SpeechHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I hope to take just one call tonight in explanation of my Supplementary Order Papers. If I go over five minutes I trust you'll indulge that.This is my first intervention on this bill. I haven't spoken to it on first or second reading and basically I've kept my head down and I think the response to me and to those who voted against this second reading on social media and in other forums is a pretty good indication of why. It has been a very hostile response. A colleague of mine has been told that that person has a very punch-able face. I've never seen the C bomb" dropped in as many memes as I have in the last 24 hours and this is one of the milder ones: "You should be ashamed of yourself. It's 2022. Gay conversion is disgusting and cruel. Maybe you should experience it before agreeing to support it. God I hope you don't have kids and if you do for their sake I hope they're squares like you." Now I'm not affected by that. I know it's a pugilistic democracy we live in and on one level I welcome it. But I do feel sorry for the colleague whose loved one has been harassed and bullied and contacted her in tears fearful of going out because of that associate's vote last night. None of us that I know of deviate from this very strong point and that is that we all condemn conversion practices unequivocally—the end. Only the bill strays into areas that make it very difficult for me. I came to this House with just one bottom line with probably a reputation for being far more socially conservative than I am. But I had one bottom line and that was that any legislative change that undermined Kiwis' freedom of speech freedom of expression and freedom to worship whatever deity they deem was a line that I wouldn't cross. Now I've heard the Minister talk and—indeed probably outside of the bill more than in the black letter law that we're considering—providing reassuring comments about this and my amendments I think are kind of more belts and braces if what the Minister says is what will happen after the bill is passed.So I speak to my first amendment I think it's Supplementary Order Paper 126—no it's Supplementary Order Paper 127. Now the new clause that talks about the examples that have been given do talk about two hideous religious practices that I condemn: exorcism and deliverance I don't even know what deliverance is—I hear banjos and guitars!—but I bet it's not safe and it certainly does not affirm the right for people to live their best lives free of unfettered interference from the State which is my mantra. But in that same clause is the word "prayer". Now prayer is a channel between an individual and their deity however loudly or however individually or collectively it is done and I simply can't support a piece of legislation that cuts across an individual's right to pray for whatever. What worries me about that is that for 99.9 percent of the rest of the bill I'm supportive of it but that is a bottom line for me. I think it undermines a fundamental human right and that is the right to religious worship in whatever form and of whatever belief. A prayer is I say a channel between one person and a deity. It may harm even if that's not the intent or even if it is the intent—it's a kind of a sticks and stones moment. So I worry and I think we have an opportunity to clarify that that's not the intention of the Government by supporting my amendment to clause 5.Now although it's not in this part the Minister has at length discussed my other amendment SOP 126. I think it's in those clauses that it won't be an offence for someone to refuse consent to treatment albeit the use of the term "parent or guardian" I don't think is actually referenced. The Minister talks about people over the age of 16. It's a slightly ambiguous—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Just if I may interrupt the member the member's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 126 really refers to a proposed change to Part 2. While the Minister did refer in an overall sense to SOPs—[Member stands] If the member would like to resume his seat while I'm—Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Sorry you weren't on your feet. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): While the Minister in his opening comments did refer to SOPs which were in other parts of the bill I think the substantive detailed discussion of SOP 126 does belong in Part 2.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well in that case Madam Chair I will have to take two calls tonight. I was hoping to do this once and once only. I'll come back to you later."