McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): I stand to speak on the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill. And before I begin I think it's really important to take some time to first of all acknowledge the submitters—the 107000 people who made the effort whether to support or not but to get in touch with Parliament and utilise their ability to have a voice in the way that we construct our legislation. Their voices were clear—very clear—on both sides. I think it's also important to acknowledge the debate that continues to happen in this House this evening because while we have one side that says the legislation is very clear there is obviously on the other side debate about just how clear it is and how much clearer it could be. But what I do want to acknowledge is everybody's individual views and party views because I think that they are all important in this important piece of legislation.I'd also like to acknowledge the work of the officials and the clerks. Those submissions were absolutely huge and they had to process them in a very short time frame. They worked extremely hard and over long hours and I would like to specifically acknowledge the efforts that they made.I'd also like to acknowledge the difficulty that New Zealanders as a whole on both sides of this debate have feared as we have gone through this select committee stage. There has been concern mentioned by submitters about how far the legislation goes and there was also concern mentioned by submitters about how far it doesn't go so trying to find that balance was extremely hard for the officials and also for the Justice Committee. And in that respect I'd like to acknowledge the work of the committee across the House in bringing in other MPs during the submission process so that everybody could partake in that select committee process. I'd like to acknowledge the challenging aspects as I mentioned beforehand and there's still some challenges before us as we head into the committee of the whole House after this reading.Finally in my acknowledgments: Paul Goldsmith I really enjoyed listening to your views and I think that you articulated those issues really really well.David Seymour: He doesn't do that every day!NICOLE McKEE: No he doesn't; that's why I thought it was important to actually say I thought he did a good job there.Now our view is that—and when I submitted the differing view on behalf of the ACT Party it was because I needed to express our concerns. We did so in the first reading. And while some changes have been made to the legislation we don't think that those changes went far enough. We do think what we did was good but we don't think that it's very clear—or as clear as we want it to be. The chair of the Justice Committee Ginny Andersen read out clauses that she said we would be expected to be able to define: the fact that having a discussion with mum and dad would not be concluded as being a conversion therapy but when you have aspects such as a sustained effort" and not defining about those conversations then of course there will be concern that those parents could actually be brought into the realm of a potential prosecution. Our concerns were acknowledged by the Justice Committee and they were also acknowledged by the officials and they did try to remedy those concerns.We were looking to seek a balance: a balance between what is harmful and of course the freedom of speech and the freedom of thought—autonomy in both respects without having harm to either. We also wanted to address the concerns about the parental rights being lost. Of course this comes back to the "sustained efforts". Addressing our concerns about the free speech implications about the unravelling of democracy—and that happens with the removal of a person to be able to consent to what happens to themselves. The United Nations declaration on human rights and our own New Zealand Bill of Rights Act have been justifiably excluded in some of the clauses and we don't think that is the right route to go down.It's quite difficult to find a genuine path that would give us an effective bill that balances the legislation in a way that we are all seeking. By not excluding parental conversations outright the Government effectively creates a fear about the authority the Government is giving to itself via the Attorney-General being able to place his role directly into our homes making decisions about the conversations that are being held as a parent with a minor and whether or not a prosecution could entail. So we just don't believe that the balance there had been met. But on the other side of this discussion we also recognise the harm of conversion practices as experienced by individuals and families—the balancing against harm experienced by the LGBTQIA+ community because this community also has rights as individuals. They should be able to be themselves without interference without harm being placed against them. They also have the right to have autonomy over themselves. So we want to send a very clear message that we do not accept harm against those that express themselves or those that want to seek guidance. We would hope that in some way perhaps this legislation will stop teachers in schools asking students to justify their sexuality to them as is happening at present because many parents see that as a harmful practice too.In order to try and find some balance we have prepared two Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs). They are ready but unfortunately there is a problem with the computer system and the clerks are struggling to get those SOPs through but they have been done. We would like to ensure that conversations between parents and children—just the conversations—are exempt. That will give clarity to the parents and to those in their homes that it's OK to continue to have these discussions.Our second SOP would ensure that there would be a three-year initial review of the Act followed by five-yearly reviews. This was suggested but it was not incorporated into the bill. If the review is actually justified then we can strengthen the Act; and if it's not then we have lost nothing. So by being able to have a review it actually means that we can look at whether or not the Act is going to work. And if it doesn't we can fix it and if it does it will be all good—we won't lose anything.In the meantime the ACT Party has decided to continue to support this bill because we would hope that consideration of our SOPs and the changes that we want to implement to give that further clarity and find better balance will be able to go through at the next stage in the committee of the whole House allowing us to continue to support the bill.The best we can do is to find some balance and the ability to ensure that those 107000 submitters actually all have a voice whether they agreed to this bill or not that we can take in everybody's views and alleviate the fears that parents have of the intrusion in their homes. But at this stage we will support because we believe that everybody has the right to have the freedom to choose about who they are and how they conduct themselves. Thank you."