SpeechHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): 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. Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Pardon? Hon Michael Woodhouse: It's Part 3 not Part 1.Hon KRIS FAAFOI: 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."