Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I present a legislative statement on the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill.

💬 SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

I move, That the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill be now read a third time.

I want to begin by thanking my friend and colleague the Hon Kris Faafoi for his shepherding of this legislation. His dignified and empathetic approach has been on display for all to see as the bill has proceeded through its stages. I particularly want to thank him for offering me the opportunity to move this third reading. It is a mark of the man that he stood aside to allow an MP such as me from the rainbow community to move this historic legislation. Fakafetai lahi lele.

This legislation does two very important things. First, it rights a wrong—a hurtful, insidious, destructive wrong—but it also sends a message: a message of love, support, and affirmation to all in the rainbow communities. This is a historic day, and I am immensely proud that our Government is bringing this to the House as a Government bill. It will stand us alongside the other Acts on the walls of the rainbow select committee room as a triumph for New Zealand to be able to pass.

There are further thankyous to make. To the hundreds of activists who have campaigned over many years to get us to this point. Change is hard: it’s 90 percent perspiration and 10 percent celebration. It’s even harder when you’ve been hurt so much by what you are trying to change. As we celebrate tonight, I think each and every person and group that has been part of the campaigns. I remember well, standing outside in August 2018 with representatives of the Greens and Labour and other supporters to promote this legislation. I salute the work of everyone who has been a part of this. This campaign has and will save lives; there is no higher accolade than that. And to Amanda Ashley: it’s nearly done.

I thank my parliamentary colleagues who have worked so tirelessly to get to this point along with Minister Faafoi, in particular the members of the Justice Committee, who have shaped a law that has gained support of much of this House. A special thankyou to the rainbow members of Parliament for your courage and mahi, and, in particular, my Rainbow Labour colleagues. And, finally, to our dear colleague Marja Lubeck, who carried much of the burden of this issue last term. Marja, you’re a true ally and friend, and our communities love you dearly.

There are two other groups of people who need to be acknowledged at the outset: the parents, like mine, who supported and affirmed me as a gay man when I came out; the parents who each and every day support their children to be who they are; and the parents who provide the unconditional love that is the bedrock of growing up confident and happy. I grew up in a religious, churchgoing household in the era of homosexual law reform. There were plenty of negative messages for me to hear as I grappled with my sexuality and the challenge of feeling very different from those around me. When I finally gathered the courage to come out to my parents, I was met with love. Whatever fears that they held for me, and I know that they did, they were full of acceptance. My father—who is no longer with us—I knew, would find it hard, but he expressed only one thing that he was annoyed about—he’d heard it from someone else and not from me. If that was as bad as it got, then I knew I was a lucky person. But not everybody is or was so lucky.

The other group who need to be acknowledged at the outset are those from our rainbow communities who did not make it. In my case, I think of James, my work colleague from many years ago; the sweetest, most gentle man that you would ever meet. James was brought up in the same church that I was, but his experience could not have been more different. When he told his parents he was gay, he was met with anger, rejection, and derision. His parents wanted him to change to be someone he was not. It was intolerable for him. He could see no way through, and he took his own life at the age of 23. To James and the many like him from all parts of the rainbow communities and also to those who have been directly affected by conversion practices or attempts at them, we want to say: this legislation is for you. We cannot bring you back, we cannot undo all of the hurt, but we can make sure that for the generations to come, we provide the support and love that you did not get, and that we protect you from the harm of those who seek to try to stop you from being who you are. We will never forget you. Kia moe pai ināianei.

[May you rest in peace.]

Let us be clear what this legislation does. Its purpose is to recognise and prevent harm caused by conversion practice and to promote respectful and open discussions regarding sexuality and gender. It deals directly to the falsehood that people’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression can somehow be fixed. As my straight-shooting colleague Kieran McAnulty said when he explained why he supports the bill: “There’s just no one who needs to be converted or changed here.” I recognise that for some people this bill doesn’t actually go as far as they would like in some aspects, particularly in the area of the ease of prosecution and in penalties. I can understand that perspective, and that in any law there needs to be access to justice and appropriate penalties for those who break it, but I believe that the select committee has got the balance right here. The presence of a civil regime using the Human Rights Commission alongside the criminal provisions is in the spirit of the dual purposes of this bill.

I want to say something particular to our trans community. Throughout the debate on this legislation and this issue more generally, there has been an attempt to somehow separate the right for freedom from harm for those who affirm their gender identity or gender expression from others covered in this legislation. Too often, in recent times, we have seen trans community members put under intolerable scrutiny and stigmatised. As a rainbow community member, I want to say clearly tonight that I am extremely proud that this legislation puts gender identity and gender expression alongside sexual orientation when it comes to prevention from harm. Nothing less than that should be acceptable.

It’s also important to remember what this bill doesn’t do. It does not, as some in this House have said, undermine freedom of speech or expression or worship. The bill does not cover the expression only of a religious principle or belief; it is only when that is part of a practice with the intent to change or suppress. I welcome the support of many religious organisations for this legislation, including those who’ve had some concerns but understand that at its heart, this bill is about the removal of insidious practices that they would never want them or their organisation to be part of.

It is disappointing that this legislation does not have the full support of this House, and I do want to speak briefly to those who oppose it. Listening to some who’ve opposed this bill, it is clear that they have a view of free speech that is divorced from reality. As Vanushi Walters said in an earlier contribution on the bill, free speech has never been absolute in our laws—think defamation, think obscenity, think profanity. More than that, for me it’s about the principle that all rights come with some form of responsibilities. The right to speak or act in a way that will cause serious harm does not meet the test of responsibilities that come with those rights.

It is actually my view that this bill enhances freedom—the freedom to be who we are, the freedom to have the conversations that are needed. Again, in the speeches I heard in Opposition, it’s the tired old view that someone else getting some rights and freedoms somehow or other diminishes the rights that you may have. That’s not true. This bill enhances all of our rights. Speeches I’ve heard in Opposition in this House also seem to see this as some kind of extension of the culture war—it’s not. It is an affirming and positive law that protects people from harm. It’s what we are here to do. I invite those who seem to see this as somehow a diminution of their rights to ask themselves what they’re afraid of and perhaps what they might be able to embrace into the future.

To finish, I want to speak directly to the younger members of our rainbow communities. This legislation is a promissory note from this House to future generations of the rainbow communities. It’s our commitment that we will love, support and affirm you for being who you are, that we will not give licence to the peddlers of hate, bigotry, and dogma to impose the ill-informed and dangerous beliefs on to you. We cannot promise to solve all the problems and challenges that you will face in your lives, but we can—and, indeed, in my opinion we must—give you hope for a life of love, fulfilment, and dignity. Kia kaha, kia māia, kia ātaahua. Be strong, be brave, be beautiful. I commend this bill to the House.

Members, a couple of points I want to make now before I put that the question be put, and that is that it is my intention again to use a split voting method, notwithstanding the fact that this is a conscience vote. So people will have to inform their party whips as to the way they’re voting, or, if they choose, they can vote individually on the floor of the House—there’s an ability to do that as well. But we will not be having members in the lobbies, for COVID reasons.

Because, again, it is a conscience vote, speaking lists and party lists do not apply. I will be taking calls out of order from around the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye—

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Mr Speaker?

Sorry? Oh, Paul Goldsmith—the Hon Paul Goldsmith.

Sorry to prolong the debate! Happy to speak on the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill. As has been well-traversed, the National Party has treated this as a conscience vote. I’ve recently become the justice spokesperson, and so have taken a particular interest in this as an issue affecting the laws of the land. And I want to say at the outset, I will be supporting this bill personally. I don’t support conversion practices or the attempt to change the sexuality of people, particularly in any coercive way, and there’s no question that there’s been much damage done to many people over the years through such attempts. Some of them are driven by hate and dogma, as the previous Minister talked about; some of them, no doubt, with good intentions badly carried out. So I’m very pleased and prepared to support this.

What we have raised through the process are some concerns about the way this particular bill has been drafted, and serious issues around the extent of what is captured by a “conversion practice”. And that is, of course, exactly what we should be doing here in this House as legislators: looking at what the bill in front of us actually says, because what we’re dealing with in Parliament is not what our intentions are—that we want to just stop a particular practice—it’s what the piece of legislation in front of us actually achieves. So my three concerns that I wanted to see rectified were—just being absolutely clear—around free expression, around making sure that the legislation doesn’t in any way inhibit the proper discussions that people need to have before making life-changing decisions, particularly in the context of medical interventions around gender identity, which has been included in the broad scope of the bill, and, finally, that parents, who don’t agree with or aren’t prepared to give permission to significant medical interventions wouldn’t be captured.

And I introduced three Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in the House to clarify that. The Minister has given assurances that each of those areas won’t be covered by the legislation: i.e., that any free opinion or just a statement of opinions is not captured by the bill. The concern was, of course, with a broader definition of conversion practice to be a “practice, sustained effort, or treatment” that that would be directed towards an individual because of their gender identity with the intention of changing or suppressing an individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. That’s quite broad, and so people will naturally ask the question, “Well, what does that mean? What is captured by a ‘sustained effort’ to suppress somebody’s gender identity?” If you’re confronted with a young teenager, a 13- or 14-year-old, asserting that they are a different gender and wanting to make very, very significant decisions. So we’ve heard from the Minister, “No, no. Nothing in this bill will in any way inhibit frank discussions by medical practitioners prior to any significant decisions.”, which is wholly appropriate and should be quite clear. That basic question that should always be asked before any significant medical interventions is “Do you really want to do this?” And you need to be able to have that in a frank and open way, without feeling inhibited.

And thirdly around parents, again, not being criminalised if they were to not give consent to those medical interventions, which I think people would expect to be clear-cut. So notwithstanding that those SOPs weren’t supported, I did think it was still a useful exercise in getting it quite clear in the Hansard and in the parliamentary debates, which will have an impact and influence on how this piece of legislation is interpreted when it does indeed come to the courts. I do think that that was an important set of assurances to have from the Minister.

So my hope now is that this bill will be one that does provide future generations of young people from all sorts of backgrounds to have that level of confidence that they won’t be exposed to some of the terrible practices that some of the earlier members of the community have faced. And with that, I want to conclude my speech. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I feel incredibly privileged to be able to speak on the third and final reading of the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill. I stand here today and I think of all of the people in New Zealand’s history that have gone before, to fight each step of the way to improve and strengthen the rights, the dignity, and the freedoms of New Zealand’s rainbow community. All of these people have stood against discrimination, and all of these people have stood for improving human rights in New Zealand.

I remember, clear as day, as a young girl standing in the street watching—the first time I’d ever seen protests or the demonstrations for homosexual law reform back in the mid-1980s. The first thing I remember that struck me was that they were some of the most fabulous costumes I’d ever seen. Secondly, I remember wondering why people had been “shut in a closet”, and it took mum to explain what that actually meant. But what stuck with me the most was the hatred in the voices from the sidelines, using some of the most obscene words I’d ever heard, as a young person. And in the weeks and months after that, hearing those same words echoed around the playground and around the streets, as other kids learnt those words from adults. And it’s there, when I look back, I remember where that discrimination started and where it’s continued. It makes me think of how far we have come as a country, but yet still how far we have yet to go.

This bill will not end discrimination, but I truly hope it is yet another step forward to making sure that there is wellbeing within our rainbow communities, and it will go towards creating a more inclusive New Zealand.

The select committee process I won’t go over because it’s third reading but, without going into detail, we broke all records with there being somewhat of an online warfare between two sides as to how many submissions could be registered, and we broke into the four subgroups. I want to acknowledge the members of the Opposition on the committee who worked so well to come to an agreement in how we would hear as many as possible, and give all of those people who wanted to submit the ability to do that, and I think that that was quite a healing process, in hearing all of those submissions.

I’m saddened that we don’t have unanimous support across the House tonight and, back then, well, National wanted to demand the debate—it seems like they’re not quite so keen on doing that now. I wish we could be able to have that debate, and I think that’s an important debate to be able to have. In fact, in a country where my children are growing up it’s so important to have those two underpinning principles in this bill. The number one principle that underpins this bill is to prevent harm, and the second one is to encourage safe, respectful conversations around sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.

We owe it to the next generation to be honest, and it’s for this reason that I’ve personally responded to all the emails I’ve received on this bill, and I’ve had dozens and dozens of conversations, whether they be in person or on the phone, to those people who want to understand exactly what this bill does. A lot of those conversations have been in and around the relationship between a parent and their child.

I had a constituent who called my office just last week, who was angry, irate at the fact that this bill was preventing him to have a conversation with his child or his grandchild, and he was fearful that this conversation would be criminalised. When I spoke through the clarifications, the examples the select committee had done to spell out what, in fact, was a conversion practice—to say that it was specifically encouraging someone to believe that their sexual orientation needs to be changed or fixed because it’s broken, to say that somebody is wrong, and to use shame or coercion with the intention of giving a person an aversion to same-sex attractions—his response was “Well, who would do that to a child?” It was so important to be able to have that conversation with some people who had, quite clearly, received misinformation about what this bill aims to achieve. Because it aims to do exactly the opposite: it aims to have open, frank, honest conversations with young people who need our help, who need our support, who need to have their own pathway found to find their identity.

I’m going to read one part of the departmental report because I think it sums it up so beautifully. Before I read this, I would just like to acknowledge the incredibly hard work that officials did to pull this together and the wonderful penmanship and work that has gone into summarising so many submissions. I quote from the departmental report on page 30: “People who are struggling with their sexuality or gender … should be able to receive the support they need, including to explore their identity … to reconcile their faith and sexuality. However, rather than being supportive or exploratory, conversion practices are external attempts to achieve a pre-determined outcome of changing or suppressing a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.” I would like to put it on the record. It is so important in this day and age that we take our information from more than just one source. And when a bill is being passed, a really good place to start is reading the bill itself.

There was so many groups who submitted from faith-based organisations who did such a great job, and I’m just going to read my favourite two, because I thought they did such an amazing job of reconciling some of the real tensions between the faith community and the rainbow community that came out through our submissions process. One in particular reads: “We offer the submission with painful awareness that a founding principle of our faith that we treat others as we would have them treat us has been neglected. We see conversion therapy practices have been conceived to serve a narrow understanding of a person’s identity that are at odds with the teachings of Jesus. We believe that well-crafted legislation to ban conversion therapy will help eradicate these neglectful and abusive practices in Aotearoa New Zealand.” The last one I would like to mention comes from St Martha’s Anglican Church in Dunedin: “We do not believe that practicing conversion therapy is to love others. Especially when it is well known that almost half of the same/both-sex attracted … [people] consider suicide”.

That was the other main theme of what I would like to cover tonight, and that is the mental health of our rainbow communities. The Labour Government has stood strong as one that supports improving access to mental health support, and this is even more important in our rainbow communities. We want to make sure that we continue to give access to those services and to support people to find their own space and their own identity in a way that makes them stand strong in our world. The last quote that I’ll give tonight is one that nearly brought me to tears. I won’t give his name, but he did such a great submission. “Queer people do not grow up as their true selves. We grow up hiding parts of who we are to minimise the ridicule and the bullying. Conversion practices are insidious practices that force us to hide the parts of us that society refuses to accept.” This has been an amazing process. I feel very privileged to be a member of Parliament that has been part of this process in improving New Zealand’s ability to give everybody a fair go.

I would like to acknowledge a number of people: Marja Lubeck, who first took this member’s bill. Thank you, Marja, for your continuing advocacy and passion to improve rights for our rainbow communities. Rainbow Labour, you are relentless and amazing. From your petition to your presentation to the last Parliament, you’ve continued to be a strong advocacy for rainbow communities and for New Zealanders, and I thank you for it. I would also like to acknowledge the 90 submitters who themselves were subject to conversion practices—the strength and determination and resolve that you took to tell your stories and make those public. I acknowledge how much you have done.

I know that we have a long way to go, but in banning conversion practices New Zealand joins other countries in sending a clear message to all people, especially our young people, that they deserve to be protected no matter what their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression is. All people, including the rainbow community, deserve the protection of their rights and their dignity, and to live their lives freely just as they are. And I’m proud to see this third and final reading come to rest today in this House. I commend this bill to the House.

Conversion practices are harmful and degrading. That’s why I’m proud to support this bill to prohibit conversion practices. Conversion practices are defined as “practices intended to change a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.” Conversion practices are wrong because there’s no good reason to seek to change someone’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression—and besides which, you can’t change these elements of a person’s identity anyway.

But conversion therapy can harm a person, because how conversion therapy is actually undertaken sends a person a message: a message that they are not good enough, that they ought to be ashamed. They are stigmatised. Efforts are made to erase them, to rub them out, to take away parts of their very essence. They are threatened with being cast out from their family or community. Worse, it often happens to young people at a time when they should be nurtured by the adults around them and be allowed to develop a sense of belonging to their community. We are social beings and this type of psychological abuse is as harmful as physical abuse. So it is not surprising that conversion practices lead to worse mental health outcomes for those people who experience them later on in life. Tonight, we have the opportunity to consign conversion practices to history, where they belong, with all their abuse and superstition.

I want to acknowledge all of the work that has gone on to getting this bill to where it is today; to this moment. I want to acknowledge Marja Lubeck, a true ally of the rainbow community, for her work to develop this bill in the last term of Government and Minister Faafoi for his work as Minister of Justice bringing forward this bill as a Government bill. I also want to acknowledge the survivors of conversion therapy who submitted on the bill and their courage in doing so, and also the many members of the rainbow community that campaigned for this; I wish you could be here with us now.

In saying that, I also want to say something I’ve thought of since I was a teenager coming out—or talking to my friends about coming out—and it’s one of the things that I really admire about the rainbow community: so many of us have our own stories of stigma, hate, or rejection to share, but in so many instances we respond with dignity, love, and pride. Pride is a catch-cry of the gay rights movements; it is the opposite of shame. The first pride marches were radical because people had been stigmatised all their life in the way that conversion practices stigmatise people. These people marched in the streets, being open about who they were for the first time. Pride is inclusive and welcoming of all. It is a very affirming movement. I’m proud to be a member of Labour’s rainbow caucus that has fought for this and other legislation to advance the human rights of the rainbow community.

When we think about the arc of progress activists have made over the last several decades, we could draw a line from the 35 years ago where homosexual law reform was passed in this House, the Civil Unions Act passed 18 years ago, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act in 2013, and now this next step to end legal discrimination against members of the rainbow community.

I think one of the things that makes this bill so important to me is, now as I reflect on it, as a mother, and I think about all the little things you do to protect your child from abuse and bullying. It is so important that our rainbow children and young people know they are beautiful just the way they are and worthy of love and inclusion. It is with great pride that I commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you for giving me the opportunity, the privilege, and the weight to speak on the third and final reading of a piece of important legislation for our country. And this evening, I just want to not necessarily tell my stories, but tell other people’s stories, people from around Aotearoa who have shared with me what tonight means for them. Most of the people I’ll be speaking about are Christians, some are in the rainbow whānau, and some are our allies. And today marks a change in Aotearoa’s progress to being a better country for our rainbow citizens. The fight isn’t over tonight, but it’s just another step in terms of our equality, our inclusion. One of my friends spoke about the words of the psalmist that said, “How long, Lord, how long?” Today is long enough, and we will not tolerate conversion practices any more.

A friend of mine, Neil, spoke to me about the Christian church talking a lot about the love of God, the unconditional love of God, and who made us in their image. And this ban, this move tonight, helps to action this. It sends a strong message: that rainbow people, we’re not mistakes. We aren’t damaged. We don’t need to be fixed. God’s love encompasses all.

I want to say thank you to the Auckland Rainbow Community Church. I know many of us here know them. For more than 40 years, they’ve been singing from the song sheet. They’ve been fighting, whether it be around homosexual law reform, whether it be around marriage equality—the list goes on. And I want to say thank you to those members of the Auckland Rainbow Community Church, who have spent so long—long before I was involved in this; long before I was alive, as well. I say: thank you.

This piece of legislation changes lives—and I know we have this rhetoric and we talk about it, but if you haven’t been through it, you might not fully understand. David said to me this: “I was raised in a Christian family, and when I realised my attraction to others of the same sex, I was told that God didn’t like me, that I was going to Hell. I was 12 years old. I spent a lifetime of prayer ministry, being exorcised. I completed two conversion therapy programmes. I finally learnt that I can’t change my sexual orientation. I’m still gay, and I have never met anyone whose sexual predispositions have changed. I wish that I hadn’t had to go through so many years of being told, and feeling, that my very being was wrong. I believe in a loving and just God. I hope for a loving and just society. While this won’t change the haters out there, this law at least does something to right some of the wrongs.”

For me, in my journey—for me, coming to a space as a Christian and as a member of the LGBTIQ+ community—I’ve had people on my journey who have supported me, I’ve had people on my journey who have not supported me, who have told me some of the things like Hell, like I’m broken. But Mike Hercock, who lives in Australia these days, he was one of those people that empowered me to be me. He said, “Hey, brother, the journey’s been a long one for me, too, and it’s best symbolised by the ability of a man like yourself to be part of bringing about this change.”

It is not the fear and loathing that I reflect on as the basis for outlawing this practice, although this is incredibly powerful and dangerous; it is simply that we were made to be loved and to love, and no one on this earth has the right to take that away from any other human being. For me, I found that love, and I’m grateful to be married, to have a husband, all because of this place. I say it many times, but this place is a place of liberation. It is a place of other things, but we can make it a place of liberation, like we are tonight.

As we reflect on what this means to our whānau out there, to our parents: don’t be afraid. This doesn’t change your ability to engage. It doesn’t change your ability to be a good parent, to listen, to learn, to ask questions of your children. Because that’s all, I think, we ever want.

A friend of mine, Craig, a number of years ago, came out to me. He’d lived a life of depression. He’d lived a life of a lot going on. So I asked him today, I said, “What does this piece of legislation mean for you? What does it actually mean?” And he said, “The more I continue working to grow out of the harm that was done simply by listening to and coming to believe the ideology the proponents of conversion therapy profess to be true, the more I realise how incredibly insidious these ideals were and how deep the damage went. Living a huge part of my life in fear and extreme doubt, struggling with mental health in the form of severe depression, my only real defence being secrecy, I’m now in my early forties starting to fully understand what it is to be at relative peace with oneself and freely expressing the daily moments of joy that make life worth living.” In his forties, and he’s still trying to overcome the challenges of something that us as a church put upon him and put upon others.

I’ve got a friend who’s a teacher, and she says, “For me, it means my rainbow rangatahi will grow up in a country that will protect them from harmful practices.”

I want to go on to Greta, who said, “Every time I wanted to write back to you today, I almost cried, because I think of all the times I hid myself, all the way through school, from my church, from my friends. I think of the time I came out to a friend and he pulled out his Bible and quoted Leviticus to me. Don’t tell me it’s about freedom of speech, when it’s not your freedom on the line. Don’t tell me it’s about freedom of speech, when it’s your freedom on the line.” That’s powerful words, thank you, Greta.

For me, I’m grateful to those who have worked so hard. Generations before us, those who worked and walked so hard on this journey in this House over recent parliaments. I’m grateful to those services out there that work with young people, that work with those on the margins who have been excluded, who are struggling with mental health. And I hope that this piece of legislation is a symbol of our society, that we will not tolerate this any more. I want to finish with a quote by L.R. Knost, and it says, “Do not be dismayed by the brokenness of the world. All things break. And all things can be mended. Not with time, as they say, but with intention.” And for me, this bill is around fixing a broken system, and it’s not time that fixes it; it’s with intention. In that case, it’s the intention that this bill be passed tonight. Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise this evening on behalf of the ACT Party at the third reading of the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill. I want to start by firstly acknowledging Minister Faafoi and the work that he and his staff have done in preparing this piece of legislation. But I want to also acknowledge the hours of diligent work that our justice spokesperson in ACT, Nicole McKee, has done for us as a party on this bill. I know that the Justice Committee period of time was quite extensive and I want to thank all the members of this Chamber who sat through hours of work to make sure that we get this piece of legislation right. I also want to acknowledge the select committee staff, because I know how hard it is to read hundreds of submissions—if not hundreds of thousands of submissions. I do think the work that they’ve done has been strenuous but very worthwhile. It’s wonderful to see the diligent work that they put in to make sure that we get the laws in this place right.

I want to acknowledge also the 90 submitters that we’ve heard of today that did submit who had been through conversion therapy. I know, having heard many people submit on select committees before, voicing your views in Parliament can be extremely stressful, but doing so when you’re opening up on such a personal issue like conversion therapy, I really cannot even express how that must feel. It is extremely brave. There were concerns on both sides throughout the select committee process that said that the bill either didn’t go far enough or that it went too far.

I want to acknowledge that there are valid views on both sides from people who are just expressing their genuinely held beliefs. But when we come to what the bill actually is and what it’s hoping to do, a conversion practice in the bill is encompassing a broad range of practices that seek to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation, their gender identity, or gender expression. I note that the purpose of this piece of legislation is to prevent harm caused by conversion practices and to promote respectful and open discussions regarding sexuality and gender. There are some conversion therapy practices that are happening in New Zealand that are extremely detrimental to people’s health and wellbeing. I know in the select committee, people heard horror stories of shame, manipulation, people attempting to change their gender and their sexuality through psychological trauma and through physical trauma. That has ongoing mental harm that some people will never get over for their whole lives. I want to live in a country where we accept all people, that we have a common humanity, and all people are respected to live the lives that they want to, and they’re respected for being themselves.

Throughout this piece of legislation being in the House, the ACT Party has supported it at its first and second reading. We believe that it’s been well intentioned and we care about making good public policy and making sure that we get it right, because as lawmakers, that is our duty. So we have voiced a few of our concerns, because we’ve seen what happens when legislators get the law wrong. You only have to look at the recent example of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act which has led to people, when they’re trying to get pre-approval for mortgages, being told that they have to choose between feeding their cat or unsubscribing from Netflix or not even giving Christmas presents to their kids, to make sure that they get a mortgage. That has been an unintended consequence of the law.

So we want to make sure that when we’re getting the law right, we are getting it right, and we’re doing due diligence, because we need to make sure that we are getting that balance between protecting people from harm and not overreaching into the family home. So we did voice our concern that people had raised in select committee about finding that line between what is a criminal act and the ability to converse in the family home. Because we did not want parents to be in fear of prosecution for expressing their concerns, for expressing their religious beliefs, and having freedom of expression to be themselves. There are difficult conversations that occur between family members when it comes to people’s sexuality and their gender identity, and parents shouldn’t be in fear of thinking that they may go to jail for expressing their own views when we’re also, in this law, trying to ensure that others can express themselves.

So we prepared some Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs). We had two of them—one that said that the law should be reviewed after three years, and the second making sure that conversations between parents and children were exempt as a conversion practice. Both of these SOPs were voted down, but we put our concerns to the Minister in the committee of the whole House. We thought that was very important because the committee of the whole House, and the Minister’s comments when they’re in the Chamber writing law, is very important for how the courts will interpret the law. So I want to read two of the responses that the Minister gave us for anybody who might be listening.

On our first concern about the review, we have here, “the Human Rights Commission through its functions through the civil redress system, the Police through statistics and other data it can collect and other quantitative 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”.

The second was about the SOP about conversations between parents and children. And I quote: “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 respectful way. 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. And 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; 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 and a space in order for them to do that.”

Because of the comments made by the Minister and being assured that conversations for parents and children will be allowed and exempt as a conversion practice, the ACT Party believes we’ve been constructive in alleviating some of those concerns and making sure we’ve got them on the record, and we are happy to support at the third reading. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

E te Māngai, tēnā koe. I’m proud to rise in support of the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill at its third and final reading. He wā whakahirahira tēnei.

[This is an important time.]

Thank you to all of you, including the Minister and those in this House who have got us to this point, the activists who have focused on this kaupapa, and those who have integrated their advocacy into a broader framework of health and wellbeing. Ngā mihi aroha to those groups and individuals who have supported survivors of conversion practices. When the mental health system has failed our communities, and usually without recognition or resource, you have been there. I acknowledge people like my mother, Erin Kerekere, and her best friend, my godmother, Susan Thompson, who worked for nearly two decades in PFLAG South within the communities and churches of Dunedin to raise awareness and help make them more inclusive of rainbow people. Staunch Catholics—when their Catholic church was not ready to listen, the Methodists gave them an office, and that’s where they worked their magic from.

Thank you to the researchers who have made sure we have real data of the Aotearoa experience, counting ourselves for trans and non-binary people, and identified the LGBTQ young people: Jack Byrne, Dr Jaimie Veale, Dr John Fenaughty, Alex Ker and your research crews. We are in your debt. And I note that questions on this will also be included in the Manalagi survey, the rainbow+ Pasifika health and wellbeing project, which we launched on Saturday. So shout out to Dr Patrick Thomsen, the legendary Phylesha Brown-Acton, and the Manalagi crew. Thank you again to everyone who made submissions both written and oral—even if the select committee did not count form submissions, we recognise the intentions of everyone who put their name down and know that your names are for ever recorded in the archives of this Parliament. Whether you are a rainbow person, whānau, or an ally, collectively you have moved the Overton window. You have moved this country to a place where we as politicians can be here tonight and put this law into place.

I want to explain why the Greens are supporting this bill, even though it does not address all of the issues raised by our rainbow communities. One thing I’ve learnt here is that any of these laws are not the be all and end all. Today, this bill is a stake in the ground. It’s a reflection of where we are as a country. This bill can be amended, and one day we probably will. I’ve learnt that the general policy statement that comes with the bill, the legislative statements for each reading, the departmental report, and the Justice Committee report can all be as important as the letter of the law, because they’re the whakapapa of this bill through this Parliament. And this is taken into account because those documents categorically and emphatically state that conversion practice is wrong and it must stop.

So there’s two areas that I want to demonstrate how community could use those mechanisms to hold the Government to account when this bill goes into law. The first, of course, is with health. Many submissions noted that the health system has been a place of great harm for trans, non-binary, and intersex people historically and, of course, today. Many have seen the exemptions of health providers as a free ticket for them to continue doing what they’re doing. That is not correct. As the select committee report specifically states, and I quote, “We note that this clause is not intended to act as a blanket exemption for health practitioners to perform conversion practices” and “this would … lower the risk of harmful conversion practices being able to be practised under the guise of a health service.” A bright light is shining on those practitioners, and tomorrow they will not get away with what they’re getting away with today. I don’t know about you, but I was keeping a note of submitters who admitted on live streamed and recorded hearings that they were flouting their own code of practice to perform conversion practices in their workplace. They may never be prosecuted for that, but the very least I would expect is that they lose their right to practise in this country.

The second area is the exclusion of intersex people in this bill, those who have suffered conversion practices. The main rationale that’s been given for that exclusion is that the Government realises that intersex issues are very singular, particularly in the case of gender normalising surgery on intersex infants, and that it needs to be considered elsewhere. So I suggest we take the Government at their word because it states also in the report that the Government is looking to “move away from a solely medicalised view of intersex health care, and take a rights-based approach that focuses on ensuring that intersex people and their whānau have all the relevant information and support to make informed decisions about their healthcare” and to “support health practitioners to provide best practice health care for intersex people.” This is the basis now of our advocacy. This is the place where we can hold them to account. I certainly feel a new members’ bill coming on to cover this.

Now, let us remember also that the select committee received tens of thousands of submissions from organisations, churches, anti-trans lobbyists, and what I call hate groups who did not support this bill and, to be fair, did not actually respect the humanity of many members of our rainbow community, especially our trans woman, but also our intersex people and our non-binary people. They did not support the bill, and they tried to add more exemptions—their scaremongering and hate speech under the guise of well-meaning paternalism, their transphobia, homophobia, interphobia, and biphobia thinly veiled as feminism. Even though they felt it was not about hate speech, it wasn’t about free speech and never was. It is just hate speech, and I’m looking forward to having our laws sort that out.

Even so, with those disclaimers, frustrated people watching at home may have some questions in mind. Is this a perfect bill that does everything that we want it to? Of course not—if such a thing even exists. Is it the best we can do right now? Absolutely—that is what I believe. Will it still make a difference? It definitely, definitely will. And is there any cause for celebration? We should be partying. We should party tonight because each step that we take forward is a step that acknowledges everything that has gone before us. And if I didn’t think I could answer those questions, I would not put my name to it, and the Greens would not be supporting it here today.

Finally, I dedicate this speech to those whose wairua, whose hinengaro, whose mauri has suffered because of the harm done to them by conversion practices. The weaponising of religion and spirituality has a particular impact on takatāpui, when our ancestors would have accepted us for who we are.

To those countless takatāpui and rainbow whānau we have lost because they could not recover from the harm done to them in their places of worship, in State care, and in their own homes: we remember you. Moe mai rā, moe mai rā i te moenga roa.

[May you rest in peace.]

To those who are experiencing conversion practices right now, or not even sure if that is what is happening, reach out for help. Talk to somebody, and if you can’t have those conversations in your own home, look for somewhere safe to go to. We’ve put a stake in the ground, and as we increasingly create safety for all rainbow people regardless of their gender, their sexuality, or their sex characteristics. So as the world becomes increasingly unsafe and less tolerant, we’ve actually got no room for people who think they can continue with this kind of behaviour. On that note, I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Tāmati Coffey—a five-minute speech.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ll keep an eye on the clock. I’m incredibly proud to be able to stand here as part of the rainbow caucus and the New Zealand Labour Party and acknowledge the significance of the third reading of this bill. The goal posts have kept changing throughout my lifetime. When you, sir, were fighting for homosexual law reform back in 1986, I was a 7-year-old boy and I realised at the time that a big thing was happening in New Zealand and that, actually, it was going to be OK, and that whatever I chose to be—and I think I knew from a pretty early age—actually, it was going to be OK because there were giants whose shoulders we stood on. So to all of those people that helped champion that reform, this is the evidence, this is the product.

In 2005, when the Civil Union Bill went through, it was another momentous shift in the psychology of what it was to be a rainbow person here in New Zealand. It made it OK for me to acknowledge the love that I have for another person, and be it male, be it female, it didn’t matter. It always struck me that I felt such a deep sense of injustice that both of my sisters could get married and that I couldn’t because I was gay. What that bill did was that it normalised this.

When it came to marriage equality in 2013, it was another momentous step. It actually put us on par with those of our heterosexual brothers and sisters who were out getting married and enjoying everything that went with it, and suddenly we were able to get married as well. So I acknowledge that tonight as we read the third reading of this bill here in 2022. This, the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Act, will come into legislation, and I want to take a moment to appreciate that as I stand here and do this—as we stand here in this Chamber and do this—there are kids out there that are watching their TV screens right now, that are listening on the radio, and they are the ones that are going to be standing here maybe, in 20 and 30 years’ time, talking about the momentous shifts that this House has created in modernising our laws so that what it is to be a member of the rainbow community makes you valid, makes you important, makes you seen, makes you heard.

As a new dad, I think about my son. I think about the decisions that he’ll make in his lifetime. I think about the New Zealand that he’ll grow up in, and I want him to have the best of everything, like all of the parents in our country do. We want the best for our kids. But I don’t want a New Zealand which thinks that it’s OK to shout hate speech, where they think that it’s OK to convert you to change your identity. And that’s not just us saying it as parents, as MPs; actually, through the submissions process, listening to our psychologists, listening to our doctors, listening to our nurses, it was them that came forward with their voices and said, “This is not appropriate. You do not need to change these young people. They are young and they are beautiful.” If only we all looked at our young people and saw them for what they were, which is a taonga, which is a beautiful little spirit, and whether or not they choose to one day love a male, love a female, or somewhere in the middle there as well, that actually, they’ll be OK. They’ll be looked after, they’ll be lifted up by the community that they live in, but most importantly, they’ll be lifted up by their family.

And that’s where it starts. These conversations do start in the home. It is still really nerve-wracking to come out as a young rainbow person in our community today. If you think that it’s all gone, it’s not. The pressure is just as hard for somebody that has to have a challenging conversation with a person in their house who’s either going to do two things: go, “You’re a wonderful person. Let me give you a hug.”, or “I don’t want to talk to you. You’d better think about packing your bags.” And that’s not the New Zealand that I want.

Before I sit down, I want to acknowledge the words of the late Dame Whina Cooper—and she brought it all back. While we talk about conversion practices here tonight, she was talking about just the beauty of children in general. She said, “Take care of our children. Take care of what they hear, take care of what they see, take care of what they feel. For how the children grow, so will be the shape of Aotearoa.” I commend this bill to the House.

Joseph Mooney—a five-minute speech.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill. This is an example of this House taking members of the community, who are not a majority, and taking steps to protect them. That is something to be commended. It’s something that we should all reflect on.

I have had concerns about this bill, which I expressed at the second reading, and, in particular, the ability for parents to withhold parental consent to medical intervention for children. A Supplementary Order Paper was put forward by the National Party. I am happy to say that the Minister did directly address that and put on Hansard record that that is not the intention of this bill. I am bolstered in my confidence in that that will be taken into account by the fact that there can be no prosecution without the Attorney-General’s consent. The Attorney-General is a legal expert and will be looking at the Hansard before determining whether a matter should be prosecuted. That gives me confidence that the clear intention of Parliament, as expressed by the Minister, will ensure that parents are not prosecuted in those circumstances.

I, also, did have some concerns around the overreach into the family home; the expression of opinion, expression of religious belief. I do note, however, that in clause 5(2)(f) it makes clear that a conversion practice does not include “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.” And that, on my reading, makes it clear that it is not intended to affect opinion—i.e., a belief or a religious principle, which people are entitled to do. Again, there cannot be a prosecution without the Attorney-General’s consent, who is a legal expert and will analyse any factual scenario against the clear intention, as expressed in this bill and in the words of the Minister. So I thank the Minister for making those matters clear during the committee of the whole House stage.

This is fundamentally—I think, it is good that Parliament is putting a very clear line in the sand here, that it wants to ensure that this group is a valued people, who in a rainbow community are valued members of our community, and that they should not be exposed to conversion practices that are directed towards people in a harmful way, that are directed towards making people feel that they cannot be who they are, and that is to be commended.

I would just make a note, Elizabeth Kerekere made a comment that did send a small chill through me when I heard it, and I know it comes from an intention to be in a good place. But she did say that she was taking notes as people made their submissions to the select committee, and that she hoped that they would lose their right to practice. I do have concerns about that because we do need people to come to Parliament to make clear what their views are and for us to hear them. We don’t have to agree with them but we should allow them to express those views without having the fear that the submissions they make will be used against them in the future. So I would caution against that.

This is the continuation of, I think, a good trajectory for our country. The first parliamentary attempt to make homosexual reform was, I think, in 1974 by a National MP. It wasn’t until 1986 that the law was reformed. And I note the changing of social mores, where at a previous part of our history, society thought it was OK to send people to jail for being homosexual, and we’ve now moved to a place where we’re making it very clear that people should feel safe to be who they are. And that is something to be commended. For those parents who are concerned, I would point to the safeguards both in the Minister’s speech, and the Attorney-General must consider any factual scenario before recommending a prosecution. So on that basis, I will be supporting this bill at the third reading.

Shanan Halbert—five-minute speech.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. As chair of Labour’s rainbow caucus, tonight it is a great pleasure to speak on the third reading of the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill to ban conversion therapy now. If I was to look back at the whakapapa of this particular piece of legislation, it fulfils a key manifesto commitment that we made to New Zealanders at the general election to ban conversion practices and protect our rainbow communities from the demonstrable harm too many are currently subjected to. This bill is an example of Government responding to grass roots activism. And I turn to our young people this evening, and I want to acknowledge you, Young Labour, Young Greens, and Young National, for working together on a petition to the last Parliament, asking us to act to stop these barbaric practices now.

Also I want to acknowledge the organisations that have engaged with their communities and encouraged them to have their say in this process: to RainbowYOUTH, Outline, the Conversion Therapy Action Group, our church groups, Rainbow Auckland, and university chaplaincies. And, of course, our rainbow caucus want to put on record our thanks to Minister Faafoi and his officials for their solid work on this bill. Minister, I thank you for your strength in confronting what are difficult issues and for skilfully managing your way around our passionate rainbow community.

It was difficult for members of the select committee to hear evidence for and against the bill. Some of us are members of rainbow communities and all of us either have rainbow family members or friends. The stories we heard stirred memories for many of us. For instance, I recall asking submitters from within my own faith community how we could come to a better appreciation of how sexuality, gender, and faith go to making up a whole person who deserves love, their acceptance, and their pastoral care, similar to the way that I live my life. Their response was that my happiness would be transitory if I continue this way, that they were looking for restorative therapy, and no they weren’t going to call it conversion therapy because I had, it would seem, been converted from the way that I was born to another way. They prayed that I would be restored to what God wants me to be. This would follow the natural law.

And I’ve spoken before and I continue to speak about the importance of kotahitanga on this issue. And I’ve seen the journey that other church groups have made towards acceptance when they have come to confront their attitudes towards conversion therapies, and I applaud them for doing that. I remain hopeful that others will walk the same pathway, and I’m happy to play my part in that too. But tonight I say that God wants me to be me.

The public debate around conversion practices, which has generated large amounts of discussion, in my view has been an educative one for our country. But through the debate and around the bill, we’ve learnt that there are a whole range of other practices that people have been subjected to to try and get them to change who they actually are.

I want to put on record my thanks to all members who have supported this bill. I’m grateful to sit alongside so many others who have had the courage to treat this issue as an issue of humanity. Rainbow rights are human rights. And I ask those members who are considering voting against this legislation this evening to think carefully about determining that vulnerable members in our community should not have their basic rights protected.

Tonight, Labour will proudly add banning conversion practices to the rollcall of progressive legislation that we have championed for our community. As a party, we are relentlessly proud of rainbow New Zealanders. We will continue to back them to live their lives authentically, happily, and with dignity. There is still more work to be done creating more inclusive schools and more inclusive work environments. And to the young people that I continue to meet, and this time last year Birkdale Intermediate and Northcote College, and tonight, my godson sitting listening at home with his two mums, this bill is for you, to change for future generations: aroha atu, aroha mai—love given is love received. Love is love. I commend this bill to the House.

Marja Lubeck—is it five or 10? A five-minute call.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Thank you for the opportunity to take a short call on this bill; it’s a real privilege. I had the opportunity to speak in the first reading and now to be here at the third reading, it’s actually quite overwhelming. It’s also been overwhelming to hear my colleagues speak all from very personal experiences, and that is kind of why I feel it was a real honour for me to be able to be part of this kaupapa. So I would like to talk a little bit, as my colleague Shanan Halbert already has, about the whakapapa of this bill, because for me, when I became involved, it was after watching a documentary on TV in 2018 that was talking about the subject of praying the gay away. I was really shocked at the time because I had no idea that in New Zealand in 2018 these practices could be happening. It is also quite astonishing to think, being from the Netherlands—people will probably think that this is something that in the Netherlands has been outlawed for a long, long time, but, in fact, only just this week have those discussions started, that perhaps there should be fines for trying to convert people from who they really are. But at least the conversations are starting, and I think it is really important. It was important for me that the hurt and damage that discrimination and condemnation causes for people was acknowledged with the work that we have been doing on this bill.

So when I was approached by Amanda Ashley—who has been mentioned previously—in rainbow Rodney on starting a petition on banning conversion therapy, I was really honoured that she wanted me to help her with that piece of work. So she started the petition, she got 5,125 signatures, I believe, from memory, and she would keep me updated weekly on how well she was doing—and really proud of that work. Then she was joined by Young Labour and Young Greens, and it was an omission of mine in my first reading speech to forget to show the petition with over 15,000 signatures. [Holds up petition] So altogether, over 20,000 signatures were presented in August 2018. I had then the support of my full Labour caucus to put this as a member’s bill in the tin. Then, of course, as part of our 2020 manifesto, we were able as a Government to bring this to the House as legislation. Enormous gratitude for the courage that our Minister Kris Faafoi displayed in doing that, because it is not so common yet, if you look around the world—yes, there are countries and different legislatures where they have banned conversion therapy—but we are following a gold standard that Australia started with the Victorian legislation, and the Minister grabbed that gold standard and, I believe, in my view, made it even better. So we can be standing here really proud of the history made.

I would like to repeat the long list of people that have worked so hard and fought so long for this particular piece of legislation, but I kind of got up to speak without that preparation and I dare not to start that list because I’m bound to forget someone. So, yeah, that will just have to be on the record from the first reading speech.

I think the importance of keeping young people, our rangatahi, safe from the hurt and damage that certain practices can cause is one of the most important pieces of work we can do here in this House, especially with the terrible record that we have, still, on mental health. So, for that, I would like to do a last shout-out to our grassroots activists, our rainbow communities, our rangatahi, and to say that this bill is for you. This bill says you are not broken, you don’t need to be fixed, and you are loved for who you are. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Kieran McAnulty—five or 10?

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Five, please.

A five-minute call, Kieran McAnulty.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It wasn’t my intention to speak on this, this evening, but there have been more opportunities than we expected—because we thought that there would be some members tonight that would wish to speak in Opposition to this bill. Given that there were seven members that voted no, we thought that some of them would come to this House tonight and explain to the New Zealand people why.

But I am an optimist, and I would like to think that that’s because they’ve had time to reflect and they’ve changed their mind. Perhaps it’s because they’ve thought of the old saying, “You can’t change what isn’t broken.” What’s the point in trying to fix what isn’t broken? That is the guts of what we’re debating tonight.

There is nothing wrong with being gay. There is nothing wrong with being trans. What is there to change? What is there to convert? This whole concept that there is this process that could change someone from being gay to being straight is a falsehood and it is based on discrimination and it is based on hatred and it is dangerous. What right do people have to say to others that they are wrong? What right do they have to say to them that they are inferior—that they are immoral?

I think of the journey that this House and this country has taken in a very short period of time. The civil union bill in 2004 passed 65 votes to 55—and we all remember how controversial that was at the time, to allow people to enter into a legal arrangement. Then in 2013, the marriage equality bill passed 77 to 44.

💬 Hon Member: The skies are falling!

That’s right, we were told all sorts of things would happen. None of them have come true. Now, in 2020, we’ve got an opportunity as a House, all 121 of us, to say: this is wrong; there is no place for this nonsense in our country; that there is absolutely nothing wrong with someone’s sexual identity, sexual orientation, or gender expression. If it’s theirs it’s theirs alone, and you have no place to say otherwise. That’s what we’ve got an opportunity to do as a House tonight.

I say to the seven that have voted against it at the second reading: you’ve got a chance to change your mind; you’ve got a chance to do right. Think of all the people since 2004 that have changed their opinion on civil unions, on marriage equality. We’ve seen members in valedictory speeches apologise to their sons because they made the wrong call at the time. Five of the seven that voted against this bill also voted against marriage equality. Tonight is your chance to make that right, because we as a society can stand proud today and say: conversion therapy has no place in New Zealand.

In the small amount of time I have left in this five minutes, I wish to speak to the constituents that have got in touch with me over the last few weeks encouraging me to vote no on this bill. They’ve done so, I believe, out of a sincere and genuine concern because of what they’ve heard from those that oppose it. They’ve heard that this bill will stop them having caring conversations with their children or with those members of their community, perhaps in a religious group. They are misinformed. I don’t believe they come at this with any hatred in their hearts; I think they come at this with fear; fear that’s been stoked and stirred up by people that have not taken the time to understand the harm that conversion practices cause to individuals.

I say to my constituents that are concerned about this: you do not have anything to worry about. I don’t believe for a second that you believe that being gay or being trans is wrong—not for a second—and if that’s where you’re coming from, then you should be supporting this bill, because you can’t change what doesn’t need to be fixed. I am going to be proud to lend my vote on behalf of myself and my constituency in support of fairness and in support of love and in support of a society that accepts everybody how they come and how they’re meant to be.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a bill that has travelled here on the wake of the voices of many rainbow activists. For those who’ve been involved in the advocacy for this practice to end, I know it’s been a labour of love, and while I’m on the topic of Labour, Young Labour, Rainbow Labour, and our Rainbow Caucus, the integrity and leadership you’ve demonstrated in the fire, as we saw this through, has been exceptional to watch. For those of us who are rainbow allies, what an astounding privilege to stand with you on this journey.

The objections to this bill have been laden with apparent rights issues, and I’d like to address them briefly. The first: that conversion therapy should be allowed because it’s a manifestation of a religious belief. Rights are boundaried by two things: the boundary of the definition of the right itself and then by section five of the Bill of Rights Act, which permits a right to be limited in a reasonably justified way.

In terms of defining a right, there’s a principle called the equal regard assessment, and it’s the idea that a right is not interfered with if a prohibition treats those who are religious the same as those who aren’t. In other words, it’s a prohibition that applies equally to everyone, and the equal regard approach is supported by case law, actually, both internationally and here in New Zealand. In the European Court of Human Rights, C v the UK, in 1983, the court found that the right to manifest your religion doesn’t give people the right to refuse to comply with legislation that applies neutrally and generally to all members of the public. In New Zealand, the case of R v J, the Court of Appeal found that the right to manifest religious beliefs excluded decision making that endangered the child’s right to health or life. In my view, whether you take a definition-balancing or an equal regard approach or a section 5 balancing approach, the legislation is justified. It’s consistent in a credible way with case law and it’s rights affirming.

The second argument is about freedom of speech and that it should trump the harm principle. Freedom of speech is a right that is old and deep, and we should have regard to it, but as all rights are, this is a right that has been subject to reasonable limitations. In my speech last week, I gave some examples of how we do this in everyday legislation. I’m going to throw a few more into the mix: consumer protection, workplace bullying, electoral regulation, copyright, confidential information and privacy, and the rules of evidence. Yes, the rules that direct us to get us to the evidential best truth restrict freedom of speech.

I want to also make an observation about how rights are often used in the defence of the most horrific things. Rights aren’t things to be verbally wielded around one’s head; they require precision and definition and analysis. I’m often horrified that people quote Voltaire when they’re wielding that right around their heads. They quote him and say he said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” He did use those words and he also supported criminal laws against libel, slander, incitement to violence, and treason. Some people quote Mill in the same regard, but yet he also announced the harm principle and spoke of preconditions to expression, which was framed in a responsible way before you exercised the right.

Today is a day about pride, about love, about respect, about dignity, about fairness. We are here on the wake of the voices of many and the rainbow community—kia kaha. I hope that those of you who’ve been advocating for this take the time to revel in the legacy that you leave. I commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. Soon we’ll vote on the third reading of the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill, which will be the final hurdle for what I think is a torch relay. And that torch relay did not start here in this House. It actually started in some very dark places, through the experiences of the likes of the 90 people who came to the select committee and submitted and told us of their stories. That baton or that torch has been carried by people who are no longer here, and I want to acknowledge the pain and the hurt that it obviously had caused them. But I do want to acknowledge the holding and the passing and the carrying of the torch to this point, with this House, with near unanimous voting. We will be able to send a very clear message to New Zealand that the New Zealand that we live in today is a place where no sexual orientation or gender identity is broken or needs to be fixed, and that this piece of legislation is an extension of the freedoms, the rights, and the protections of our rainbow community to be who they are, to be who they want to be, and to love the way that they love.

Many acknowledgments need to be made, and can I again acknowledge those people who submitted at select committee and told that committee of the harrowing stories that they went through. The bravery that they showed at the select committee to tell those very personal stories, I think, needs to be commended. Can I also acknowledge all the members of the Justice Committee, led by the chair, Ginny Andersen. It is well known that 107,000 submissions on this piece of legislation were received, and I understand that the Justice Committee worked in a way that respectfully acknowledged all the submissions that were made on an individual basis, and they worked collectively and collegially to make sure that those who wanted to make an oral submission had their day at select committee. That also needs to be acknowledged, because some of these stories and some of the submissions were both harrowing from those perspectives of people who had been through disturbing conversion practices, and because of some of the obtuse fundamental beliefs of some of the people who submitted at the select committee too. So I want to acknowledge all the members of the Justice Committee and the staff that enabled that to happen to the point where we have got to today. Can I also acknowledge Ministry of Justice officials in that too.

Can I acknowledge how proud I am to be a member of the Labour caucus today. This legislation is a manifesto commitment that we made in 2020, which we are following through with because we understand the harm that has been caused to our rainbow community as a result of conversion practices. By passing this legislation, the aim of this bill is to prevent harm and encourage respectful and open discussions between people about their own sexual orientation and their gender identity.

I want to acknowledge some of the submissions that have been made to the House tonight by the likes of Joseph Mooney and Brooke van Velden, who, at the select committee, raised concerns that were obviously raised at the select committee process. And I think it is important for those who had concerns that we put those on the record in this House to ensure that, if we ever were to get to a court, the court understands the intention of this House by passing this piece of legislation.

I did feel quite a weight of responsibility when taking this piece of legislation through the House, because I knew I had to make sure that we got it right for our rainbow community because of the times and the places that this debate could have gone to. Again, I’m thankful that through the second and third readings and the committee stage of this House, this House kept things respectful and made sure that any concerns that were raised through the select committee were raised in a respectful and also a thorough manner. So I want to acknowledge the House too.

I don’t want to prolong the passing of this piece of legislation but, again, it is with great pride that I stand as a member of the Labour caucus. I know a number of my Labour rainbow caucus colleagues are behind me and I want to say just how proud I am to stand beside them to pass this piece of legislation. I also want to acknowledge Rainbow Labour, Young Labour, for their continued advocacy for this piece of legislation.

This bill has drawn a circle around our caucus; it has not divided it. We’ve heard many stories of why we fundamentally support this bill and many stories of our own parents. And I want to acknowledge my parents as well because of the way that they brought me up to make sure that our values were very strong in making sure we stood up for and protected the rights of the rainbow community. I want to acknowledge my late father, who back in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s was a member of the Pacific Islands AIDS trust and made sure that we were standing up for the gay community within the Pacific Islands community, to make sure that they were supported. That kind of advocacy from my parents made sure that when I’m asked about legislation that I’m very proud to have voted for in this House, it’s the vote in 2013 around marriage equality and this piece of legislation here today. I commend this bill to the House.