe is inerrant and the supreme authority for all of life, and is committed to upholding the sanctity of life from conception.
Pro-abortion Victorian parliamentarian Georgie Purcell, of the Animal Justice Party, has used her pregnancy announcement, paradoxically, to promote the “perceived right” to abortion, as Endeavour Forum recently reported. Incoherence appears to be a way of life for Purcell, who defends the rights of ducks and greyhounds while advocating for the slaughter of innocent children in the womb — including two of her own babies. Now Ms Purcell has teamed up with Rachel Payne of the Legalise Cannabis Party to push for expanded abortion access in the already extremely permissive state of Victoria.
Georgie Purcell
Rachel Payne
Payne and Purcell have released a report which they hope will garner support for their vendetta against Victoria’s babies. They claim that, despite abortion having been legal to full term in Victoria since 2008, women face multiple obstacles to accessing abortion due to a variety of factors. The Abortion Access Report identifies four areas which the two women believe need to be addressed so that Victorian women can gain greater and more straightforward access to abortions, and makes recommendations related to those areas of focus. An examination of the Report reveals the same disdain for pregnancy, for conscience rights and for women’s safety that is evident in modern “reproductive rights” debate.
Affordability
Following in the footsteps of the ACT, where abortions have been free since 2022, Payne and Purcell are demanding that Victoria taxpayers likewise fund abortions. Included in this demand is the specific call for those mothers not covered by Medicare to be offered chemical or surgical abortions for free — a clear reference to migrants and international students.
Yet these two minority groups — migrants and international students — are already accessing abortion due to the high cost of giving birth outside the Medicare system. Anecdotal evidence of this comes from members of the pro-life community who attended prayer vigils outside abortion facilities before the advent of exclusion-zones. They confirm that many non-citizens would gladly proceed with their pregnancies were the hospital fees associated with having a baby not so high.
So, despite the cost, abortion is far less expensive for non-Australians than having a baby; it is this problem which needs to be solved rather than attempting to reduce the cost of abortions.
Payne and Purcell also want the state government to examine its Patient Transport Assistance Scheme to ensure its policies, such as eligibility criteria and paperwork, are not raising barriers to abortion access.
Accessibility
According to the Abortion Access Report, 70 per cent of Victoria’s local government areas have no dedicated abortion provider, and 20 per cent have no chemical abortion provider, obviously a disastrous state of affairs for any advocate of child sacrifice.
In order to address this perceived need, Payne and Purcell want the Victorian government to expand its sexual and reproductive “health” hubs into even more areas, with what can only be called a eugenic agenda — the babies of migrants and the “economically disadvantaged” are being specifically targeted for more abortions.
Payne and Purcell are also demanding that any hospital which provides maternity care be also forced to perform abortions. These women’s continual certitude of the supposed equivalence of birth and death by abortion is quite staggering!
Another egregious defect of the Report is the lack of concern shown by its authors for women’s safety. Citing the latest guidelines for abortion provision, Payne and Purcell state that doctors who require pathology and ultrasounds prior to a mother’s abortion are causing unnecessary delays. Indeed, ultrasound-free chemical abortions, such as those procured via Telehealth appointments are being promoted as the “modern” and “straightforward” way of accessing abortion.
Screenshot from MSI website
Yet although these diagnostics are not legally required, it makes good medical sense to perform them prior to an abortion. For example, if a pregnancy is ectopic (that is, the embryo is implanted outside the mother’s womb), then it is extremely dangerous for a woman to take the abortion pill. Since the location of an embryo can only be detected by ultrasound, it is very irresponsible of a doctor not to order one before prescribing a chemical abortion. An ectopic pregnancy is a life-threatening condition which should not be downplayed by those seeking to simplify abortion access.
Conscientious objectors
As the Report reminds us, pro-life doctors have a legal obligation under Section 8 of the Abortion Law Reform Act 2008 to advise patients of their pro-life stance and to refer women to another doctor who has no objection to abortions. Of course, this is a gross violation of conscience rights as, despite that action being indirect, by referring a mother to a colleague, and knowing this will lead to a child’s death, a pro-life doctor becomes an accessory to that death.
Payne and Purcell claim that such referrals by pro-life doctors are often not being provided and want this to stop. The two women are requesting from the state government more resources in the form of officials designated to monitor pro-life doctors — in effect, to spy on them and turn them into the authorities.
This is an unrealistic and dangerous suggestion for a number of reasons. Economically, Victoria is strapped for cash and it would be most irresponsible to spend public money on policing confidential conversations between doctors and their patients, when, as the Report’s authors agree, many basic health services are not being provided in the state.
Secondly, it would be demoralising to medical professionals to have their privacy violated in this way. Only pro-life doctors would be affected; their actions should be contrasted with those of doctors who do refer for and perform abortions which leave their patients traumatised yet for whom there is no oversight.
Thirdly and most importantly for the privacy of all residents, the creation of a watchdog of this kind would set a dangerous precedent, one which would only cement Victoria’s reputation as a police state.
Included in this section is another call for publicly-funded hospitals to be forced to provide abortions; an end to the practice of — in the authors’ words — “corporate conscientious objection”. Failure of pro-life medical staff and hospitals to provide abortions is at the very heart of Payne and Purcell’s new campaign.
Workplace training
The final section of the Abortion Access Report is dedicated to increasing the number of abortion providers through more funding for training. A widely-circulated untruth is repeated: that it is stigma surrounding abortion which makes doctors reluctant to provide them. Nothing could be further from the truth as abortion is so ubiquitous that it is the doctors who are pro-life, and not pro-abortion, who are being marginalised!
Yet the lie must continue, for it covers the reality that many doctors simply do not want to perform abortions because they find it distasteful. The Report quotes another from 2024, providing the following statistics:
As of mid-2023, just 17 per cent of GPs in Victoria were providing medical abortions and only 19 per cent of pharmacists were dispensing the medication. Access to surgical abortion is even more limited, particularly in regional and rural areas. Across Victoria there are just 35 providers, and only 15 offering procedures beyond 12 weeks’ gestation.
To anyone who is shocked by the industrial scale of abortion, having 35 providers in Victoria alone, with 15 willing to perform late-term abortions, appears a disastrous state of affairs. Yet Purcell and Payne believe women need far, far more abortionists — one on every corner? — to ensure that every last unwanted child is eliminated in a timely manner.
The Abortion Access Report underscores a harmful undercurrent continually at play throughout Australia: that the abortion lobby is prepared to jeopardise women’s health and safety, and to push more and more vulnerable women into choosing death for their children over life. Its emphasis on squashing the rights of medical practitioners to exercise freedom of conscience highlights an authoritarian agenda that needs to be resisted at every opportunity.
About the author
Kathy Clubb is an Australian mother and grandmother and has home-educated her children for the best part of 30 years. She has undertaken official pro-life work for 10 years, first in Tasmania, and then in Victoria. In 2016, Kathy was part of an unsuccessful attempt to defeat Victoria’s abortion exclusion-zones, which led to a constitutional challenge in the High Court of Australia in late 2018. Her articles have also appeared at Family Life International, LifeSiteNews, Online Opinion, Caldron Pool and Fidelity magazine.
Melbourne teacher Myka Sanders is suing his Catholic school after it declined to use his preferred pronouns. The case could establish a nationwide precedent for religious freedom in faith-based education.
A legal battle taking place in Victoria could determine whether faith-based schools can uphold Christian teachings on sex and gender without facing legal penalties.
Myka Sanders, a teacher at Sacred Heart Girls College in Oakleigh, Melbourne, is suing Melbourne Archdiocese Catholic Schools (MACS) after the school declined to use his preferred pronouns in official communications.
The hearing is scheduled in the Melbourne Magistrates Court later this month and could progress to the High Court of Australia.
“This case could finally determine how Federal and State discrimination laws and religious exemptions interact,” explained Mike Southon in a recent email from Freedom for Faith.
Monica Doumit, Freedom for Faith board member and Director of Public Affairs and Engagement for the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney, recently explained that MACS’s stance reflects Catholic teaching on gender.
“The school’s approach is rooted in the understanding that biological sex is a fundamental reality, and this underpins the educational mission entrusted to Catholic institutions,” she said.
The Independent Education Union of Australia (IEUA), representing 75,000 non-government school employees, is supporting Sanders. The union seeks compensation and legal orders to prevent further alleged breaches of Victoria’s Equal Opportunity Act.
“The Albanese government is also under pressure from the union to tighten federal anti-discrimination laws in line with Victoria and Tasmania,” Southon warns.
Federal versus state law clash
The case exposes a clash between Victoria’s law, which restricts religious exemptions, and the federal Sex Discrimination Act, which gives faith-based schools wider legal protection.
As Professor Neil Foster, legal scholar and Freedom for Faith board member, has explained:
Where a State or Territory law dealing with discrimination provides a narrower balancing clause in relation to religious bodies or educational institutions than the Commonwealth law provides, the State or Territory law will, to the extent of that inconsistency, be inoperative by virtue of s 109 of the Constitution.
This means that if state rules limit a school’s ability to act according to its faith, federal law can override those limits — potentially allowing schools to follow their religious principles without breaching state regulations.
Earlier, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) found that protections for religious freedom are treated differently under State and Federal law. Section 109 of the Constitution gives federal law priority when conflicts arise, a key point likely to be tested if the case moves forward.
“The case has the potential to require the courts to address whether an organisation can rely on a religious freedom right granted by Commonwealth law, if that right is not recognised by State law,” Foster added. “I believe any action against the school should fail.”
The heart of the dispute
The conflict began when Melbourne Archdiocese Catholic Schools declined Sanders’ request to use the title “Mx” instead of “Mr” and the pronoun “they” in official communications.
Under Victoria’s Equal Opportunity Act, “gender identity” includes personal references such as pronouns or titles. For discrimination to be unlawful, it must involve unfavourable treatment “because of that attribute” or practices that indirectly disadvantage persons with that attribute.
While Sanders was directed not to use the title “Mx,” she has not been disciplined or dismissed.
MACS contends that all of its teachers are expected to use titles aligned with biological sex — a policy the school applies equally across staff.
“This personal decision by a staff member has consequences that affect the whole school community,” the school stated.
“It illustrates an ideological shift from Catholic teaching and an inability of the staff member to uphold the vision and mission of the Catholic school.”
Legal protections for religious schools
Section 83A of Victoria’s Equal Opportunity Act allows discrimination in employment only when it relates to a staff member’s religious belief or activity. Because Sanders’ request is not based on religion, MACS cannot rely on this provision for protection.
By contrast, section 38 of the federal Sex Discrimination Act provides broader protection.
“Decisions in relation to staff which are based on the need to avoid injury to religious susceptibilities of adherents are made lawful,” Foster explained in his legal opinion. In other words, schools acting in good faith may apply policies that reflect deeply held religious convictions without breaching the law.
The case highlights the challenge that Australian faith-based schools face in upholding Christian teachings while managing the demands of individual staff members.
Southon reinforced the broader significance of the case for faith-based education in Australia, writing, “This is not simply about pronouns. It is about whether schools can operate according to their deeply held beliefs without fear of legal reprisal.”
Freedom for Faith has said it will continue monitoring the case given that the outcome could set a precedent for religious freedom in schools nationwide.
by Kurt Mahlburg
Kurt Mahlburg is a husband to Angie, a father, a freelance writer, and a familiar Australian voice on culture and the Christian faith. He is the Senior Editor and a regular columnist at The Daily Declaration. More of his writings can be found at Mercator, Intellectual Takeout, The Spectator Australia, The American Spectator and Caldron Pool.
The Daily Declaration is Australia’s largest Christian news site. We are dedicated to providing a voice for Christian values in the public square. Our vision is to see the revitalisation of our Judeo-Christian values for the common good. We are non-profit, independent, crowdfunded, and we provide Christian news for a growing audience across Australia, Asia, and the South Pacific.
The Victorian Labor state government plans to pass a bill in 2025 to amend the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2017 to remove checks which had been designed to protect the lives of terminally ill patients.
Under the subterfuge of claiming to be making the Victorian Voluntary Assisted Dying Act (VAD) “fairer” the state government says it will put the changes to parliament before the end of 2025.
A news release of 20 February 2025 from the Premier’s office reads “. . . the Labor government will rewrite legislation to improve access to voluntary assisted dying, by bringing it into line with other jurisdictions.”
The phrase, “to improve access to voluntary assisted dying” actually means that euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide will be performed more freely with the present checks and balances having been removed in the proposed bill.
When the Victorian government talks about “bring it (the legislation) into line with other jurisdictions” this means that the government will liberalise the present legislation to make it comparable to the acts in other states which are more pro-euthanasia and more liberal on doctor assisted suicide.
Removing the ban on raising Voluntary Assisted Dying with patients
The present ban on health professionals raising the subject of voluntary assisted dying is to be removed.
The removal of what is commonly called the “gag law” will expose patients to health professionals who are supporters of voluntary assisted dying and who are happy to raise the subject of their patients choosing the option of being killed by direct euthanasia or doctor assisted suicide.
Victorian Health Minister, Mary-Anne Thomas claims, “More needs to be done to ensure that people have access to compassionate end of life care.” What Ms Thomas is actually saying is that health care professionals are to be permitted by the removal of the present “gag law” to bring up with patients the option to choose to be killed by euthanasia or doctor assisted suicide. Doctors actually killing their patients or assisting them to kill themselves by suicide is definitely not end of life care. Introducing this radical change in the law is quite the contrary.
RTLA opposes the changing the present act to allow health practitioners to raise with their patients the whole subject of euthanasia or doctor assisted suicide as an option.
Health care professionals are there to care for the lives of their patients and never to be the purveyors of death even if patients are terminally ill. At the time in their lives when terminally ill patients are most vulnerable, it is wrong to allow health care professionals to propose to their patients that their lives could be deliberately ended by euthanasia or doctor assisted suicide.
Further, the risk of coercion is far greater if health practitioners were permitted to initiate discussions on what may be described as voluntary assisted dying. There is often an imbalance of authority in discussions between health practitioners and patients.
It may be argued that coercion can be rejected as highly improbable. However, when there is an imbalance of status between the health care professional and the patient, there remains the distinct possibility that can and will happen.
Another compelling argument is the reality that even the mere mention of the possibility of the patient choosing to end their life risks that patients could very easily think that they have become a burden to others and decide to go along with option put to them by their health care professional i.e choose to end their lives. Likewise, patients facing an option to end their lives may conclude that for everybody’s sake they would be better off dead and choose to end their lives.
Forcing health care professionals to give information about voluntary assisted dying
RTLA strongly objects to the government’s proposal to require all health care professionals who, as a matter of conscience, are opposed to even giving any form of information regarding access to euthanasia or doctor assisted suicide, to give information to patients on voluntary assisted dying.
For the Victorian Labor government to undermine and deny the right of conscientious objection on this life and death matter is a direct assault on the civil right of any citizen to freedom of conscience. This proposal from the state government is an egregious and extreme violation of the human rights of health care professionals and deserves condemnation.
If the unthinkable should eventuate and this violation of human rights be enacted in Victoria, it would force medical practitioners to choose from drastic options:
To violate their own consciences and act in what is for them in an immoral way. In the long term such an action would lead to grave psychological and personal harm;
To contravene the amended Voluntary Assisted Dying Act, which would lead to criminal sanctions, possible imprisonment, possible heavy fines and certainly loss of employment as a health care professional;
To resign as a health care professional and so end their professional career;
To move to another state where their right to freedom of conscience would be respected.
The gravity of these options clearly shows what is at stake.
Extending the period for prognosis of expected death to twelve months
RTLA opposes the proposed amendment to widen access by extending the present period for a prognosis of expected death from six months to twelve months.
RTLA notes an initial argument for VAD was that terminally ill patients should be able to end their lives so avoiding unnecessary suffering. With the benefit of modern medicine, such suffering is limited to the final stage of illnesses, so the present six-month prognosis can be considered unwarranted. Moving to a twelve-month prognosis can be judged to be simply excessive and not justified.
A patient prognosis, and certainly not even with any treatment, can be an uncertain prognosis, but could easily be classified as being a twelve-month prognosis under the proposed change to the Victorian VAD Act. Resulting from this change it can be reasonably said that all patients with a diagnosed terminal illness will be able to access euthanasia or doctor assisted suicide despite their having a definite possibility of surviving up to five years or more after their initial diagnosis.
Shortening the period between a first and final request for VAD to five days
RTLA opposes any amendment which shortens the period between the first request and the final request for euthanasia or doctor assisted suicide under the act.
A decision to end one’s life is irreversible. Patients need time to reflect on their decision – to be assured in their own mind they have not made rash decision. Patients who have a terminal condition are fragile. Such patients do benefit from sufficient time for them to think over the decision to end their lives and possibly to change their minds. Five days in simply not enough time for this process to calmly evolve.
The current nine-day period allows a patient the time and mental space to calmly think over their decision.
Conclusion
Detailed analysis of the amendments to the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2017 planned by the Allan Labor government shows how dangerous these amendments are to the protection of human life in Victoria. Right to Life Australia and all committed to the protection of human life will campaign hard to defeat all of these amendments.
The Right to Life Australia Inc. defends the right to life of all human beings from conception until natural death. We lobby government for legal protection of the most vulnerable in society – the unborn baby, elderly, sick and those with disabilities.
Cookie Consent
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site, you consent to cookies.
