SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Oh that was easy! Thanks Mr Speaker. I'm actually not going to be voting for this bill. It probably isn't a surprise to members across the other side of the House. It's partly a consistency issue. I voted against it at first reading because I thought the bill was problematic and now that it's come through select committee I think it's arguably more problematic and I might just expand on that. I want to acknowledge the previous speaker Ginny Andersen and the work that she's done taking the bill through the Justice Committee. She used I think at one level appropriately a quote from Harvey Milk talking about dialogue. The irony of this bill is it's not actually about dialogue; it's trying to limit speech. It's actually stopping dialogue. The explicit intention of this bill is to stop dialogue. It's to deter. That's probably the underlying reason why I have concerns about this bill. It's firmly in the area of free speech. I've always been very wary and will continue to be very wary of any legislation that comes into this House which seeks to limit or compel speech. Arguably and we've heard it from a couple of others who have spoken earlier the definitions that have come through the select committee process make it more ambiguous and maybe we can tease that out little.Look first and foremost if this bill was truly and simply about conversion practices as I think most of us intuitively and connotatively understand it would be a no-brainer to support it. It would be relatively easy. The bill unfortunately goes so much further than that. Arguably a lot of it could be solved by tightening up some of the definitions to give surety and my colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith has touched on some of that. Because we did hear from some amazing submitters. I mean you read through the submissions themselves—deeply deeply felt and some who were actually proud supporters of the LGBTQIA+ community spoke against this bill because it went too far. They don't themselves want to be converted but they do want to have conversations; it's as simple as that. I've got lesbian and gay friends who are concerned about this bill because actually that community the LGBTQIA+ community is not a single cohesive unit. As one acquaintance put to me As a gay man" he said "actually in today's day and age I'd be afraid that I'd be told actually I'm really just needing something gender affirming—I'm not actually a gay man; I'm a woman and I just need to explore that." He feels his identity as a gay man could be erased with the modern zeitgeist at the moment that's is more around transgender issues. That's his experience. It's only one of them but I do put to those colleagues voting for this bill: how does he and others have a genuine dialogue without the fear that he is or those talking to him are going to be captured by this bill? Because as I keep saying unfortunately—and I do want to stress that because as I keep wanting to repeat—if this was a narrow well-defined bill around conversion practices we'd be fine—we'd be fine. But it's now about sustained effort. It's about wider treatments. And it was also put forward by the previous speaker around examples of conversion practices of someone who may encourage here gender-conforming behaviour. Does that capture biological women who want to use biological terms like "she" and "her"? Is that going to offend people who actually want different pronouns? Maybe it does. I don't know—Hon Members: Ha ha!SIMON O'CONNOR: —and that's the whole point. This bill is so broad and they laugh because they don't particularly care. They don't seem to care that this bill comes with criminal and civil consequences. This is very serious.The bill here in black and white: an example of a conversion practice is something sustained that may be directed towards an individual—sorry I've read the wrong line here; using shame or coercion that's intended to give an individual an aversion to their attraction or to encourage gender-conforming behaviour.Maybe the sustained use of a traditional pronoun against someone who prefers something different will be seen as problematic. And again I want to stress particularly to anyone at home who is having conniptions I don't know and I suspect they don't know. There isn't the clarity in this bill. As I say it's gone broader; the definitions have gone much much broader. I don't have the confidence in what officials have told us and that is no disrespect to them personally but what I don't like is inconsistency and what I don't like is what I would term as Orwellian doublespeak. So when they have been questioned around parental rights when they've had questions put to them around prayer and so forth the answer is "Oh no one can still have conversations so long as it's affirming the child. It's OK for the Muslim imam to preach as long as they're preaching in an affirming statement." That's double speak. That raises alarms. And again the simple thing for someone like me because I'm a simple man is I just want a clear definition. Hon Members: Ha ha!SIMON O'CONNOR: They think they're funny and insulting on issues like this and this is what puts out further red lights to people like myself. There's an underlying arrogance here which ultimately draws us back to that free speech because ultimately free speech is built on respect. And I might suggest to those voting for this it also relies on proper dialogue.And you know what? Free speech is harmful. Free speech is not safe. Free speech is sometimes not respectful. That's the nature of it. And that's how for 6000 years of recorded history humanity has moved forward. And that's why I vote against this bill. It's not that you want to go out and cause harm. It's not that you want to go out and make people unsafe. It's not that you want them to feel disrespected. You know what? Conversations at times are difficult; they are challenging. And the underlying paradox in this bill is that in preventing the conversion of some the bill is seeking to make sure others convert their minds that they're not allowed to say think pray or feel a certain opinion. This bill goes far too far—far too far.And I want to just end with I suppose it's just one last little observation because you can sort of feel that this bill—as I say it's a bit like trying to break a chestnut with a sledgehammer. It's just that intuitive feel that it just goes a little too far; in fact far too far. And it's an interesting observation: the two examples the Minister chose to use in his speech. Why of the thousands of submissions was the Minister so interested of all things to quote the Anglican Church? For those who know me well there's possibly a double entendre there. But why quote the Anglican Church? Why such a focus on the Christian churches? I'm not going to answer it. I think those at home have their suspicions. But this is ultimately a bill which has to be opposed because it is an attempt to limit speech. I want to end by where I started that if this bill was simply looking to define conversion practices as we all intuitively know and reject we'd be there—we'd be there. Hon Kris Faafoi: It'd help if you'd read it.SIMON O'CONNOR: Well the problem is I have read it and that's actually probably one of the fundamental issues because the Minister—sorry for those listening—said I'd better read it. The funny thing is I've read it multiple times. I've read the original I've compared it with the existing I've gone and talked to QCs even who are giving us quite interesting opinions of where this could go—even talking to justices and judges who say "Well actually with the way it's defined at the moment we could end up with an array of interpretations."That is fundamentally the point that I'm wanting to put out there—that if this was clear well defined we'd be there in spades. But it's not. And fundamentally it's ultimately very little in my mind actually strictly even to do with the LGBTIQA community per se. It's ultimately an issue of free speech and free rights. And as I also said whenever it comes to that when it comes to free speech and the ability for people to have conversations and not be criminalised for having conversations I will oppose the legislation and will do so but will be watching with great interest of how the dialogue continues with the Supplementary Order Papers from my colleague Paul Goldsmith."