Penk Chris; Rurawhe AdrianCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you Mr Speaker for the opportunity to speak to the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill. National speakers have already stated I think pretty clearly that we support the core original intent of the bill—namely that practices that are unwanted or coercive in their nature and particularly with an element of physicality are not practices that we support. Therefore in terms of the bill if the issues that we've raised so far—and which I just want to detail a bit further in this contribution—can be addressed then we'll be pleased to be in a position where we'll be able to support the bill. That National position relates to a couple of key points one of which is in relation to the role of parents or whānau more generally. Of course it's important to acknowledge different family arrangements that are possible and that indeed do prevail in Aotearoa New Zealand in 2021. So in the BORA vet—the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act advice to the Attorney-General—as tabled along with the bill does note the fact that there is a possibility of a or rather—or I may as well quote directly: a potential chilling effect on legitimate expressions of opinion within families/whānau about sexuality and gender". I think it's probably fair if I do acknowledge that that is under the heading in the view of the officials who have provided the advice of justified limitation and they do believe that there is a measure of consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act for a few key reasons. I would potentially disagree with at least one of those but in the time available to me I'll not dwell on that aspect. But I think it's a fair point that the chilling effect is to be considered seriously alongside what is in the bill and what might be subject to interpretation by some members of the House differently from others and by for example individual police constables and so on who might be asked to give a view in any individual case. The other one is in relation to the fact that it's not possible to consent to things that might be considered within the definition of practices. Clause 10 of the bill is very clear in that regard. It says that the offences specified in clauses 8 and 9 do not enjoy a defence even if the individual who was receiving those practices consented to them. Obviously the concept of consent is pretty complex under the law and I do acknowledge that consent that is seemingly given but is subject to coercion or undue influence is not real consent in itself. So again we do acknowledge the complexity of this. Not only is it a theoretical matter in a matter of law but of course on the ground in a person's home for example and in many other contexts for that matter. So with those points having been made and noting as well the point also made under the heading of "Freedom of expression" under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet—again in the document to which I've previously referred—the document notes the potential for the broad definition of a practice to extend further beyond what they currently consider on their interpretation to be within the realm of justified limitation. I think these are matters that can and should be examined at the select committee process and of course much has been said in this House about the fact that different parties in this Parliament will have the opportunity to state their views in that process. But I think more importantly people throughout New Zealand who have been affected in different ways and who will have different views inevitably on the legislation will have their opportunity at that point. So that debate is to be welcomed it's not to be shied away from and I think that all members of Parliament should feel obliged to listen carefully to those comments and evidence that the select committee will hear. My final comment before the end of the allocated time is just in relation to the rule of law more generally. Of course it's an aspect of our legal arrangements—and particularly where criminal justice is concerned; particularly where we are saying that a person must act in a certain way or not act in a certain way under pain of imprisonment by the State—that it should be as clear as possible. That's an aspect of the bargain that's struck between the State and the citizen whereby the citizen has to comply with laws but the State's obliged to state clearly what they are. It seems to me that there is a considerable uncertainty in some of these aspects and I think with all due respect we're seeing that from the Minister of Justice when asked about key aspects in relation to the bill. So we look forward to gaining clarity—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired."