Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill

Members, we come first to the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill. The first debate is on Part 1.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I thank you for the call and acknowledge this important piece of legislation for our rainbow communities. Can I acknowledge the House, who had the opportunity of a second reading. I think, from the vote last night, it’s clear to see that this bill will soon become legislation. I want to acknowledge our party—the Labour Party—for making it a policy at the 2020 election, and our rainbow caucus, Rainbow Labour, and our Young Labour advocates, who made sure that this policy was a priority to make sure that this piece of legislation was followed through.

Part 1 is probably the most substantive part. It is the part which I understand all of the eight Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that have been submitted on this piece of legislation are party to, and so I would like to begin by addressing some of those. Can I begin with the two that are under the name of Nicole McKee, for the ACT Party. Two SOPs: the first one is Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 120, which requests a review after the commencement of this piece of legislation at the three-year mark, and a subsequent five-year review after that—very nice and early in the piece.

Can I respect the contribution that Nicole McKee made yesterday, but we do not believe that it’s necessary to include a statutory review provision within this piece of legislation as, as with all pieces of legislation, the impact of the new legislation is regularly monitored. We know that the Human Rights Commission will want to take a function around the civil redress system and the police will, obviously, collect data on complaints, investigations, and proceedings, and also the Ministry of Justice will, obviously, be reviewing the outcome of this piece of legislation. So we do not believe that that SOP is necessary, and therefore the Government will not be supporting it. But I do acknowledge the argument that Nicole McKee made around some concerns that some submitters had had at the select committee stage.

SOP 121, also under the name of Nicole McKee, looked to insert a new paragraph into clause 5(2)—paragraph (ea), I believe—which added to the list around the behaviours excluded from the definition of “conversion practice”, so that any conversation between a child and their parent or guardian would not be considered a conversion practice. The Government also believes that this is unnecessary and actually undermines the purpose of the bill, which already sets a high threshold for what is considered to be a conversion practice. The bill as it is set out is not intended to capture conversations, exploration of views, or expressions of opinion, and that is already set out in the bill as it was first introduced and as it has been sent back from select committee.

There are, I think, three SOPs in the name of Paul Goldsmith, again, to clause 5 of the bill. They were to, I think—if I can recall—add examples to the piece of legislation that would point out what is not a conversion practice. To save time for the House, again, we believe all of those three SOPs in terms of the suggestions for examples are unnecessary, because we believe the bill as it stands makes it clear that those situations are covered within the bill as it stands.

Also an SOP that Michael Woodhouse may have tabled recently, around the third bullet point example within clause 5, removing the phrase “prayer-based practice” from the example, we also believe it is unnecessary. The list as stands is not exhaustive, and I think it’s clear from the history, the concerns of the bill, and some of the submissions on the bill that certainly some of the conversion practices that we have concerns about have happened in a faith-based setting. So I don’t think it’s unreasonable for that particular example to be included within the example within clause 5 as it stands.

I believe there are two other SOPs that I want to address. The first one is in the name of Elizabeth Kerekere from the Greens, which was looking to insert definitions of “sexual orientation”, “gender identity”, and “gender expression” into this bill. Those already exist in other pieces of legislation such as the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act, the Sentencing Act, and also the Marriage Act. While not fully defined in those pieces of legislation, we don’t believe tackling this issue within this bill is the right way to do it. In a wider-ranging review of the Human Rights Act, we believe that a precise definition around sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression can be found at that time, but, as it stands, we don’t believe it’s appropriate to insert that in the bill as it stands.

I’m just trying to find the last SOP. That is also—

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: It’s in Part 3, anyway.

Pardon?

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: It’s Part 3, not Part 1.

I want to go through all the SOPs—if it’s OK, Madam Chair—as it stands. That one is in the name of Michael Woodhouse, which I believe would—I’ve got it. It’s SOP 126. I’m just trying to flag very early in this debate that that would depart from the current practice as it is within legislation and within case law. I believe Mr Woodhouse, through that SOP, wants to ensure that if there is to be the likes of medical treatment or puberty blockers sought to be used, that has to be done with parental consent up to the age of 18—am I right there? The law as it stands allows 16-year-olds to independently make decisions around medical treatment by themselves, so I think that would dilute the law, or the rights of young people as they stand now.

The other issue that I think we may have is—and maybe a medical doctor may want to stand up and give us some reality of what this might be—that if you prevent a young person who has made a decision that they do want to undertake treatment or be prescribed puberty blockers from doing that after puberty has taken hold, I think that the treatment that will be required once they turn 18 and they want to make that decision independently of parental consent would be much more invasive than puberty blockers themselves. That’s the medical assessment.

But also, if you have an individual who has made a decision about what their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender orientation is at an age before that, you’re essentially disenfranchising them of a decision to do what they want and trapping them until they turn 18, and this piece of legislation is not designed to take away any parental consent. The purpose of this bill is actually to encourage the conversations in order for people to make wise and informed decisions about their own sexual orientation and gender identity, and I believe that in that SOP we would make things worse for young people who are wanting to explore their own sexual identity, by preventing that from happening if there has to be parental consent up until the age of 18.

I believe that around New Zealand, those conversations are already well and truly happening in a very healthy way, but the very purpose of this bill is that we know that there are examples of that happening in a very unhealthy way that have caused physical and mental harm to New Zealanders who know who they want to be but have been prevented or convinced that the way that they feel about their identity is not right. I would stress that again to Mr Woodhouse around the fundamental human rights argument but also the medical argument and the current right of people at 16 to make their own independent decisions around their medical treatment, and making sure that that happens in a healthy environment. I believe that that SOP does not go to that and goes against the purposes of the bill. I look forward to the questions through the rest of the debate.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister for his explanation. I’m disappointed that he seems to have ruled out his party’s support for the three Supplementary Order Papers I’ve introduced, and I want to ask him a few questions about that.

The starting point, as we’ve started this discussion, was certainly my personal opposition to conversion therapy as a practice. I think it’s an outdated practice that is not something that we support or defend in any way, shape, or form. The question is not so much the practice that we’re debating; it’s the piece of legislation before us that we’re debating, and what it does and doesn’t do.

So we have this situation where we have a rather broad definition of a “conversion practice” and some concerns about what uncertainty that will create in the minds of parents, of health practitioners, and of people as they work to navigate their way through what are some difficult discussions and issues within families, particularly in relation to the broader issue of gender identity, and particularly teenagers wanting to make the lifelong decisions that will affect them and their bodies and their health for a very long time.

So the first question I have for the Minister is: the select committee did extend the definition of a “conversion practice” substantially, from a practice that is directed at an individual that is performed with the intention of changing or suppressing, and that’s been extended to “any practice, sustained effort, or treatment that—… is directed towards an individual … and … is done with the intention of changing or suppressing”. So I’d be very keen to get an understanding from the Minister as to whether he thinks that has broadened the scope of practices that will be captured by this legislation or narrowed it, or what, because one thing we do recognise in all legislation every time we as members of Parliament come to this Chamber with a new piece of legislation that potentially sends people to jail is that sending people to prison is a very harmful practice in itself. It’s not a good thing that we look forward to. The possibility of sending people to jail is a significant one, and so we want to get a very clear understanding of what that expanded definition means.

Also, not just in relation to the criminal side but also to the civil side, where, for a lower threshold, people can be brought before the Human Rights Commission. Again, in many cases the process of that happening can be the punishment in itself, and that has impacts on peoples’ behaviour.

So the first question I have for the Minister is: does he think that changed definition broadens the scope of what might be considered a conversion practice or not?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, to the member, I believe, given some of the submissions at select committee, that the changes that the select committee has made don’t broaden it but certainly clarify the definition of activities that are caught or captured by the definition in Part 1. We know that some submitters on the bill suggested that what was intended to be captured by “any practice,” could be improved by further clarification. They pointed out in the submissions that “practice” is capable of meaning both an action rather than a thought or idea, and something that is usually or regularly done, often as a habit, tradition, or custom. So, to make that clear in the definition that Mr Goldsmith is referring to, that could cover both a one-off and practices over time. The committee recommended that “sustained effort, or treatment” be included in that definition alongside “practice,” in clause 5(1) to clarify the definition, as opposed to expanding it as the member has suggested.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, coming to the question of the Supplementary Order Papers that I’ve introduced, starting off with the first one, this bill is a slightly unusual one in the sense that it criminalises an activity, which is the conversion practice. Just for people to understand: if it’s performed on somebody under the age of 18, it’s just the mere conversion practice that leads to the potential for imprisonment; over the age of 18, it needs to demonstrate serious harm being done by that practice.

Because the definition of what exactly a conversion practice is quite broad—you know, is it a prayer-based thing, or somebody having some sort of exorcism or some sort of other practice—we’ve had this long list of things that are not included, so the law is trying to clarify things that are not included as conversion practices. Then, through the select committee process, there was the introduction of another list of things that are conversion practices. So we’ve got this piece of legislation that’s reasonably vague, and then having this long list of things which are and aren’t included to try and give some guidance to, presumably, potential prosecutors and judges and juries if they’re required to understand exactly what Parliament’s intention is, which some people might regard as a bit of an alarm bell.

But, having included three examples of conversion practices to give guidance, my logic was: well, would it hurt to include a few examples of things that are not conversion practices just for clarity? So the first one I want to talk about is Supplementary Order Paper 123, which would introduce as an example of an act that is not a conversion practice a parent or a caregiver withholding consent for medical intervention in relation to gender transition for what they consider to be the child’s best interests. I’m wanting to clarify this, because all the advice we’ve had from officials is that, yes indeed, that situation is not intended to be captured by this bill. A parent, by not giving consent—an act of omission—would not be doing something that could be construed as a conversion practice.

Now, some people reading the definition of conversion practice, which is to say a “sustained effort,” directed at somebody to supress their gender identity, might think that it’s a parent not agreeing to something that a 14-year-old or a 15-year-old says: “I’m not the gender that I was born in. I’m different, and I want to start on medical interventions that might have”—or will have very serious long-term ramifications. So we believe that it is important that parents are not prosecuted for withholding consent.

So what I want to get a very clear answer from the Minister is on: does he agree that a parent or caregiver withholding consent for medical intervention in relation to gender transition for what they consider to be the child’s best interests, is not an act of conversion practice in the bill, as he understands it; if so, why on earth would we not include this as an example?

As I said in my opening remarks to Part 1 around the examples given in clause 5, they’re not exhaustive. While the member has suggested three possible bullet points to add as examples for clause 5, we believe that the exclusions or exceptions that are set out in clause 5 make it very clear about what is not included, or what practices will not be considered as conversion practices, yet the select committee thought, and we agree, that it would be helpful to have a non-exhaustive list of those that would be—and which are—in the bill as it has been reported back.

In relation to the specific question that the member has asked in terms of withholding consent for a medical intervention, in the circumstances it would be an omission and not an action. Therefore, we don’t believe it would be a conversion practice. I think we need to make it very clear that conversations, explorations of views, and opinion are not captured within this piece of legislation—I’m trying to pre-empt where I think this debate could go. I think we’ve made it pretty clear that the three Supplementary Order Papers that the member has put on the Table to include these examples are unnecessary, and therefore the Government will not be supporting them.

I think we can conclude from that that the Minister does agree that the bill is not intended to capture a parent or caregiver withholding consent for medical intervention. I mean, I think it’s actually good to get that on the Hansard, and it may well inform the legal process when, indeed, these sorts of cases go to court. I would be happier if they would include it, but at least we appear to have a reasonable amount of clarity from the Minister on that issue.

The other one—yeah, there were two others. One is around the expression of any opinion, and, again, the Minister has made very clear his view that the expression of any opinion is not to be captured by this bill and it could not be construed as some sort of conversion therapy, even if it was a sustained effort to direct it at somebody to suppress—I still can’t understand how that logic flows, but maybe he can clarify that more clearly.

But the other example I just wanted to get a very clear answer from the Minister on was in relation to a “health practitioner”. This is, again, dealt with in the legislation where a conversion practice does not include any action that a health practitioner takes when providing a health service if they comply with legal standards, and one of those legal standards is requiring informed consent before any medical intervention takes place. So we have a reasonably high level of certainty that this is not meant to be captured. But I suppose where I come from is the point that, as is intended, laws have an impact on people’s behaviour, and when people are faced with the possibility of imprisonment if they get on the wrong side of the line or are being hauled before a Human Rights Commission, they tend to react very conservatively. The risk is that people hang back from confrontational conversations and fail to ask some of the real questions that need to be asked, and in this context—in the context of teenagers making very significant medical decisions about their lives—the most fundamental question that should be asked not just once but perhaps a number of times is “Do you really want to do this?”

My only concern is to ensure that those important, basic medical questions continue to be asked, and that’s why I want to have it very clear from the Minister that an example of an act that is not a conversion practice includes a health practitioner frankly outlining the risks, consequence, and merits of medical intervention in relation to gender transition. I thought including that as an example in the legislation would be helpful, but I’d be very keen to hear from the Minister some clarity on that issue.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the member for the question. This is one area where I think that the Justice Committee made some extremely good amendments to the bill to make it tidier in terms of clarity for health practitioners. I would note I did manage to see a submission to the bill from I think it was the Nursing Council, who were very comfortable with the bill as it stood at first reading and as it arrived to select committee, but I think they would welcome the changes that the select committee had made.

To the question that the member posed, I think that would not be an unreasonable question to ask. Asking “Are you sure that you want to do this?” would be perfectly fine within the realms of the bill as it stands because I think those who are acting in accordance with their legal, professional, and ethical standards in a situation with someone who might be exploring such treatment or a procedure would ask a question like that. If it were to go outside the bounds of their legal remit, their professional practices, or the ethical standards of their body—all of which, I believe, in the medical profession oppose conversion practices—would get them into trouble with the bill as it stands. But I do believe that the question gets asked nearly always about making sure that people are comfortable, informed, and want to go through with a procedure if they have made this decision. It would happen now, and I believe the bill as it stands allows that to continue to happen.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I hope to take just one call tonight in explanation of my Supplementary Order Papers. If I go over five minutes, I trust you’ll indulge that.

This is my first intervention on this bill. I haven’t spoken to it on first or second reading, and, basically, I’ve kept my head down, and I think the response to me and to those who voted against this second reading on social media and in other forums is a pretty good indication of why. It has been a very hostile response. A colleague of mine has been told that that person has a very punch-able face. I’ve never seen the “C bomb” dropped in as many memes as I have in the last 24 hours, and this is one of the milder ones: “You should be ashamed of yourself. It’s 2022. Gay conversion is disgusting and cruel. Maybe you should experience it before agreeing to support it. God, I hope you don’t have kids, and if you do, for their sake, I hope they’re squares like you.”

Now, I’m not affected by that. I know it’s a pugilistic democracy we live in, and on one level I welcome it. But I do feel sorry for the colleague whose loved one has been harassed and bullied and contacted her in tears, fearful of going out because of that associate’s vote last night. None of us that I know of deviate from this very strong point, and that is that we all condemn conversion practices unequivocally—the end. Only the bill strays into areas that make it very difficult for me. I came to this House with just one bottom line, with probably a reputation for being far more socially conservative than I am. But I had one bottom line, and that was that any legislative change that undermined Kiwis’ freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom to worship whatever deity they deem was a line that I wouldn’t cross.

Now, I’ve heard the Minister talk, and—indeed, probably outside of the bill more than in the black letter law that we’re considering—providing reassuring comments about this, and my amendments, I think, are kind of more belts and braces if what the Minister says is what will happen after the bill is passed.

So I speak to my first amendment, I think it’s Supplementary Order Paper 126—no, it’s Supplementary Order Paper 127. Now the new clause that talks about the examples that have been given do talk about two hideous religious practices that I condemn: exorcism and deliverance, I don’t even know what deliverance is—I hear banjos and guitars!—but I bet it’s not safe, and it certainly does not affirm the right for people to live their best lives free of unfettered interference from the State, which is my mantra.

But in that same clause is the word “prayer”. Now, prayer is a channel between an individual and their deity, however loudly or however individually or collectively it is done, and I simply can’t support a piece of legislation that cuts across an individual’s right to pray, for whatever. What worries me about that is that for 99.9 percent of the rest of the bill I’m supportive of it, but that is a bottom line for me. I think it undermines a fundamental human right, and that is the right to religious worship in whatever form and of whatever belief. A prayer is, I say, a channel between one person and a deity. It may harm even if that’s not the intent, or even if it is the intent—it’s a kind of a sticks and stones moment. So I worry, and I think we have an opportunity to clarify that that’s not the intention of the Government by supporting my amendment to clause 5.

Now, although it’s not in this part, the Minister has at length discussed my other amendment, SOP 126. I think it’s in those clauses that it won’t be an offence for someone to refuse consent to treatment, albeit the use of the term “parent or guardian” I don’t think is actually referenced. The Minister talks about people over the age of 16. It’s a slightly ambiguous—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Just if I may interrupt the member, the member’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 126 really refers to a proposed change to Part 2. While the Minister did refer in an overall sense to SOPs—[Member stands] If the member would like to resume his seat while I’m—

Sorry, you weren’t on your feet.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): While the Minister in his opening comments did refer to SOPs which were in other parts of the bill, I think the substantive, detailed discussion of SOP 126 does belong in Part 2.

Well, in that case, Madam Chair, I will have to take two calls tonight. I was hoping to do this once and once only. I’ll come back to you later.

Can I acknowledge the comments that the member Michael Woodhouse made at the beginning of his contribution. The purpose of this bill and the overriding intention of this bill is to make life better for New Zealanders, and I understand that the debate has been heated. I understand that debate has also been hyperbolic. So we may have situations where emotions run high, and I can understand how that can happen, but comments of that nature I don’t support. I think our intent in this House is to have this piece of proposed legislation become law and for the rights of those who are in this community to be shored up. So I just wanted to make sure I acknowledge that with the member.

I won’t go into the debate around Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 126—we’ll leave that for Part 2—but I did want to make sure that I addressed the question that the member had around the example of the third bullet point in clause 5, which goes to SOP 127, that he has put forward.

I understand that there has been a freedom of expression and a freedom of speech debate running quite thickly through the debate around this legislation, but, as has been said on many occasions, the freedom of speech or expression is not absolute. In this instance—and I’m trying to be very careful about how I say this, because the member used the phrase “sticks and stones”. But words do hurt people, and whether they are part of a prayer-based conversation or whether they’re not a faith-based conversation, there was clear evidence and anecdotes through the select committee of harm that is done, and, as I may have said at the outset too around the member’s SOP, there is clear evidence that a considerable amount of damage may have been done to individuals in faith-based settings.

Clause 5, as it stood when the piece of legislation was introduced and as it stands now, has clause 5(2)(f), which clearly states that “the expression only of a belief or a religious principle made to an individual that is not intended to change or suppress the individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.” is not a conversion practice. There are some opinions and beliefs of people in faith-based settings that I agree with, then there are some opinions and beliefs of people in faith-based settings that I 100 percent disagree with, and this bill does not limit anyone expressing their beliefs or their opinions, whether they be faith-based or not. What it does protect is that if you’re going to try and use a religious argument with the intent to try and use a conversion practice to stop someone expressing or changing their lifestyle or having a lifestyle decision around their sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender orientation—that doesn’t pass muster.

I spoke to religious leaders before the introduction of this bill, and many denominations have submitted to this bill in support of banning conversion practices. So I believe, pan-faith, that there is quite a lot of support for this practice. What I don’t think they would want to happen is faith being used as a shroud for the hurt to continue to happen.

This bill very clearly sets out that you can have your religious beliefs and express how you believe or you see the world around people’s gender identity, their gender orientation, or their sexual orientation—if you’re going to use that against that community, I send the very clear message that this Government disagrees with that, vehemently, but you still have the right to express that. But if you’re going to use that to continue the harm that has hurt many people through the decades, then this piece of legislation says that that is not OK.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate the Minister’s comments. I agree about the sticks and stones comments—actually, that wasn’t quite what I was intending to do. There is no doubt words harm, and the Minister and I may have a different view at the margin about where the border between offensive but lawful speech and words, and the margin of unlawful speech might be. We’ll have that conversation later in the year, probably, when the work on freedom of speech issues is debated further in the House—

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: Meetings—meetings.

—or maybe next year, or the year after. Soon—very, very soon, as the Minister of Immigration would say. But what I’m doing is a bit kind of theological. It is a distinction between a—and, paradoxically, I’m more worried about the pulpit speech, which could be more harmful, than I am about prayerful consideration. But we have made no change, really, in substance from the bill as it was introduced, and I draw the Minister’s attention to the full regulatory impact statement on page 22, where the officials told him the method or form of the practice is not material to the definition, and the prohibition would not be effective if certain methods such as prayer were excluded.

So right from the get-go, prayer would be unlawful, and that’s my bottom line. I think it’s misguided, I think it’s sometimes ridiculous, that old theological norms sit uncomfortably and are misplaced in a modern environment, but that’s not the point. The point is: are people free to hold those views, to worship whatever deity they want to worship? The answer for me is yes, and, as I say, that prayerful channel is one between them and their deity. We’re getting in the way of that, and I don’t think it’s necessary. I’d rather be banning tub-thumping sermons, frankly—they’ll be more harmful—but we’re not. We’re saying that’s OK.

So it’s misguided. I think it’s misaligned. So I agree with the goal; I just don’t agree with the method.

Kia ora e te Māngai. Thank you, Minister, for your remarks. We have no doubt that the Government cares about rainbow people and that it’s wanting to put in legislation that will serve our needs, but having seen the weight of submissions you received, you will know that many people will be disappointed with the bill as it stands.

I decided with this Supplementary Order Paper 125 to focus on just one thing, and that was about definition. You stated that gender identity and gender expression were not fully defined but contained in other legislation. Rudimentary, but I did just do a quick search in that rainbow legislation that you mentioned, and I would say that, actually, these are quite new terms in the way that they’re being used in terms of conversion practices.

I was part of the select committee process, and so I agreed that it was very important that we actually put examples in here about what conversion practice is. I look at key words like where a particular type of practice, a sustained effort, or treatment that uses shame or coercion because of same-sex attractions or non - gender-conforming behaviour, where gender orientation, gender identity, and gender expression are seen as a defect or a disorder, and where prayer, a deliverance, or an exorcism is used to change or suppress. I’m not sure how the law or the police can interpret that, or, if we’re leaving it to the Human Rights Commission through their civil redress process, how they are meant to then interpret whether those things are happening and that people understand that they’re happening because of reasons that are not defined in the law.

“Gender expression” is a relatively new term in our communities, but there’s certain language that gets used that’s very consistent. What the Human Rights Commission proposed is what is kind of standard now. That’s used at the UN, and as that language is standardised, then we use it across rainbow communities. It seems odd to me that you would say, “Here are the examples of the type of practice.”, but you then don’t define what is the nature that that practice is supposedly being used to change, suppress, coerce, or shame.

We have other quite common terms like “health service” and “health practitioner” which are in here, and they are identified as having the same meaning as a particular other piece of legislation. So I would be very happy as an alternative, as a compromise, to have those terms in here and actually specify what definition in some other part of legislation we’re using when we’re talking about it. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The ACT Party understands how sensitive discussions are around people’s identity and we support the bill at this stage, with some reservations.

Thank you, Minister Faafoi, for acknowledging the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 120 submitted by ACT MP Nicole McKee. In fact, we have two. One SOP seeks to modify the bill to require a review of how the Act operates. Because of the very sensitive subjects that the bill deals with, the way that people observe religious practices, the way that family members communicate with each other—particularly dealing with young people at a time where they are vulnerable and need support—that is why the ACT Party believes it’s important to have a review of the way the Act operates and anything that Parliament can learn from how the Act has operated over a five-year period.

It’s true that there were many submissions that were seeking, actually, to have a lot more strict interpretation and definitions included in the bill, as the Green MP Elizabeth Kerekere alluded to before, and so there may well be much to learn once the bill is put into place as an Act of Parliament and then implemented. So that is why the ACT Party is seeking a formal review of the operation of the Act after five years to consider whether any amendments to this Act are required or desirable, to report the review findings on the operation of this Act to the Minister, and, as soon as practical that the Minister has that report after a five-year period of operation, to present a copy of that report to this House of Representatives and then discuss that with elected members and then talk about how the bill might be improved.

The ACT Party believes it’s important that conversion practices which are harmful are outlawed and that they do not continue, because people have suffered real harm. This is new territory for New Zealand lawmakers and for those who will be asked to interpret the law and then enforce the law but also it’s new territory for families, for schools, for counsellors working with young people, for their GPs, and for religious communities. That is why ACT believes that it is absolutely vital that there is a review of the operation of the Act included.

I know the Minister has in his opening remarks acknowledged this Supplementary Order Paper and said that the Government declines to take it up. However, I would ask the Minister to reconsider. There is time, there is still time for changes, and if the Minister were to seek advice from officials as to what the scope of a review and the implications and, potentially, the potential costs and benefits are, I am confident—the ACT Party is confident—that a review clause would be entirely appropriate and would give a great deal of confidence, particularly to those parents, caregivers, school counsellors, people in religious communities, GPs, and all of those who support young people as they go through that wonderful journey of learning about their own identity and finding out their own purpose in life. We should make sure that any laws that affect them are very carefully crafted, particularly ones where there is such a great deal of emotional sensitivity around them.

Young people at the moment are having a real struggle, particularly those of school age and moving from school into work and study, because there is so much pressure on them, whether it’s from social media or having to succeed at school. With the repeated COVID lockdowns and other controls that have forced them to in many cases lose a lot of the social cohesion that they get from spending time together at school and from interacting and testing out their ideas on each other, which is one of the wonderful things about being a young person, about being a teenager or a “tweeny”—that you go to school and you talk about the things that you’ve seen or read, or that you’ve heard friends and family members talking about, and you test your ideas out on other young people.

Sometimes it turns out that when you go home and you talk to mum and dad about those things, they say, “Oh, that’s a load of rubbish!”, or sometimes they might say, “Your friend’s really on to something. You should find more friends like that one. They’re really sensible people.” I think a lot of parents are concerned that the conversations that they want to have with their children in a family home, in a loving home, will be somehow chilled or stymied by a nagging concern, whether it’s justified or not, that this bill would stop them having those really important conversations with young people in their lives: family members, workmates, and so on.

Young people who go out to work outside of the family home and outside of what can often be a rather cloistered school environment, if they’re just going from home to school every day—going out into the workplace. That’s where I first met people who I thought, “Well crikey, these are really different from the people in my family and my friend group. What on earth makes them tick?”, and that’s when my eyes where opened to all the different types of characters and identities and the way people think, and also how they like to express themselves and their love for others.

In many ways, that’s what this Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill is attempting to do. It’s attempting to protect, particularly, those young and vulnerable people who want to express their identity and their love for others, and we should protect that and we should protect them from being subjected to abuse and harm. But we should also protect the rights of parents and families and counsellors to engage in respectful discussions about really important matters that may well affect somebody’s life if not permanently, then in life-changing ways that cannot always be reversed.

That is why ACT has submitted another Supplementary Order Paper: Supplementary Order Paper 121. This is another amendment proposed by ACT MP Nicole McKee that any conversation between a child and their parent or legal guardian should be excluded from those definitions which would somehow criminalise or make those conversations about the young person’s identity potentially a criminal offence.

The ACT Party believes it’s very, very important to protect the rights of those people who are vulnerable, who want to express their identity, and who feel that if they do that, they will suffer harm in some way, whether it’s psychological harm or physical harm—hopefully not, although we have heard some awful testimony about that. But the conversations between a child and their parent or legal guardian, we believe should be protected and we believe that everyday New Zealanders would agree with the ACT Party that that’s a very important delineation between the purpose of the bill and protecting those very special relationships in the family home.

The ACT Party asks the Minister and those who support the bill and will vote for it to please consider incorporating the amendment proposed by Nicole McKee which protects any conversations between a child and their parent or legal guardian from being mistakenly incorporated into the definition of what might be harm. Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mālō e lelei, Madam Chair. Can I thank both Mr Court and Dr Kerekere for their very thoughtful contributions to the debate.

Can I begin by addressing Dr Kerekere and Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 125, as I did in my opening remarks in this debate. We do believe that getting definitions for those three aspects is very important, but we do believe, given that we think they need quite a bit of attention, that we’d do that in a very full way and that we could undertake that as part of a wider review of the Human Rights Act. So I guess, in very plain English, we’d want to do that with a “measure twice, cut once” approach, as opposed to trying to undertake that effort as part of the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill that is before us, which we obviously want to make sure was passed through this House in order for the protection of the rainbow community to become law as soon as possible. So I hope that the concerns that the member has which have seen her put forward the SOP is on the radar of the Government to make sure that we address those definitions long term.

Can I acknowledge Mr Court too, who was speaking to his colleague’s SOPs, the SOPs in the name of Nicole McKee. While it was Mr Court addressing the committee today, can I acknowledge Nicole McKee. Whenever we have debated in this House, I have found her very thoughtful, and her suggestions—while we may not agree with them—are always delivered in a way that I think is always designed to try and make a piece of legislation as good as it possibly can be.

While I can’t please the ACT Party in this instance, I would note in terms of the SOP around trying to put in the bill a review that—I again stress that bills become law and can change. The Human Rights Commission through its function through the civil redress system, the New Zealand Police through statistics and other data it can collect and other qualitative things it can collect, and also the Ministry of Justice through its stewardship process of making sure that our laws are appropriate will be able to undertake, essentially, a review of the legislation. We want to make sure that it works for the very same reasons that the ACT Party does, and if I am reading the tea leaves correctly, while they may have concerns which has led to these two SOPs, it sounds like the ACT Party will probably support this piece of legislation further. I don’t want to presume or assume that, but I acknowledge their support up until this point as such, anyway.

The other SOP in Nicole McKee’s name is around conversations between parents and children. Can I again reiterate and reinforce clause 5(2), which, through subclauses (b) to (e), goes to the very heart of what is not a conversion practice, and actually goes to the heart of what Mr Court was outlining—again, in a very thoughtful way—because the purpose of this bill is to ensure that we are promoting respectful and open discussions regarding sexuality and gender. I think we all collectively want to agree to that, but through clauses 5(2)(b) to (e), in terms of those conversations that pertain to the SOP, there are certainly protections within this bill to ensure that those conversations continue to happen in an open and a respectful way.

In clause 5(2), “(b) assisting an individual who is undergoing, or considering undergoing, a gender transition; or (c) assisting an individual to express their gender identity; or (d) providing acceptance, support, or understanding of an individual; or (e) facilitating the individual’s coping skills, development, or identity exploration, or facilitating social support for the individual;” are all carved out in the bill as it stands as things that are not a conversion practice. Again, I think that goes to give confidence to some people who may have concerns—and certainly there were submissions to that end—that those conversations can happen and they can happen in an open and respectful way to assist people who are going through these issues and who need support, and who will be safe to do so in the knowledge that this bill carves out that for them in a space in order for them to do that.

Thank you, Minister, and thank you for acknowledging the good work of ACT MP Nicole McKee, who has heard many of the submissions in person and who brought her thoughtful approach back to the ACT caucus. That enabled us to take a unified and principled stand on this bill. But, Minister, you actually have raised further concerns. You have identified the Human Rights Commission, which some people call the “Human Wrongs Commission” because of their hard-core, left-wing manifesto, an organisation which has donated to the Mongrel Mob and which, despite repeated calls to investigate Pharmac and DHBs for failing to supply much-needed care to people in dire need. The Human Rights Commission doesn’t sound like the kind of organisation that New Zealand families and religious organisations would be confident to put their trust in.

That is why the ACT Party firmly believes that our proposed amendment that conversations between a child and their parent or legal guardian should be explicitly provided for in the primary legislation, and not left up to a hand-picked group of appointees at the “Human Right all the Wrongs or Wrong all the Rights Commission”.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Are we abolishing the UN next?

Actually, the Green Party member Chlöe Swarbrick makes a good point that the Human Rights Commission should be abolished. I think she agrees with ACT leader David Seymour on that, but that’s a matter for another night.

If we’re going to put our trust and faith in people, at least if the clause that the ACT Party is seeking to amend that protects the conversations between parents and children—that should be in primary legislation, and then if there is a decision, on which it would be a very difficult decision for the Attorney-General to actually advance prosecution, that would be up to a judge to determine whether a crime or an offence had been committed, not some hand-picked academics with agendas who should really, if we’re honest, be putting their hands up for selection as Labour Party candidates in the future. It’s not for those people to decide whether a conversation between a parent and a child or between a caregiver and a child should be subject to criminal action. This must be in the primary legislation.

If we’re thinking about the review, so often legislation is passed by Parliament where there is a no-review clause. The costs and benefits we’re always promised by a Minister will always be on the benefit side. All of the terrible things that people might say will come to pass—they will never happen. The officials who might point them out to the Minister, or the stakeholders or the people affected by laws, are told, “That’ll never happen. Don’t worry. This Minister, he’s a soothsayer. He can see the future and that will never ever happen.”

So that’s why ACT believes that this legislation, because it’s new and groundbreaking, it steps into the relationship between parents and children in a way that I’m not aware of in any other legislation. We must have a review of operation of the Act after a five-year period to see whether the genuine concerns raised by stakeholders, parents, caregivers, and legal guardians, or religious organisations, counsellors, and GPs actually have manifested into poor outcomes and whether, therefore, the legislation should be amended by this House in the future. We think that the Minister should put his trust in the people of New Zealand to give that feedback, and to try and live with this law, but it should come back to the House in five years’ time with a recommendation for any reviews and changes, Minister.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise. I’m just seeking your guidance, particularly with regard to the recording of events in the House as true and accurate. My point to Simon Court, the honourable member who has just seated, is that the Greens do proudly, in fact, support human rights. My point was a flippant heckle, perhaps captured in the masks that we’re all of course required to wear, that if they were seeking to abolish the Human Rights Commission, perhaps the United Nations could be next on their list.

I move, That the question be now put.

The question is that the motion be now put.

Motion agreed to.

The question is that Dr Elizabeth Kerekere’s amendments to clause 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 125 be agreed to.

The question is that Nicole McKee’s amendment to clause 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 121 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Paul Goldsmith’s amendment to clause 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 122 to insert an example of an act that is not a conversion practice be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Paul Goldsmith’s amendment to clause 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 123 to insert an example of an act that is not a conversion practice be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Paul Goldsmith’s amendment to clause 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 124 to insert an example of an act that is not a conversion practice be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Michael Woodhouse’s amendment to clause 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 127 be agreed to.

The question is that Nicole McKee’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 120 to insert a new clause 5A be agreed to.

The question is that Part 1 stand part.