McKee Nicole; Rurawhe AdrianNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker I firstly seek leave of the House to congratulate Lisa Carrington on winning a further gold medal making her New Zealand's most successful Olympian. I stand to speak on the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill and I commend the intent of the Minister to stop a practice that has been so detrimental to many lives. We cannot deny some of the horror stories that we've heard about conversion therapy treatments occurring both here and around the world—events that have left detrimental effects on those receiving it. Some have described it as a pseudoscientific technique attempting to change or suppress someone through shaming emotional manipulation or through physical trauma. We have heard in this House in the media and through accounts of those with lived experience how their psychological social emotional and often spiritual needs have been destroyed by conversion therapy.The LGBTQI communities speak of the harm some of the practices cause and the suicidal thoughts that often follow along with the ongoing mental health issues that can result from conversion therapy. I note also that the Salvation Army state that they do not support conversion therapy and have released a guideline for Salvationists on the topic. They have recommended a list of practical responses one of which says and I quote In response to the question 'Then what do I do if someone wrestling with their sexual identity wants prayer?' Salvationists are encouraged to help people explore their identity—for instance by praying that God will affirm their authentic identity and speak into their search for who they were made to be or by pastorally exploring what it is that has led them to conclude that they may need to change. Salvationists will not pray for a specific outcome with regard to someone's sexuality."So on the face of it and with what we believe to be an understanding of the intent of the bill we want to support this and we will do so through the first reading. You see one of the ACT Party's first principles is that all people should be owners of their own lives that people must be free to act according to their own judgments so long as they accept and respect the like freedom of others.We want adults to feel comfortable in their own skin be respected for the choices that they make about themselves and not experience harm because others don't agree with those choices. However we do have some major concerns about some of the clauses in this bill and unless we can get some clarity around raised issues at the select committee we simply could not continue to support it.We have concerns around the effect the bill may have on families and the discussions that would often occur in the home when a young family member initiates or raises the topic of their sexuality identity or gender choice. Could a parent's initial reaction when not physically harmful actually cause the parent to be prosecuted if they're not supportive of the child? The Minister has said it's not cool with parents being prosecuted for preventing their child from taking hormone blockers but without clarity in the bill this scenario can most certainly happen. Without clarity we are left with the regulatory impact statement comment which actually states "It would be a criminal offence for parents or other members of a family to attempt to change or suppress the sexual orientation gender identity or expression of children within the family."Further to this if the family wanted to seek religious guidance and they were say Salvationists they won't get that advice; they would not even get prayer. And why is this? Well the regulatory impact statement says "Conversion practices that take the form of prayer and counselling that are directed towards an individual would be captured by the preferred option." And of course we are now dealing with this—the preferred option. We recognise the accusations that some religious conversion therapies are a big part of the problem but we need to find the line between criminal actions and the ability to converse. And the job of the select committee will be to determine if those lines have been drawn in the right place. And at the moment we don't believe that they have.ACT's concern is that the bill in its current format doesn't just step on parents and religion; it actually stomps on it. The Government would be interfering and legislating what can be said in the home how a family is to deal with an issue and removes their ability to seek religious guidance. We note that the purpose of this bill is stated in clause 3(b) which is to "promote respectful and open discussions regarding sexuality and gender." And ACT agrees with this purpose but believes that the interpretation of conversion practice in clause 5 does not achieve that purpose and if implemented will in fact achieve the opposite. Further to this in clause 5(2)(f) there is a statement that expression only of a religious principle or belief that is not intended to change or suppress the individual's sexual orientation gender identity or gender expression would be excluded from prosecution.So you can speak to the principle of a religious belief but not if it is intended to change the mind of the individual. Yet we would argue that most religious principles and beliefs would actually speak against a change in sexual identity and therefore makes understanding what can be spoken about and what cannot ambiguous. It's rather Orwellian. We believe that this bill in its current format only allows freedom of expression to run one way and that those that have differing views will be in fear of prosecution for expressing them. Another of ACT's founding principles is based on freedom of expression. In a free society this must be promoted protected and preserved without restriction other than for incitement criminal nuisance or defamation. Those that seek conversion advice that question their identity should be able to do so freely and those whose advice has been sought should be able to give their advice just as freely without fear of prosecution. It simply must run both ways. This then leads me to our concerns about consent. The Human Rights Act provision appears to be inconsistent with the Crimes Act prohibition which appears to focus on causing real harm to someone and lack of consent. The Human Rights Act provision requires neither of these elements to be present. Therefore there is a question as to whether someone is freely consenting and should they be able to engage in such a practice.ACT most certainly believes that there are some conversion therapy practices that must absolutely be stopped and we wholeheartedly support this Government in this. However with such a wide scope around the interpretation of conversion practice interfering with families and religion with confusion around civil liberties versus criminal conduct and freedom of expression only allowed one way one might think that the thought police are only but one legislative instrument away.The ACT Party supports this bill through its first reading and we hope that through the select committee process the concerns we have raised can be satisfactorily addressed. Therefore we support this bill to select committee.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members this is a split call. I call Tāmati Coffey—five minutes."