SpeechVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Mr Speaker. This is a bill that has travelled here on the wake of the voices of many rainbow activists. For those who've been involved in the advocacy for this practice to end I know it's been a labour of love and while I'm on the topic of Labour Young Labour Rainbow Labour and our Rainbow Caucus the integrity and leadership you've demonstrated in the fire as we saw this through has been exceptional to watch. For those of us who are rainbow allies what an astounding privilege to stand with you on this journey. The objections to this bill have been laden with apparent rights issues and I'd like to address them briefly. The first: that conversion therapy should be allowed because it's a manifestation of a religious belief. Rights are boundaried by two things: the boundary of the definition of the right itself and then by section five of the Bill of Rights Act which permits a right to be limited in a reasonably justified way. In terms of defining a right there's a principle called the equal regard assessment and it's the idea that a right is not interfered with if a prohibition treats those who are religious the same as those who aren't. In other words it's a prohibition that applies equally to everyone and the equal regard approach is supported by case law actually both internationally and here in New Zealand. In the European Court of Human Rights C v the UK in 1983 the court found that the right to manifest your religion doesn't give people the right to refuse to comply with legislation that applies neutrally and generally to all members of the public. In New Zealand the case of R v J the Court of Appeal found that the right to manifest religious beliefs excluded decision making that endangered the child's right to health or life. In my view whether you take a definition-balancing or an equal regard approach or a section 5 balancing approach the legislation is justified. It's consistent in a credible way with case law and it's rights affirming. The second argument is about freedom of speech and that it should trump the harm principle. Freedom of speech is a right that is old and deep and we should have regard to it but as all rights are this is a right that has been subject to reasonable limitations. In my speech last week I gave some examples of how we do this in everyday legislation. I'm going to throw a few more into the mix: consumer protection workplace bullying electoral regulation copyright confidential information and privacy and the rules of evidence. Yes the rules that direct us to get us to the evidential best truth restrict freedom of speech. I want to also make an observation about how rights are often used in the defence of the most horrific things. Rights aren't things to be verbally wielded around one's head; they require precision and definition and analysis. I'm often horrified that people quote Voltaire when they're wielding that right around their heads. They quote him and say he said I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." He did use those words and he also supported criminal laws against libel slander incitement to violence and treason. Some people quote Mill in the same regard but yet he also announced the harm principle and spoke of preconditions to expression which was framed in a responsible way before you exercised the right. Today is a day about pride about love about respect about dignity about fairness. We are here on the wake of the voices of many and the rainbow community—kia kaha. I hope that those of you who've been advocating for this take the time to revel in the legacy that you leave. I commend this bill to the House."