Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): 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?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): 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."