Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Madam Chair and thank you to the Minister for his explanation. I'm disappointed that he seems to have ruled out his party's support for the three Supplementary Order Papers I've introduced and I want to ask him a few questions about that. The starting point as we've started this discussion was certainly my personal opposition to conversion therapy as a practice. I think it's an outdated practice that is not something that we support or defend in any way shape or form. The question is not so much the practice that we're debating; it's the piece of legislation before us that we're debating and what it does and doesn't do.So we have this situation where we have a rather broad definition of a conversion practice" and some concerns about what uncertainty that will create in the minds of parents of health practitioners and of people as they work to navigate their way through what are some difficult discussions and issues within families particularly in relation to the broader issue of gender identity and particularly teenagers wanting to make the lifelong decisions that will affect them and their bodies and their health for a very long time.So the first question I have for the Minister is: the select committee did extend the definition of a "conversion practice" substantially from a practice that is directed at an individual that is performed with the intention of changing or suppressing and that's been extended to "any practice sustained effort or treatment that—… is directed towards an individual … and … is done with the intention of changing or suppressing". So I'd be very keen to get an understanding from the Minister as to whether he thinks that has broadened the scope of practices that will be captured by this legislation or narrowed it or what because one thing we do recognise in all legislation every time we as members of Parliament come to this Chamber with a new piece of legislation that potentially sends people to jail is that sending people to prison is a very harmful practice in itself. It's not a good thing that we look forward to. The possibility of sending people to jail is a significant one and so we want to get a very clear understanding of what that expanded definition means. Also not just in relation to the criminal side but also to the civil side where for a lower threshold people can be brought before the Human Rights Commission. Again in many cases the process of that happening can be the punishment in itself and that has impacts on peoples' behaviour. So the first question I have for the Minister is: does he think that changed definition broadens the scope of what might be considered a conversion practice or not?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. Look to the member I believe given some of the submissions at select committee that the changes that the select committee has made don't broaden it but certainly clarify the definition of activities that are caught or captured by the definition in Part 1. We know that some submitters on the bill suggested that what was intended to be captured by "any practice" could be improved by further clarification. They pointed out in the submissions that "practice" is capable of meaning both an action rather than a thought or idea and something that is usually or regularly done often as a habit tradition or custom. So to make that clear in the definition that Mr Goldsmith is referring to that could cover both a one-off and practices over time. The committee recommended that "sustained effort or treatment" be included in that definition alongside "practice" in clause 5(1) to clarify the definition as opposed to expanding it as the member has suggested."