SpeechHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I thank the Minister—in which case the next few minutes will be an academic discussion rather than a substantive one. I agree with most of what the Minister said. We don't make law for the nine times out of 10. We are not actually making law for the times when respectful loving conversations are held between parent and child engaging with a medical practitioner about what's possible; we're talking about the exception. And I do speak with some experience here because as a former chief executive of a surgical hospital we had very strict policies around the granting of consent.The case law that the Minister references which he describes as a solid foundation—I would say that it's rather less solid than he portrays—does start out of the well-known case in the UK courts of Gillick and the principle of what's known as Gillick competency. Now Gillick was a case where the procedure went ahead against the wishes of the parents on the basis that the courts found that the minor was mature enough to make those decisions of their own accord. Our own laws are a bit hazier than that and the case law is—as it should be—actually situational and I'm indebted actually to the commentary from YouthLaw who says about this Can doctors overrule my guardians' decision to not go ahead with medical treatment for me?" And the answer is: "If your parent guardian or next-of-kin refuses consent the medical professional must not go ahead with the medical treatment."Here's the "but" though: however if you're under 17 and the medical professional thought that the person refusing consent was deliberately trying to harm you by refusing consent they can seek support from Oranga Tamariki and potentially the Family Court to make a guardianship order. That's a very very rare—but occasional—thing. I have to say in my time as a surgical chief executive we never allowed a procedure regardless of what it was to be undertaken on a child without the child—a mature child; so a teenager usually—you know when we felt that it was necessary and appropriate for them to have a say about what's going on. And that's almost all cases apart from babies. If the child consented and the parent consented we'd go. If the parent consented but the child did not consent we didn't proceed until we had those ducks in a row. And vice versa: if the child consented whether it was a tonsillectomy or breast reduction or augmentation and the parents didn't consent then further conversations would need to be had. That is the overwhelming clinical practice. The Minister made a comment in his opening remarks about my Supplementary Order Paper around the maturity and ability and knowledge of oneself as a minor which is slightly contradictory with the bill and frankly with reality because the bill actually has more punishments for conversion practices for people under the age of 18—accepting as I do that they are more vulnerable that they are more prone to confusion and anxiety and depression and all of the sequelae that goes along with what must be a traumatic journey to identity. But many loving parents will support the idea of "watchful waiting" which is a term that's used and may well come to the conclusion that it is not appropriate to consent to procedures that could have long-lasting and in fact irreversible effect. The Minister talks about puberty blockers. There was a fascinating and actually quite uplifting profile of a young person going through puberty blockers some months ago on TV and it was a remarkable insight into what "good" looks like actually in this situation. So if the Minister is right and if YouthLaw is right it may be that my amendment isn't necessary anyway. But I have to record that parents do have a say in this and I'm not sure—I can't remember how old the Minister's children are. They may not quite be in those teenage years but they are fraught even if gender expression and gender identity is not part of their adolescent journey and I think parents do have a say and if that determination is to pause is to wait then they should.Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Certainly the advice I've been given around the age threshold for the independence of 16-year-olds to make their own decision—but there are aspects of the member's contribution that I do agree with and the purpose of this bill again is to encourage open and respectful discussions. We're doing that by banning the harmful and hurtful conversion practices but making sure that we carve out the space to have those open and respectful discussions. So my hope is that we can acknowledge the punitive and the criminal and civil redress system and encourage the works of the likes of the Human Rights Commission and of those other non-governmental organisations schools and counsellors to make sure that they know now that they don't have to worry about—well that there is a protection from conversion practices itself and another facility to encourage discussions and healthy ones between parents and young people as the member has suggested should happen. And you're right: we don't legislate for nine out of 10; we legislate for 100 percent. As a result of this legislation I would hope that we have protection for 100 percent of the rainbow community now who have been vulnerable to these conversion practices and seen no ability to redress. So I'm not assuming that this is the last contribution to the Part 2 debate in this House tonight but again am acknowledging the pride that we have on this side of the House that this has come from a commitment at the election to make sure that the fundamental human rights of the rainbow community are protected."