The Question We Asked:

Do you support the right of faith-based schools and organisations to only hire people who share their ethos? 

The Context:

Faith-based schools educate many Tasmanian children. They consistently deliver high academic outcomes, strong community engagement, and values-based environments that benefit society at large.  

The Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act includes a specific exemption which allows faith-based schools to hire teachers and other staff who share their religious beliefs.  To do so, a school must simply demonstrate that the decision to employ a particular person is necessary to maintain the religious character of the school. 

The balance between religious freedom and anti-discrimination protections has been the subject of ongoing debate in Tasmania.  Some advocates have been arguing for the removal of the exemption for faith-based schools, arguing it allows discrimination against LGBTQI+ employees. However, faith-based schools are concerned any changes to the law may reduce their religious freedom and ability to maintain their religious character.  

Undermining the religious character of faith-based schools in Tasmania will reduce parents’ ability to choose genuinely Christian schooling – and children’s opportunity to be raised in a distinctly Christian environment.  Ultimately, the biggest loser from this outcome would be Tasmanian children. 

The Question We Asked:

Do you support the push to ban ‘conversion therapy’ (including prayer and faith-based counselling) for people who are struggling with their gender or sexual orientation. 

The Context:

The Tasmanian Government is currently considering banning certain practices aimed at changing or ’suppressing’ a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.  This is commonly referred to as ’conversion therapy’ (or practices). 

Conventional counselling, prayer and pastoral support, even family discussions between parents and children on subjects related to sexuality or gender identity are banned in several Australian jurisdictions, even where the person concerned has requested the prayer or counselling themselves. 

While the current draft Tasmanian law includes some protections for religious expression, LGBTQI+ organisations like Equality Australia are lobbying for its removal and for harsh penalties against individuals and organisations who express or provide counselling according to traditional views on marriage and gender. 

Young people who are struggling with these issues should be able to seek prayer, counselling and pastoral care from their parents, relatives, health professionals, friends, pastors and ministers.  The Government should not be deciding who they can speak to, what they can be told, or to silence the voices of those who care about the young person most.  Young people and their carers should be given all relevant information to enable them to make an informed decision - not have information restricted by law. 

The Question We Asked:

Do you support banning biological males from competing in women’s sport? 

The Context:

Tasmania, like other Australian jurisdictions, faces growing public debate about the inclusion of transgender athletes - specifically biological males in girls and women’s sport.  This issue intersects with government policies on anti-discrimination, gender identity, and the rights of women and girls to safe, fair and competitive sporting opportunities. 

Under Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Act, gender identity is a protected attribute.  However, the Act allows for the exclusion of persons from single-sex sporting competitions where strength, stamina, or physique are relevant, acknowledging legitimate concerns about fairness and safety in women’s sport. 

Recently, national sporting bodies such as Swimming Australia and World Athletics have adopted policies that restrict participation in women’s elite categories to biological females.  Community concerns have also grown in Tasmania, especially from parents, athletes, and women’s advocacy groups who argue that prioritising gender identity over biological sex undermines competitive fairness and disadvantages female athletes. 

Playing sport provides significant health benefits for girls and women.  It is important to encourage participation from an early age.  Even from a young age, boys have a competitive advantage in most sports.  Providing a system that is unfair and unsafe for girls is demoralising and does not encourage participation.  

The Question We Asked:

Would you support the formation of a parliamentary committee to ensure the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse are properly implemented? 

The Context:

The Commission of Inquiry into the Tasmanian Government’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Institutional Settings (2021–2023) was launched in response to multiple systemic failures within state-run institutions, including health, education and youth justice.  The Commission delivered its final report in September 2023 with 191 recommendations to transform how the Tasmanian Government protects children and responds to allegations of abuse. 

In December 2023 the Tasmanian Government issued its response, saying it would implement all 191 recommendations through a phased approach.  It announced 48 recommendations would be delivered in ‘phase one’, by July 2025, 110 by July 2026, and the remaining 33 by July 2029.  It also proposed to close the Ashley Youth Detention Centre by July 2026.1 

However, concerns remain that the recommendations may not be implemented with the urgency and integrity required.  Several victim-survivor advocates, legal experts, and members of the public have called for the formation of a parliamentary committee, comprised of elected representatives, to provide independent, ongoing oversight of implementation efforts. 

Full implementation of the inquiry’s recommendations is critical to the future wellbeing of Tasmania’s children. 

1 Tasmanian government releases official response to child sexual abuse inquiry report - ABC News 

The Question We Asked:

Do you support banning late-term abortions (when a baby’s life is viable outside the womb), except where the mother’s life is at risk? 

The Context:

In Tasmania, abortion is legal right up to birth.  Later-term abortions typically involve a lethal injection to the baby and then induced delivery.  This is known as a feticide.  In third trimester abortions, the baby is capable of seeing light, feeling pain, recognising his or her mother’s voice, and reacting to her emotions and what she eats.  These procedures are lawful despite evidence that delivering the child alive post 20 weeks' gestation is safer for the physical and mental wellbeing of the mother. 

Foeticides (not to be confused with procedures to remove a miscarried baby) are never medically necessary; however, the caveat ‘except where the mother’s life is at risk’ was included in the question to parties and candidates to clarify that it related specifically to selective abortions, not medically indicated interventions. 

It should also be noted, ACL opposes abortion at all stages of gestation, since an abortion always ends the life of an innocent child.  ACL advocates for measures that support vulnerable mothers to carry their child, such as pregnancy help centres, parenting support programs, and improved adoption pathways. 

The Question We Asked:

Do you support compulsory pre-commitment cards for poker machine users?

The Context:

Tasmanians lost $189.6 million in 2022/23 gambling on poker machines, with 40 per cent of poke machine revenue coming from problem gambling.(2)  Problem gambling via poker machines causes significant harm and hardship for communities, families and individuals in Tasmania.  It is linked to suicide, marriage breakdowns, domestic violence, job losses and crime.  

The Tasmanian Government made a commitment in 2022, and a pre-election commitment before the 2024 state election, to introduce mandatory pre-commitment cards for poker machine users.  These cards reduce losses and gambling harm by preventing people from gambling more than they can afford.  It aims to address significant gambling-related harm in Tasmania, and studies have shown that a substantial proportion of poker machine users are at risk of harm.(3) 

In November 2024 the Government announced that the introduction of pre-commitment cards would be delayed indefinitely in the face of opposition from industry stakeholders, such as the Tasmanian Hospitality Association. 

Pre-commitment cards are urgently needed to reduce the impacts of problem gambling on families, and particularly to protect Tasmania’s children from poverty and domestic violence. 

2 2024-Tasmanian-State-Election-Joint-Statement-on-Poker-Machines-in-Tasmania-FINAL-v1.pdf 

3 tascoss.org.au 

The Question We Asked:

Do you support ongoing state funding of Dark Mofo? 

The Context:

The Tasmanian Government has committed $21.6 million in funding to the Dark Mofo pagan winter festival from 2025 until 2027 (including $7 million in 2025).  This has sparked debate and concern over the appropriateness of using tax-payer funding for an event known for its provocative, explicit and spiritually dark content. 

Dark Mofo has faced backlash for its offensive artworks, particularly from Christian communities and First Nations peoples.  It characteristically features Satanic symbols and rituals.  In 2018, an artist was buried beneath the bitumen of a busy Hobart road for 72 hours, thought to mock the burial and resurrection of Christ. 

In 2021, the ‘Union Flag’ project, which proposed soaking a British flag in the blood of Indigenous participants, was cancelled following widespread condemnation.  Ensuring that publicly funded events uphold community standards of inclusivity and align with community values should be a precondition of Government funding decisions. 

Direct economic benefit should not be the main consideration of public funding.  Rather, such events should provide a wholistic benefit, which is also safe, family-friendly, builds social cohesion and has a positive impact on Tasmania’s children. 

The Question We Asked:

Do you support the decriminalisation of recreational drugs? 

The Context:

The decriminalisation of recreational drug use is a contentious issue in Tasmania – with the Tasmanian Greens having now introduced a draft law to decriminalise personal drug use. 

The Tasmanian Drug Strategy 2024–2029 commits to harm minimisation and aligns with the National Drug Strategy.  However, drug usage has risen under this ‘harm minimisation’ approach in Australia, whereas it fell when there was a ‘prevention’ approach. 

While some advocates argue criminalising personal drug use increases social harms and deters individuals from seeking help, there is no safe level of illicit drug use.  Illegality deters many people from trying drugs, while legalisation creates the perception drugs are safer than they are; leading to increased usage. 

Legalisation will also put increased demand on existing strained health services and mental health and drug rehabilitation services.  For example. London and Dutch studies have shown marijuana causes between 30 and 50 per cent of new psychosis/schizophrenia diagnoses. 

Drugs affect not only the individuals who use them but also have far-reaching consequences on society as a whole.  These impacts include rising healthcare expenses, reduced workplace productivity, as well as significant social costs—such as family breakdowns—which can have lasting effects on children. 

Ultimately, the decriminalisation of personal drug use will have a disastrous effect on Tasmanian society, including on the safety and wellbeing of our children.