Conversion Practices Prohibition Act 2024

The central concept is conversion practice, defined in section 4(1). It means a practice, treatment or sustained effort that consists of more than one event or occurs on more than one occasion, and that is directed to an individual on the basis of the individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, and directed to changing or suppressing that orientation or identity. The definition thus requires repetition: a single event, no matter how coercive or harmful, does not constitute a conversion practice for the purposes of the Act. This is a critical limitation. Under section 4(2), it is irrelevant whether the practice is based on an incorrect assumption or belief about the individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. So a person who mistakenly believes an individual is gay and attempts to “change” them is still engaging in a conversion practice.

The definition of harm in section 3 includes physical or mental harm, whether temporary or permanent. Mental harm is psychological harm, including mental illness, nervous shock, distress, anxiety or fear that is more than trivial. Serious harm, used in the criminal offence in section 6, means harm that endangers a person’s life or harm that is substantial. The section 6 offence thus requires a higher threshold than the civil prohibition in the Equal Opportunity Act, which does not require any harm at all.

The Act includes a series of exceptions (section 4(3)) that carve out certain conduct from the definition of conversion practice. These are essential for understanding the scope of the prohibitions. Subsection 4(3)(a) excludes a health service or treatment provided by a registered health practitioner that the practitioner has assessed as clinically appropriate in their reasonable professional judgement and that complies with all relevant legal, professional and ethical requirements. The Act gives examples: genuinely assisting an individual exploring their sexual orientation or gender identity, considering or undergoing a gender transition, receiving care related to gender identity, or genuinely advising about potential impacts of gender affirming medical treatment. Subsection 4(3)(b) excludes genuinely facilitating an individual’s coping skills, development or identity exploration, including by providing acceptance, support or understanding. Subsection 4(3)(c) excludes the use by a person, “without more”, of expressions including in prayer of a belief or principle, including a religious belief or principle, or expressions that a belief or principle ought to be followed or applied. The phrase “without more” is critical: mere statements of belief or principle, including prayer, are not conversion practices, but if they are accompanied by additional acts of practice, treatment or sustained effort directed at change or suppression, they may fall within the definition.

Section 4(4) then provides examples of what does not constitute a conversion practice: stating what relevant religious teachings are or what a religion says about a specific topic; general requirements in relation to religious orders or membership or leadership of a religious community; general rules in educational institutions; and parents discussing, or providing guidance on, matters relating to sexual orientation, gender identity, sexual activity or religion with their children. These examples are not exhaustive and are not themselves defences but illustrative of the boundaries.

Other key concepts include health service (same meaning as in the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law), parent (including a step-parent and a person in loco parentis), sexual orientation (defined in section 3 as orientation towards the same sex, a different sex, both, or a lack of sexual attraction), and the irrelevance of consent for both criminal offences.

The Act directly affects several categories of people. Individuals who may be subject to conversion practices are the intended protected class. The Act does not require the individual to be a minor, but several features indicate particular concern for children and young people. Consent of the individual is irrelevant, as is consent of a parent or guardian for a person lacking legal capacity. This means that even if a parent consents to conversion practices for their child, the person providing the practice can still be criminally liable. The Act also targets health practitioners, especially those providing mental health or counselling services. The health service exception in section 4(3)(a) effectively permits gender affirming care and exploration of identity but denies the exception to any practice that is not clinically appropriate in reasonable professional judgement. In practical terms, this means that any therapist or counsellor who practises “reparative therapy” or “sexual orientation change efforts” cannot rely on the exception, because the professional consensus of mainstream health regulatory bodies deems such practices not clinically appropriate. The compliance burden on health practitioners is significant: they must ensure any intervention directed at an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity is clinically indicated and follows legal, professional and ethical requirements. The Equal Opportunity Act amendment further requires that complaints against registered health practitioners be referred to the relevant health complaints entity under the National Law, rather than being investigated or conciliated by the Equal Opportunity Commissioner. This adds an extra layer of regulatory oversight for professionals.

Parents and guardians are affected in two ways. On one hand, they are explicitly permitted to discuss or provide guidance on matters relating to sexual orientation, gender identity, sexual activity or religion with their children (section 4(4)(d)). This example is broad and seems to protect ordinary parenting conversations. However, the line between “discussing” and engaging in a “practice, treatment or sustained effort” to change or suppress a child’s orientation may be difficult to draw. A parent who repeatedly pressures a child to renounce their identity, or who enrols the child in a program intended to change their orientation, likely crosses into conversion practice territory. The intentionality element in the criminal offences (requiring intention to change or suppress) means a parent who genuinely believes they are helping but whose conduct falls short of “practice, treatment or sustained effort” may be safe, but risk remains.

Religious groups, leaders and ministers are affected because the expression of belief exception is limited to “without more”. A minister who merely preaches that same-sex attraction is sinful, or who prays for someone’s change, is likely covered. But if the minister conducts repeated one-on-one sessions aimed at changing orientation, that may be a conversion practice. The examples in section 4(4)(a) and (b) protect stating religious teachings and general requirements for religious orders, but these only state what does not constitute a conversion practice; they do not provide a defence if the conduct crosses into repeated, targeted change efforts.

Educational institutions and their staff are affected. General school rules are excluded from conversion practice, but targeted efforts to change a student’s orientation or gender identity would not be. The Act does not create a specific defence for school counsellors beyond the health service exception if they are registered practitioners.

Minors are peculiar under the Act: they cannot commit the criminal offences (section 6(5) and 7(3) exclude individuals under 18 from the definition of “person”), but they can still be subject to civil proceedings under the Equal Opportunity Act, where “person” is not similarly restricted. This creates an asymmetry: a 16-year-old who tries to “convert” another student may face a civil complaint but not criminal charges.

The Act imposes two main duties. First, a criminal duty on persons 18 and over not to provide or deliver a conversion practice that causes serious harm, with the prohibited intention. The duty in section 6 extends to conduct partly in and partly outside South Australia. Second, a duty not to take an individual from South Australia or arrange for an individual to be taken from South Australia for conversion practices outside the State, or to engage a person outside South Australia to provide a conversion practice to an individual in South Australia (section 7). These extraterritorial elements broaden the duty beyond State borders.

Under the Equal Opportunity Act amendment, a separate civil duty applies: it is unlawful for a person (of any age) to provide or deliver a conversion practice to an individual, or to arrange for such provision. This duty does not require serious harm or any harm. It is enforced by the Equal Opportunity Commissioner, who has functions under section 11 of the Equal Opportunity Act that now apply to conversion practices. The Commissioner can investigate complaints, attempt conciliation, or refer matters to other bodies. However, for complaints against registered health practitioners, the Commissioner must refer the complaint to the relevant health complaints entity and cannot investigate or conciliate.

The Act creates no express rights on the part of individuals, but the prohibitions implicitly create a right to be free from conversion practices. The statement that consent is irrelevant (sections 6(4) and 7(2)) means an individual cannot waive the protection, nor can a parent or guardian consent on behalf of a child or incapacitated adult.

For health practitioners, the right to provide services is preserved only if those services meet the clinical appropriateness standard and comply with professional requirements. This likely narrows the scope of permissible speech and intervention. A practitioner who advises a patient that they can “pray away the gay” would struggle to show clinical appropriateness. Practitioners also face a compliance burden to document their clinical assessment and ensure alignment with professional standards.

For religious believers and parents, the exceptions in section 4(3) and (4) preserve a right to express beliefs and discuss sexuality and gender, but only so long as the expression is not part of a “practice, treatment or sustained effort” to change or suppress. This places a premium on distinguishing between spontaneous or occasional conversation and a systematic approach to alter someone’s orientation. For example, a parent who lectures their child daily for years about the sinfulness of being gay may be engaging in a sustained effort, even if each individual talk might be protected as discussion. The “without more” qualifier on expressions of belief means that if a religious leader accompanies prayer with other actions (e.g., organised workshop, referral to a program, ongoing counselling), the exception may fall away.

The Act also contains a duty on the Minister to cause a review within three years, with a report within four years. This provides a statutory mechanism to assess the Act’s operation, but it is not a duty owed to any individual.

The criminal offence under section 6 (conversion practice causing serious harm) carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. This is a serious criminal penalty, reflecting the gravity of causing substantial harm or endangering life. The offence is a standard indictable offence, though the Act does not specify summary or indictable procedure. The offence is not a strict liability offence: the prosecution must prove both an intention to change or suppress the individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity and that the practice caused serious harm. The serious harm must be assessed by considering the totality of the conversion practices (section 6(2)), so the cumulative effect of multiple sessions counts. Consent is not a defence.

The offence under section 7 (taking or arranging for conversion practices outside SA, or engaging a person outside SA) carries up to three years imprisonment, a $15,000 fine, or both. It does not require proof of harm or serious harm; only that the person intended that a conversion practice be delivered. This is a conduct-based offence aimed at preventing evasion of the ban by sending individuals to other jurisdictions. The extraterritorial reach is broad: it covers taking someone from SA, or arranging for someone to be taken, even if the actual conversion practice occurs elsewhere. It also covers engaging a person outside SA to provide a conversion practice to someone in SA. This means an online counsellor based overseas who delivers conversion therapy to a SA resident could be caught if the SA resident’s act of engagement is proved. The penalty for this offence includes a fine option, unlike the section 6 offence.

Enforcement of the criminal offences falls to the South Australia Police. There is no specialist enforcement body created. The Act does not provide for search, seizure or surveillance powers beyond those available under general criminal law.

The civil prohibition under the Equal Opportunity Act (new section 86A) is enforceable by the Equal Opportunity Commissioner. The Commissioner can receive complaints, investigate, and attempt conciliation. If conciliation fails, the matter may be referred to the Equal Opportunity Tribunal, which can make orders such as injunctions, compensation, apologies or other remedies. However, for complaints against registered health practitioners, the Commissioner must refer the complaint to the relevant health complaints entity. That entity could be the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) or a state-based health complaints body. This referral requirement removes the conversion practice-specific process from the EO Commissioner and places it within the professional regulatory system. The practical effect is that health practitioners face potential professional misconduct proceedings, including loss of registration, in addition to any criminal liability.

The Act does not create a private right of action for damages directly under the Conversion Practices Prohibition Act. Civil remedies are accessed only through the Equal Opportunity Act framework. Victims of conversion practices may also have common law claims for assault, battery, or negligence, but those are not provided for in this Act.

The most direct interaction is with the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA) . Schedule 1 inserts section 86A, making conversion practices unlawful under that Act. The Equal Opportunity Commissioner’s general functions now extend to conversion practices. The amendment also requires referral of complaints against registered health practitioners to a health complaints entity, overriding the usual complaint handling process. This means that a complaint against a doctor or psychologist for conversion practice cannot be resolved through conciliation under the Equal Opportunity Act; it must go through the health regulatory system. This may limit access to quick remedies for complainants, as health complaints entities often have longer timeframes.

The Act interacts with the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (as applied in SA). The definition of “health service” adopts the National Law definition. The exception for health services under section 4(3)(a) requires compliance with “all relevant legal, professional and ethical requirements”. This incorporates the standards of the relevant National Board, such as the Medical Board or Psychology Board. If a board has issued guidelines stating that conversion practices are unethical and unprofessional, then any such practice cannot satisfy the exception. This effectively delegates the substantive scope of the exception to professional regulators, who have not been directly involved in the drafting of the Act.

The Act may interact with the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) . Conduct that amounts to a conversion practice causing serious harm could also constitute assault occasioning harm, unlawful imprisonment, or other offences. The Act does not displace these existing offences; it adds additional criminal liability. A person could be charged under both statutes for the same conduct, though double jeopardy principles apply.

The Act’s expression of belief exception (section 4(3)(c)) may engage implied constitutional freedom of political communication, if the expression concerns political matters. However, the exception for expressions of belief “without more” is broad enough to protect most ordinary religious and political speech. The Act does not create a general defence of religious freedom; it only carves out certain expressions from the definition of conversion practice. If a court found that the Act impermissibly burdened religious exercise, a challenge under the implied freedom of political communication or under section 116 of the Commonwealth Constitution (if applicable to a state law) might be possible, but those grounds are narrow. The High Court has not extended section 116 to state laws, and the implied freedom protects communication about political and governmental matters, not religious practice itself.

The Act’s extraterritorial operation (sections 6(3) and 7) may interact with the laws of other states and nations. A person who takes a child from SA to Victoria for a conversion program could be prosecuted in SA even if the practice occurs in Victoria. This raises potential issues of comity and double jeopardy, but those are not addressed in the Act.

The Act does not amend the Child Protection Law or the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) . A parent who consents to conversion practices for their child may face child protection concerns, but the Act does not create mandatory reporting obligations. The irrelevance of parental consent (section 6(4)(b)) means that a parent’s agreement does not shield a practitioner from criminal liability, but it does not automatically make the parent liable.

This Act is new legislation, not an amendment to an existing Act (though it amends the Equal Opportunity Act). It was assented to on 3 October 2024 and commenced on 1 April 2025 (Gazette 30 January 2025 page 91). There have been no amendments to the Act itself since its passage. The legislative history recorded at the end of the Act shows only the principal Act. The Act’s review clause (section 8) mandates a review within three years, so the first possible amendment or repeal could follow that review.

The Schedule 1 amendment to the Equal Opportunity Act inserts a new section 86A. This was the only related amendment. It is not itself an amendment to a conversion practices prohibition; it is the vehicle for the civil prohibition. No transitional provisions or savings are included in the Act.

Because the Act commenced only on 1 April 2025, there is no practical experience of its operation to date. The review required by section 8 will be the first opportunity for both Parliament and the public to assess whether the definitions and exceptions are working as intended, or whether they create unintended consequences or enforcement difficulties. The Act does not contain a sunset clause; it is ongoing until amended or repealed.

The Act commenced on 1 April 2025, and as of the date of this analysis, there is no reported litigation history. No cases have yet been decided under the criminal offences (sections 6 and 7) or under the new section 86A of the Equal Opportunity Act. This is typical for a recently commenced statute.

Potential areas of future litigation are foreseeable from the text. The definition of conversion practice and the scope of the exceptions will likely be contested. The phrase “without more” in section 4(3)(c) is ambiguous: how much additional conduct is enough to remove a statement from the exception? For example, if a minister prays for an individual and also recommends a book on “freedom from homosexuality”, is that “without more”? The court will need to determine whether the exception is lost by any additional act that could be seen as part of a practice, or only by acts that themselves constitute a practice, treatment or sustained effort.

The serious harm threshold in section 6 will be litigated. The definition includes harm that endangers life or is substantial. Courts may need to distinguish between serious harm and the “mental harm” defined in section 3, which includes distress or anxiety that is more than trivial. The totality principle in section 6(2) may also complicate proof: the prosecution must show that the combined effect of multiple sessions caused serious harm, even if no single session did.

The consent provisions (sections 6(4) and 7(2)) are likely to be challenged on constitutional grounds, particularly in relation to parental rights. While the Act explicitly states that consent is irrelevant, this may conflict with common law parental authority or with the implied freedom of parents to raise their children. However, the High Court has not recognised a broad constitutional right of parents, and state laws regulating child welfare are generally upheld. Still, a litigant may argue that the Act interferes with religious liberty and family integrity.

The extraterritorial reach of section 7 could be litigated if a person is charged for arranging an individual to go to another country for a conversion practice. The court must interpret what constitutes “arranging” and the requisite intention. The double criminality principle may arise if the conduct is legal in the foreign jurisdiction.

The Equal Opportunity Act complaints process may also generate litigation. Health practitioners may challenge a referral to a health complaints entity as an improper fettering of the Commissioner’s discretion, though the amendment clearly mandates referral (section 93(5)). Practitioners may also defend themselves in professional disciplinary proceedings by arguing that the health service exception applied, requiring the tribunal to consider clinical appropriateness.

Without any case law, the Act’s meaning remains untested. Practitioners and advisers should monitor the first decisions of the District Court on criminal matters and the Equal Opportunity Tribunal on civil matters.

Several features of the Act are less obvious than the headline offences and can trap unwary actors. First, the civil prohibition in the Equal Opportunity Act requires no harm. A person can breach section 86A simply by providing or arranging a conversion practice, even if the recipient suffers no harm, distress or impact. A single discussion or event? No, definition requires more than one event, but once two events occur, the civil prohibition is triggered regardless of effect. This contrasts with the criminal offence, which requires serious harm. Complaints under the Equal Opportunity Act can thus be brought for conduct that falls short of criminal threshold.

Second, the exclusion of minors from the criminal offence (sections 6(5) and 7(3)) does not mean minors are immune from consequences. They can still be subject to the civil prohibition under the Equal Opportunity Act, which uses “person” without age restriction. A 16-year-old who repeatedly pressures another student to change their orientation could face a complaint to the Equal Opportunity Commissioner. This is not obvious from a quick reading of the criminal provisions.

Third, the health service exception is more limited than it may appear. It requires that the registered health practitioner has assessed the service as clinically appropriate in the registered health practitioner’s reasonable professional judgement. This means the practitioner cannot simply claim a belief; they must have a reasonable basis for that judgement, anchored in professional standards. If a practitioner’s professional association or board has issued guidelines stating that conversion practices are never clinically appropriate, the exception will be unavailable. The burden of proof on the exception may rest on the defendant if it is raised as a defence in criminal proceedings, or on the complainant in civil proceedings. Practitioners must document their clinical reasoning carefully.

Fourth, the “without more” qualifier on expressions of belief is a potential trap for religious figures and parents. Merely saying “I believe homosexual behaviour is a sin” is likely safe. But if that same speaker repeatedly meets with the individual to pray for change, uses specific techniques like prayer ministry, or recommends programs designed to change orientation, the exception may be lost. The phrase invites case-by-case adjudication. The risk is that a well-intentioned person may drift from permissible expression into prohibited practice without a clear bright line.

Fifth, consent is irrelevant not only for the individual but also for a parent or guardian of a person lacking legal capacity. This overrides the usual parental authority to consent to medical or therapeutic treatments for children. A parent who contracts with a provider for “reparative therapy” for their child cannot provide a defence if the provider is later charged. The parent themselves are not automatically criminalised, but they could be investigated if they were actively providing the conversion practice.

Sixth, the review clause (section 8) requires a review within three years and tabling within four years, but does not require any specific action or amendment. A review is not a guarantee of correction if problems emerge.

Seventh, the territorial extension in section 7 catches individuals who arrange for a person to be taken from SA for conversion practices. A parent who funds and organises a trip for their child to an interstate conversion camp could be liable, even if they do not accompany the child.

Eighth, the Equal Opportunity Commissioner must refer health practitioner complaints. This means a complaint against a psychologist will be sent to AHPRA or the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner. The complainant loses the ability to have the matter conciliated or resolved quickly through the Equal Opportunity office. This may limit remedies, as health complaints processes can be slower and more focused on professional standards than on awarding compensation.

Ninth, the Act does not contain a sunset clause or provision for grandfathering existing practices. Any person who had been engaging in conversion practices before commencement became liable from 1 April 2025.

Tenth, the definition of mental harm in section 3 includes distress, anxiety or fear that is more than trivial. This is a low threshold for the civil prohibition (though criminal requires serious harm). A person who feels distressed after two sessions focused on change could bring a complaint under the Equal Opportunity Act even if a psychiatrist would not diagnose a disorder.

Compliance strategies differ depending on the actor. For health practitioners, the safest course is to avoid any intervention that could be characterised as directed at changing or suppressing a patient’s sexual orientation or gender identity, unless it falls squarely within the health service exception. That exception requires a documented clinical assessment that the service is clinically appropriate, performed before the intervention, and compliance with all relevant legal, professional and ethical requirements. Practitioners should review current guidelines from their National Board and professional bodies. If a patient seeks help with unwanted same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria, the practitioner should explore affirming approaches that do not aim to change orientation. Referral to a conversion practice program is not permissible. Documentation of the clinical reasoning and the patient’s express consent (even though consent is not a defence), along with evidence that the intervention is consistent with professional standards, will be important if a complaint is made. Practitioners should also note that if a complaint is made to the Equal Opportunity Commissioner, it will be referred to a health complaints entity, which may start its own investigation.

For parents, the examples in section 4(4)(d) offer considerable protection. Parents may discuss and provide guidance on sexual orientation, gender identity, sexual activity and religion with their children. This appears to cover ordinary parenting conversations, advice and moral instruction. However, parents should avoid systematic, repeated efforts to change their child’s orientation or gender identity. If a parent has concerns, they should engage with a registered health practitioner who is following appropriate clinical guidelines. Parents should refrain from enrolling children in camps, workshops or programs that market themselves as “conversion therapy” or “sexual orientation change efforts”. Organising such a program could attract liability under section 7.

For religious leaders, the expression of belief exception protects statements of belief, principle, and prayer, provided they are “without more”. A minister can preach about the sinfulness of same-sex conduct, offer prayer for individuals, and teach religious doctrine. However, if the minister adds regular one-on-one counselling sessions specifically aimed at changing a person’s orientation, that may cross the line. Religious leaders should keep pastoral conversations general and avoid forming a structured “practice” designed to change or suppress. Referring a congregant to a secular conversion therapy program would not be protected. Leaders of religious organisations should ensure that any formal ministry or counselling programs are reviewed to confirm they do not involve repeated, targeted change efforts. General religious requirements for membership or leadership (section 4(4)(b)) are not conversion practices, so a church may still require celibacy of gay clergy, for example, but cannot impose a program to change their orientation.

For educational institutions, staff should avoid any sustained effort to change or suppress a student’s sexual orientation or gender identity. General school rules are excluded, but targeted interventions are not. School counsellors who are registered health practitioners must follow the health service exception. Pastoral care staff who are not registered should limit themselves to providing acceptance, support and understanding, which is expressly excluded from conversion practice under section 4(3)(b).

For any person considering arranging conversion practices outside South Australia, the Act imposes liability regardless of where the practice occurs. Do not take an individual from SA to another state or country for such purposes, and do not engage a practitioner outside SA to remotely provide conversion practices.

For individuals who may be victims, the Equal Opportunity Act provides a civil complaint route. Victims can contact the Equal Opportunity Commissioner. If the perpetrator is a health practitioner, the complaint will be referred to the relevant health complaints entity. Victims should also consider seeking legal advice about possible common law claims. The Act does not create a victim compensation scheme, so financial redress depends on the Equal Opportunity Act’s powers.

General compliance recommendation: document everything. If you are a health practitioner, record your clinical assessment and reasoning. If you are a religious leader, keep records of pastoral conversations to show they were not part of a sustained change effort. If you are a parent, be able to demonstrate that your interactions with your child were normal guidance and discussion, not a practice. The Act’s definitions turn on facts and degrees, so contemporaneous records can be decisive in defending a complaint or charge.