Human rights advocates fear the Tasmanian Government's failure to make a submission against the Federal Government's religious freedom draft bill would severely undermine the state's anti-discrimination laws.

Key points: Coalition's religious freedom draft bill can make Tasmanian laws irrelevant

Coalition's religious freedom draft bill can make Tasmanian laws irrelevant Tasmania is considered to have nation's strongest anti-discrimination laws

Tasmania is considered to have nation's strongest anti-discrimination laws Greens accuse State Government of failing vulnerable Tasmanians

The Coalition's draft bill makes Tasmanian anti-discrimination laws irrelevant if a person can prove they have discriminated against someone else based on their own religious belief.

Tasmania is considered to have the nation's strongest anti-discrimination laws because it specifically prohibits conduct that offends, humiliates, intimidates, insults or ridicules on the basis of attributes including age, sex, race and disability.

Other states do not explicitly list all of the behaviours.

According to Tasmania's Commissioner for Children and Young People, Leanne McLean, overriding the state's laws could pave the way for a person to legally tell a child with a disability they were suffering divine punishment if they were being bullied.

Ms McLean also warned a service provider might be able to legally reject a plea for help from a young unmarried mother on the basis she was "living in sin and not worthy of support".

Elise Archer says she is carefully considering the draft bill and how it interacts with Tasmanian law. ( ABC News )

Submissions on the draft legislation closed last week, but when asked for a copy of the Tasmanian Government's documents on Monday, Attorney-General Elise Archer said she was "giving careful consideration to the draft bill and how it interacts with Tasmanian law".

"I have been involved in discussions with the federal Attorney-General to ensure all Tasmanians are able to express their views reasonably and respectfully," Ms Archer said.

"We understand that these types of reforms can be contentious, and complex, which is why we will thoroughly consider the draft bill.

"Importantly, we believe any law must strike the right balance between providing protection from discrimination and unlawful conduct, while still allowing for the responsible expression of beliefs, public debate and discussion on important issues."

Ms Archer did not clarify whether she believed the coalition's draft bill struck that balance.

Failure to act 'opens up an interesting future'

Meanwhile, Greens leader Cassy O'Connor has accused the State Government of failing to stand up for vulnerable Tasmanians by neglecting to make a formal submission on the Coalition's draft legislation.

Luke Beck is surprised the Tasmanian Government had not made a formal submission to the Federal Government's inquiry. ( Supplied: Luke Beck )

"The message that is sent to LGBTI people, people living with disabilities, people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds — and the list goes on — is that the Hodgman Liberal Government tacitly supports the 'right to be a bigot' bill," Ms O'Connor said.

Former anti-discrimination commissioner Robin Banks said it was disappointing.

"[The Tasmanian Government] has avoided telling the Federal Government to keep its hands off Tasmanian laws that were passed by our Parliament, and it really opens up an interesting future," Ms Banks said.

"If we say in this case we're not going to comment on whether the Federal Government can do this, then why would it comment on any other federal law that overrides state law?"

Monash University constitutional law expert Luke Beck said he was also surprised the Tasmanian Government had not made a formal submission to the Federal Government's inquiry.

His submission argued the legislation was unconstitutional in its current form on several counts, including its explicit reference to Tasmanian anti-discrimination law.

"If state and territory governments believe that the laws that they have in their jurisdictions are appropriate and protect the citizens of their jurisdiction, then you would expect the governments to put in a formal submission and say 'we do not support overriding our state and territory-based protections for people, why are you overriding protections in our state'," Dr Beck said.

The State Government tried to provide exemptions to discrimination laws if a person could prove they had engaged in a public form of discrimination based on their religious belief in the lead-up to the same-sex marriage survey in 2016.