Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. I for one certainly do not support conversion therapy. It's an outdated process it can be harmful and dangerous when coercive and I understand why many people feel very strongly about it. We heard many deeply moving examples through the course of the select committee process of people who have been affected by conversion therapy as it has been conducted. My intention is to support this bill at second reading. However I will be introducing some Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) because while I support a bill banning the practice in a tight clear and targeted way I do still have some concerns about the breadth and looseness of the language in the bill that has been constructed. I'm hoping that I might get a fair hearing from the Minister and the Labour Party in particular.My primary concerns are about maintaining freedom of thought and opinion but also about respecting the role of parents particularly in the complex area of children struggling with their gender identity and wanting to make life-changing decisions around medical interventions that may have lifelong consequences. Because this bill that is being introduced is not just about praying the gay away and gay conversion therapy—which I think there is a broad range of agreement around—but it's much broader and includes issues around gender identity. Thirdly I want to ensure that proper discussions are had before any medical intervention in gender transitions—those discussions are not restricted in any way.So in terms of the select committee process as the Minister said it generated a lot of submissions—107000 submissions. Of the ones that were analysed about 70 percent were in favour and 30 percent were against. But given the numbers involved I'm not quite sure how they reached that conclusion with any accuracy. I do want to thank the submitters on all sides for taking the effort and having their say.Sadly not much has changed in the bill as reported back by the majority of the select committee. The New Zealand Law Society for one were worried about the broadness of the definition of conversion practice in the bill. And it was any practice that is directed towards an individual because of the individual's sexual orientation gender identity or gender expression and is performed with the intention of changing or suppressing the individual's sexual orientation gender identity or gender expression.Now as we know the select committee has broadened in my view that definition to say now that it is any practice sustained effort or treatment that's directed at an individual and is done with the intention of changing or supressing and individual's identity or sexuality. Now my real concern is that given the very broad definition of a conversion practice it can be interpreted very widely. One way of reading that is to say that a conversion practice—for which if somebody is found guilty they can go to jail for three years—could include any sustained effort that is done with the intention of supressing someone's gender identity.So what does that actually mean in practice—to understand the effect such a law with serious legal consequences would have—the risk of going to prison or being hauled before the Human Rights Commission—to understand what impact that has on behaviour. What I for one don't want to see is parents being afraid to talk openly and frankly about important issues with their kids particularly when confronted with a child who wants to change their gender who asserts that they are a different gender and they want to start puberty blockers or more invasive medical treatments. My worry is that the natural reaction given vague law and large consequences is for parents and even potentially medical professionals to hang back. It's safer just to affirm whatever is asserted and agree rather than to challenge. And so in my view it is important.One of the most fundamental questions that should be asked when making decisions of this sort which may have lifelong consequences around the ability to have children and a whole host of other areas—the most basic medical question one should ask is Do you really want to do this?" It's an important question to ask and I talked to my mother about this two years ago—she gave my father a kidney. She couldn't just give him a kidney; she went through a very long detailed process where she was asked many times "Do you really want to do this?" That's basic kind of medical practice.All I want is nothing in this bill to limit those discussions in any way given the natural reaction of people to be cautious when laws are passed where they could go to jail or be hauled before the Human Rights Commission if they get it wrong.Now all the reports that we've had from officials have assured us that the bill does not stop the expression of opinion and that it doesn't stop medical professionals asking tough questions and it doesn't capture parents declining to give consent to medical interventions. So they've made those assurances but of course officials don't always get things right and the legislation as it is introduced is arguably not 100 percent clear. So I would bring SOPs to the committee stage trying to make those things clear. The select committee has included in the bill examples of conversion practices because I think there's an acknowledgment that the definition of a conversion practice is rather vague and so they've included examples of conversion practices such as using shame or coercion intending to give an individual an aversion to same-sex attractions or to encourage gender-conforming behaviour. My suggestion is that we include three examples that are not conversion practices to make it very clear that just for clarity so that prosecutors so that lawyers and parents understand what is not a conversion practice and I would include the expression of any opinion. Secondly another example of what is not a conversion practice under this legislation: a parent or caregiver withholding consent for a medical intervention in relation to gender transition in what they consider the child's best interests for example. The third one would be a health practitioner frankly outlining the risks consequences and merits of medical intervention in relation to gender transition. Now the officials have said "No no they're not captured." They've given us that assurance—well why don't we use that as an example of something that is not a conversion practice according to this bill so that we can have that reassurance. The purpose of it is simply to say yes let's make sure this legislation is properly targeted on conversion practices that cause harm but it doesn't in any way restrict the important and necessary and appropriate discussions that parents and medical practitioners should have with young people in particular before they're making important decisions about what could potentially be life-changing medical decisions.My hope is that the Minister and Labour will consider that that the logic is pretty sound. If you've got a bill which has a very broad definition and has to have a whole bunch of exclusions or things that are not included by the bill and then some examples then why not have a few examples just making it absolutely clear that expressing an opinion is not going to be falling into the definition of any sustained effort to supress something; and secondly that parents do have the ability to not agree to medical interventions for their children—and that is not included in this legislation—and that full and frank and robust discussions with medical practitioners before any such major decisions are made is also not a conversion practice. My hope is that that will be considered over the next few stages of the bill. Thank you."