Upper house MPs debating gay conversion therapy

Debate started about 11am and is expected to go for about five hours before the bill heads to the “committee stage”, when each clause of the bill is examined and scrutinised in detail, which can take about three hours. The final vote is not expected before 8pm.

In a fiery speech just before 2.30pm, Mr Finn described the proposed law as an “attack on basic freedoms” and described elements of the bill as “social engineering”. He said he did not support “barbaric” gay conversion therapies, but the bill went beyond stamping them out.

Labor MP Gayle Tierney said Victoria would be a better place after the legislation was passed.

“I say to all LGBTIQ Victorians: be very loud, be very proud and always be yourself,” she said.

The debate comes 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 said, 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.”