SpeechHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Can I acknowledge the comments that the member Michael Woodhouse made at the beginning of his contribution. The purpose of this bill and the overriding intention of this bill is to make life better for New Zealanders and I understand that the debate has been heated. I understand that debate has also been hyperbolic. So we may have situations where emotions run high and I can understand how that can happen but comments of that nature I don't support. I think our intent in this House is to have this piece of proposed legislation become law and for the rights of those who are in this community to be shored up. So I just wanted to make sure I acknowledge that with the member.I won't go into the debate around Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 126—we'll leave that for Part 2—but I did want to make sure that I addressed the question that the member had around the example of the third bullet point in clause 5 which goes to SOP 127 that he has put forward. I understand that there has been a freedom of expression and a freedom of speech debate running quite thickly through the debate around this legislation but as has been said on many occasions the freedom of speech or expression is not absolute. In this instance—and I'm trying to be very careful about how I say this because the member used the phrase sticks and stones". But words do hurt people and whether they are part of a prayer-based conversation or whether they're not a faith-based conversation there was clear evidence and anecdotes through the select committee of harm that is done and as I may have said at the outset too around the member's SOP there is clear evidence that a considerable amount of damage may have been done to individuals in faith-based settings. Clause 5 as it stood when the piece of legislation was introduced and as it stands now has clause 5(2)(f) which clearly states that "the expression only of a belief or a religious principle made to an individual that is not intended to change or suppress the individual's sexual orientation gender identity or gender expression." is not a conversion practice. There are some opinions and beliefs of people in faith-based settings that I agree with then there are some opinions and beliefs of people in faith-based settings that I 100 percent disagree with and this bill does not limit anyone expressing their beliefs or their opinions whether they be faith-based or not. What it does protect is that if you're going to try and use a religious argument with the intent to try and use a conversion practice to stop someone expressing or changing their lifestyle or having a lifestyle decision around their sexual orientation gender identity and gender orientation—that doesn't pass muster. I spoke to religious leaders before the introduction of this bill and many denominations have submitted to this bill in support of banning conversion practices. So I believe pan-faith that there is quite a lot of support for this practice. What I don't think they would want to happen is faith being used as a shroud for the hurt to continue to happen. This bill very clearly sets out that you can have your religious beliefs and express how you believe or you see the world around people's gender identity their gender orientation or their sexual orientation—if you're going to use that against that community I send the very clear message that this Government disagrees with that vehemently but you still have the right to express that. But if you're going to use that to continue the harm that has hurt many people through the decades then this piece of legislation says that that is not OK.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair and I appreciate the Minister's comments. I agree about the sticks and stones comments—actually that wasn't quite what I was intending to do. There is no doubt words harm and the Minister and I may have a different view at the margin about where the border between offensive but lawful speech and words and the margin of unlawful speech might be. We'll have that conversation later in the year probably when the work on freedom of speech issues is debated further in the House—Hon Kris Faafoi: Meetings—meetings. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —or maybe next year or the year after. Soon—very very soon as the Minister of Immigration would say. But what I'm doing is a bit kind of theological. It is a distinction between a—and paradoxically I'm more worried about the pulpit speech which could be more harmful than I am about prayerful consideration. But we have made no change really in substance from the bill as it was introduced and I draw the Minister's attention to the full regulatory impact statement on page 22 where the officials told him the method or form of the practice is not material to the definition and the prohibition would not be effective if certain methods such as prayer were excluded. So right from the get-go prayer would be unlawful and that's my bottom line. I think it's misguided I think it's sometimes ridiculous that old theological norms sit uncomfortably and are misplaced in a modern environment but that's not the point. The point is: are people free to hold those views to worship whatever deity they want to worship? The answer for me is yes and as I say that prayerful channel is one between them and their deity. We're getting in the way of that and I don't think it's necessary. I'd rather be banning tub-thumping sermons frankly—they'll be more harmful—but we're not. We're saying that's OK. So it's misguided. I think it's misaligned. So I agree with the goal; I just don't agree with the method."