Bridges SimonHon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): National supports the core intention of this thought. People should be free to be who they want to be and to love who they want to love. There is one major sticking point however which means that although we want to be supportive we are opposing this law until it is amended. It is very clear in Kris Faafoi's interview on Newstalk ZB with Heather du Plessis-Allan and any plain reading of this bill that good parenting will be criminalised—Hon Grant Robertson: Rubbish. Absolute nonsense.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —facing up to five years'—it is exactly what it is saying—imprisonment for being parents to children under 18. The members opposite yell at me but that is what Kris Faafoi said on Newstalk ZB and it is wrong. Parents should be allowed to be parents and to explore sexuality and gender with their children. But under this law if a mum tells her 12-year-old son or daughter Taihoa before you go on puberty blockers or other hormone treatment wait till you're 18." that mum will be breaking the law. National believes there must be an exemption for parents.Simeon Brown: So angry on the other side.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: They are very angry on the other side but I just want to address them quite clearly: the definition in clause 5 is incredibly broad and any exemption for parents is nowhere in this bill.It is important to note that this law is broader than sexual orientation; it also covers gender identity and expression. This latter area is more complex than the former. It can involve medical interventions—blockers hormones surgery. These treatments are innovative and experimental. They involve long-term risks and consequences. And in other countries there are growing numbers of young people who have become adults who regret transitioning and seek to de-transition with mixed success. Do we really want a Government intervening with the criminal law five years in prison in conversations and decisions about medical treatment and wellbeing that parents have and make with their children? I don't think so and I don't think that actually the majority of Kiwi parents do either. This bill lacks common sense. It is an ideological overreach. There must be an exemption for parents.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! There are a lot of interjections in this House. May I remind members that they can take a call and when they make their own call they can express their views. I would like to hear this speech whether or not you agree with it. Please can we have order in this House.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I'm influenced by a signature case from a full bench of three judges of the High Court of England and Wales: Keira Bell and the Tavistock clinic. It came out in December of last year—and I acknowledge it is under appeal in the UK albeit it is the current law of the land in that much more significant in terms of population nation. It involved Keira Bell 23 who wanted to transition from female to male. Ms Bell aged 16 went to the Tavistock clinic and was quickly prescribed puberty blockers and testosterone and at 20 had a double mastectomy. She has since however begun de-transitioning and says "It was heartbreaking to realise I'd gone down the wrong path." I appreciate that there will be many other experiences that are different to that but that was hers.The other claimant in the court case was a "Mrs A" a mother of a 15-year-old autistic girl awaiting treatment at the clinic. She said "My fear is … not that [she's transitioning]—it's that she gets it wrong." The mother said that it was "frightening" that there was so little exploration of why a child might be feeling they were the wrong sex before puberty blockers were given. Keira and the mum were representative claimants arguing that the clinic should have challenged the girls more over their decisions to transition to a male as teens; something very much against the spirit and the letter of this law which is so-called affirmation only rather than allowing genuine exploration.The court held that there are long-term risks and consequences from the administration of puberty blockers and the clinical interventions being made and "given that the treatment is as yet innovative and experimental we recognise that clinicians may well regard these as cases where the authorisation of the court should be sought prior to commencing the clinical treatment." The court decided that under-13s were "highly unlikely" to be able to consent to blockers. At ages 14 and 15 it was "[still] doubtful" and at 16 and 17 the courts should still decide.Yet under this law in New Zealand's much smaller jurisdiction it will be a criminal offence for parents to raise any concerns; they'll only be able to affirm—Hon Grant Robertson: No that is not what the bill says.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —and that is wrong. And I say under the constant barracking from Grant Robertson that his Government tragically in this term without the blockage of Mr Peters' New Zealand First Party has done a fine line of coming to this House and saying one thing that is motherhood and apple pie—and I accept the intent of this bill—but actually in the letter of the law it does something quite different.I intend on writing to Kris Faafoi shortly. Given the good intention of this bill National wants to work with him so that we can support it. But regrettably we cannot in good conscience while it criminalises parents for being parents while it intervenes in families with the criminal law over conversations and decisions about medical treatment that should be for them. We are opposing this bill until Kris Faafoi does the right thing."