SpeechCONVERSION PRACTICES PROHIBITION LEGISLATION BILLSecond ReadingHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill. SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I move That the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill be now read a second time. Can I begin with a quote from a submission to the Justice Committee. It reads: We support the … intent of this bill which when passed into law will provide protection for people to work through issues relating to their sexual orientation gender identity or gender expression without being forced or 'strongly encouraged' to undergo programmes systems or activities that seek to 'change' or supress their natural state." That is a summation of the submission of the St Barnabas Anglican Church of Roseneath and I thank them for it. It very plainly sets out the purpose of this piece of legislation and shows that despite some of the hyperbolic debate most Kiwis know that this bill is well and truly overdue. Conversion practices are based on the falsehood that a person's sexual orientation their gender identity or gender expression can and should be changed. And I know that members on this side of the House utterly reject that falsehood and that rejection is in our DNA. It is with great pride that I begin the second reading of the debate on this bill to prohibit these practices. I'm also proud that this prohibition is something that draws a line around our caucus and not through it. Our united view is that there is unquestionably no evidence to suggest that conversion practices work. There is however clear evidence of the real serious and life-altering harm that they can cause and that is why Labour made a commitment at their 2020 election to ban these practices. It is a fact that this bill has received the largest number of submissions to a select committee that this Parliament has seen and so can I acknowledge all submitters and thank members of the Justice Committee for their deliberation. I know that the nature of the in-person submissions were challenging for many reasons—many harrowing stories of those who have suffered as a result of conversion practices were juxtaposed with those who remain stuck in a time where the diversity of gender and orientation was not accepted. Taking into account the feedback from the submitters the Justice Committee has recommended a few technical changes to make what the bill is trying to achieve even clearer such as changes to the purpose clause and the definition of "serious harm" within the bill. The committee's most extensive changes clarify the types of conduct which would and would not meet the definition of a "conversion practice". A number of submitters thought that the definition of a "conversion practice" in the bill could be more specific to remove any ambiguity about what a conversion practice is. This definition is a key part of the bill and the committee has fine-tuned it and I thank them for that. The committee has clarified that a conversion practice can be a "practice sustained effort or treatment". Additionally the committee recommended adding a few examples of what a conversion practice is to remove doubt about the sorts of practices that the piece of legislation addresses. It is important that the prohibition of conversion practices targets the right behaviour and the bill is intended to promote rather than interfere with access to legitimate healthcare services. However some submitters were concerned that the bill's exclusion of health services provided by a health practitioner in accordance with their scope of practice might not be robust enough to stop conversion practices occurring in health settings. A number of submitters referred to the professional standards and codes of ethics practitioners are subject to which could prevent them from being able to perform conversion practices. The committee heard these concerns and has tightened up this clause clause 5(2)(a) by removing the reference to a "scope of practice" and instead referring to an action taken by a health practitioner providing a health service that is appropriate in their "reasonable professional judgement" and "complies with all legal professional and ethical standards" to which they are subject. An important aspect of the bill is balancing the need to prevent the harm that conversion practices cause with individual rights and freedoms. Some submitters expressed concern that the bill does not adequately provide and protect religious rights for freedom of expression. Others were concerned that the bill would impact on the ability for parents whānau and teachers to engage in open discussions with children about their sexuality and their gender. The bill is focused on banning conversion practices which are done on the harmful premise that a person is broken and in need of fixing and which the evidence tells us causes serious and life-altering harm. Unless a belief or a religious principle was expressed as part of a conversion practice being performed then that sort of expression would not be impacted by the bill. For clarity the bill already states that a conversion practice does not include the expression only of a religious principle or belief. The committee has amended this wording to make it clear that the expression of a non-religious belief would not be a conversion practice either.I acknowledge that many submitters who supported the bill were concerned that it did not go far enough and in particular that the criminal offence has set the threshold for prosecution too high. The intention of this bill is not to criminalise all conduct but to deter the performance of conversion practices and provide avenues for redress. The bill provides a range of responses to the performance of conversion practices under both criminal and civil law regimes. The criminal offences in the bill are intended to capture the most serious of conduct. Recognising the consequences that can arise from a criminal conviction the civil pathway created by the bill through the Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Review Tribunal will allow for a constructive and educative process with a focus on remedying harm and preventing it from happening again. By banning conversion practices in New Zealand the Government intends to enhance the ability of rainbow communities to enjoy their rights and freedoms free from harm and discrimination.At this point I want to acknowledge the Labour movement for making sure that this piece of legislation was prioritised in this Parliament. Can I begin by acknowledging my colleague Marja Lubeck who as a member of this Parliament has championed this issue. Can I also acknowledge my colleagues in our Labour Rainbow Caucus. Can I also acknowledge many of the rainbow Labour members in our whānau and also Young Labour for championing this issue and making it policy and now seeing it take its final stages until legislation. Finally can I acknowledge those who have first-hand experience of conversion practices. Your lived experience your pain your strength and advocacy has led to these final stages of this bill which will hopefully soon become law.I'd like to leave the absolute final word to another submission again as proof that this bill has brought communities together. And I quote "We believe that gender and sexual identity should be able to be explored in an accepting and supportive environment where agency lies with the individual and those who guide the conversation act in the role of facilitator versus authority figure. We believe that well-crafted legislation to ban conversion therapy will help eradicate these neglectful and abusive practices in Aotearoa New Zealand and will be a catalyst for more justice and inclusion." Can I thank the ALT_Mary Anglican Church of New Plymouth for their submission. I commend this bill to the House.SPEAKER: Before I call the member I just want to indicate to the House as I did to the Business Committee that while this is not a personal vote matter I am going to treat it a bit more like a conscience vote when it comes to calls. There will be a bit more flexibility a bit less party structure. And if people do want to indicate to me that—other than at the ninth call which is a split call anyway—people want to only have five minutes if they indicate that to me privately that might get them priority in the speaking list."