Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I am proud of the Labour Party's strong track record on gay rights and improving the rights of our rainbow community and I'm proud that this bill continues that legacy.As the chair of the select committee we received a record-breaking 107000 written submissions on this bill and I think that speaks to the heart of the level of engagement and interest in the topic that lies before us tonight. I thought it was important as the chair to kind of break down quickly where they came from. So approximately 61000 of those written submissions came from form submissions—those that were generated online through a portal—and we worked with Opposition members in agreement that we would not have oral submissions from those that were simply a straightforward pro-forma submission. So we unanimously agreed on going ahead and analysing the 38900 submissions. And of those 38900 69 percent supported the bill and 30 percent opposed. So there's approximately a 70-percent support for this legislation going ahead. Of all of those submissions the committee heard in person around 800 which took a significant amount of time—I think approximately 18 sessions of sitting for full days. At times it was incredibly hard-going to hear those submissions from both sides of the debate. At times I was brought to near tears and at other times I felt quite intense anger. I would like to acknowledge all MPs that contributed to listening through those submissions. I think it's an incredibly valuable part of our democratic process and I think all those who submitted should be acknowledged for taking the time to contribute to what we've reached today.The intent of this bill is incredibly important—and I want to spell that out—because the legislative objectives of this bill will assist in how that is interpreted over time. The number one intent is to prevent harm. The second legislative objective of the bill is to encourage safe respectful conversations around sexual orientation gender identity and/or gender expression. I think that is really important because one of the main arguments that we heard from some members of the Opposition in the first reading and also from some submitters through the select committee process was that the role of parents was compromised in some way that there was a concern or a fear that conversations between a parent and their child would somehow be criminalised. And so for that purpose I think it's incredibly important for me to read out the section that provides the specific advice in and around that point that is being raised in concern: We consider that a clear expression of contrary opinion or a failure to act by parents or family members would not meet the requirements for the definition in this bill as they cannot be directed towards or performed on a person." As such the definition would not capture for example a parent not supporting their child to seek support for gender dysphoria withholding consent for the administration of puberty blockers or advising a wait-and-see approach to gender-affirming care.I think it's important also to note that people who are struggling with their sexuality or gender should be able to receive the support they need including that ability to explore their identity or to reconcile their faith and sexuality. However rather than being supportive or exploratory conversion practices are external attempts to achieve a predetermined outcome of changing or suppressing a person's sexual orientation gender identity or gender expression. In a nutshell it's identifying or seeing being gay is wrong or broken and that is where we on this side find a problem and why conversion practices should be made illegal. Being gay is not wrong or broken; it's part of someone's identity and it can't be "fixed".The intent of this bill is not to criminalise all conduct but to deter the performance of conversion practices and to provide avenues for redress. And for that purpose part of the clarification that the committee did was to be very clear about what was captured as being a conversion practice. And for that purpose the committee actually gave specific examples of what would classify: using shame or coercion with the intention of giving a person an aversion to same-sex attractions or to encourage gender-conforming behaviour. Another example would be to encourage a person to believe that their sexual orientation gender identity or gender expression needs changing because it is a defect or disorder; or carrying out a prayer-based practice deliverance practice or exorcism with the intention of changing or suppressing their sexual orientation gender identity or gender expression.Before this bill even had a first reading I met somebody in my electorate office who came and gave me some material that they had written and they explained that they had been over a 20-year period conducting conversion practices. They came to me in concern just about hearing that this bill was progressing and they had taken down all notifications on their website in fear that their practices may result in being prosecuted. It took me the progression of this bill to realise that that's exactly the intent of what this bill is. It's not to prosecute; it is to deter these practices—those that are incredibly harmful to our rainbow community.The other changes that the bill has outlined have already been mentioned by the Minister but in relation to health practitioners. And this was a refinement. A number of the submitters referred to the professional standards code of ethics that practitioners are subject to which would prevent them from being able to perform conversion practices. The committee heard these concerns and as a result of listening to those submissions tightened up the clause. And we did this by removing the reference to "scope of practice" and instead referring to an action taken by a health practitioner in providing a health service that is appropriate in their reasonable professional judgment and complies with all legal professional and ethical standards to which they are subject. And I think that's an improvement on the bill.I will admit I phoned a friend for a quote for tonight because I was searching for a good quote and the one I arrived at was from Harvey Milk who was the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in California. And he said in his famous "Hope" speech "Unless you have dialogue unless you open the walls of dialogue you can never reach to change people's opinion … Once you have dialogue starting you know you can break down prejudice." I hope that this bill takes a step towards that direction in order to open those walls of dialogue and to break down prejudice.I'd like to close by stating that the two main purposes of this bill that underpin it is to prevent harm harm to our communities harm to our rainbow communities and secondly it is to promote those discussions those open dialogues around our kitchen or dinner tables that parents children community groups—whoever they are—can be open and free to explore their identity without limitation or fear. Mr Speaker I commend this bill to the House."