THURSDAY, 5 AUGUST 2021
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
KARAKIA/PRAYERS
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Te Atua Mana, te akameitaki atu nei matou iakoe no toou takinga meitaki taau i riringi mai ki runga ia matou. Te akaruke nei matou i to matou tu tangata, te akamaara nei matou i te ariki vaine, e te pure nei matou kia arataki koe i ta matou uriuri anga manako, kia rave matou I ta matou angaanga i roto i teia ngutuare na roto i te pakari, te tuatua tika e te akaaka no te meitaki e te au o to matou basileia Niu Tireni. Na roto i te ingoa o lesu Mesia. Amene.





BUSINESS STATEMENT
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Next week, the Estimates debate will continue with appearances by four more Ministers. Legislation to be considered next week will include the first reading of the Hazarnous—Hazardous Substances and New Organism—Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill—
Hon Simon Bridges: Get that one right. 
SPEAKER: Frank Gill got it wrong. 
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —yeah—the second readings of the Māori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill and the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill, and the third readings of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bill and the Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill. There will be a debate on a motion approving certain COVID-19 orders and a special debate following the Dawn Raids apology. 
CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you to the Leader of the House. I note that the Government is making announcements, or at least considering, on Thursday morning next week, future settings around COVID border settings and some of the scientific advice based around that. Can I just ask the Government whether it's the intention to make a ministerial statement on Thursday afternoon in the House following that to allow the House to ventilate some of those issues, or if there'll be maybe a special debate that afternoon? 
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I don't think the conversation that we'll be having next Thursday amounts to any announcements. I think it will be painting some directions of travel and some ideas and some possibilities. I think if people want to explore, I'm certainly open to the idea of a further debate in the House in due course, once members have had an opportunity to consider that and think about that, and if we want to discuss that at the Business Committee, the Government will be open to that. 





SPEAKER'S STATEMENTS
Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill—Application for Personal Vote
SPEAKER: Members, later today we are going to be considering the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill. It is the sort of legislation where I would normally expect an application for a personal vote. I have not had any indication from any member that they request one. I would, however, ask that if members do intend requesting a personal vote, they indicate that to me before the debate starts, because it changes the method of selecting members to speak, and it also gives proper notice to those people who are organising proxy votes, which have to be organised in a different way. So it's just a—it's more than a request; it's a requirement to let me know if there is to be a request for a personal vote before we get to the beginning of the debate. Thank you.
CHRIS BISHOP (National): Point of order. Just in relation to that, just so we can get some clarity, are you saying, Mr Speaker, that if a member wishes to request a personal vote, it's a requirement to let you know in advance of the debate rather than at the time the vote is cast?
SPEAKER: Yes. That certainly has been the practice in the past so that consideration can be given. I have to make a ruling on the question about whether there's a personal vote or not. It's not something which is automatic, and in the past members have indicated that to me. Most of them are quite clear cut, and I'll say right here and now that if a member indicated to me that they wanted to have a personal vote on this, I would grant it because it's a classic conscience-type issue. But to be fair to other members, that should be made apparent before the debate starts because it will affect who gets called through the debate as well as the format of the vote. I'm not a whip any more, and we shouldn't be running the place according to the whips, and I think that having a proxy vote for a personal vote cannot be covered by blanket proxy. It is something which requires an individual proxy for that occasion. Therefore, I think those who are casting votes by proxy do need to have the time to get that set up, and, frankly, the couple of hours of the debate is not long enough for that.





PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
SPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.
DEPUTY CLERK: Petition of Aaron Cross for the Greyhound Protection League of New Zealand, requesting that the House of Representatives pass legislation that prohibits commercial greyhound racing in Aotearoa New Zealand and ensures all dogs within the industry are rehabilitated and rehomedpetition of Simone Hamilton, requesting that the House of Representatives urge the Government to reverse its decision to remove the subjects economics, business studies, and accounting at NCEA level 1.
SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.
DEPUTY CLERK: Report of the Health Committee on the inquiry into Supplementary Order Paper No 38 on the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment BillReport of the Regulations Review Committee on the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Order (No 2) Amendment Order (No 6) 2021 and the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 8) 2021.
SPEAKER: Those reports are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.
DEPUTY CLERK: New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Restriction on Crown Funding Agreements and Unfunded Cancer Medicines) Amendment Bill, introduction.Overseas Investment (Exempt Investment from OECD Countries) Amendment Bill, introduction. Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill, introduction. 
SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.





ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Housing
1. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister of Housing: Does she agree with the Prime Minister that the Government is "pulling every lever we have available to us" on housing; if so, will she extend the Income Related Rent subsidy to people who live in council housing?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Associate Minister of Housing) on behalf of the Minister of Housing: On behalf of the Minister, in response to the first part of the question, yes. We are building more public houses than any Government in decades, with today marking our 8,000th public housing place delivered. We have more building consents issued than at any other time in our history. We've closed tax loopholes. We've banned foreign buyers. We've extended the brightline test. We've introduced progressive homeownership and many other programmes that are making a difference. In response to the second part of the question, I've been clear that more work is required to understand the financial challenges that some councils are facing in maintaining provision of their existing housing stock. Options to address any challenges—for example, diverting income-related rent subsidy funding to councils—would mean reducing our public housing build programme. I'm also keen to understand what more councils could do to support their own housing stock, because, as we all know, the Government cannot solve the housing crisis alone, and we want to continue to see councils play a role, as they have done for generations.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Can she confirm that it would cost only $25 million a year to support Wellington City Council to continue to provide affordable homes for up to 4,000 people, including children and elderly people?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: What I can confirm is that Wellington City Council and the Government do have a deed of grant, and we need to ensure that the work continues—the relationship continues with that. I am confident that we can work with Wellington City Council in terms of some of the concerns that they have expressed. I'm also confident that, as a Government, our role is to work with councils, but it is also more imperative we do everything we can to ensure that we build more public housing spaces.
Ricardo Menéndez March: What is the logic of giving people in Kāinga Ora homes and private community housing providers support through the income-related rent subsidy but not people living in council housing?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: The Ministry of Housing and Urban Development has done some research and found that despite variation in rents charged between council, public housing, and the like, the difference is generally moderate. But there is more that we can do, and we are open to having that conversation.
Ricardo Menéndez March: What's her answer to Wellington city councillor Rebecca Matthews, who asks, "Why should we have to change the ownership structure for our tenants to qualify for income-related rent subsidies? Wellington held on to city housing when Governments were selling off State housing."?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: On behalf of the Minister, I'm really clear that council has a role to provide housing. Generally speaking, the housing that they provide is of the type that is generally low cost. We are really keen to ensure that we work along with the Wellington City Council to address some of the issues that they have, but we are also clear that, as a Government, we have an imperative to build more houses.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agree with Dunedin mayor Aaron Hawkins that the income-related rent subsidy would give councils "A greater degree of capacity to be able to build more units and create additional supply for people who desperately need it, and we have waiting lists in the hundreds that do."?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: What I can confirm is that the Government does support many council tenants through the accommodation supplement.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Has the member for Wellington Central raised any concerns with her regarding reports that Wellington City Council may have to sell its 2,000 affordable public homes if the Government doesn't help?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: As I have already said, the Government's imperative is to build more public housing spaces. The member for Wellington Central has many conversations with me.




Question No. 2—Health
2. Dr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Health: How many patients are overdue for their first specialist assessment, and for receiving treatment, within the target time frames of four months?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): To the first part of the question, the latest data from June 2021 shows 14,718 patients are waiting longer than four months for their first specialist assessment. This represents 12.1 percent of all patients currently waiting for their first specialist assessment. I note that this does not include patients waiting for their first specialist assessment at Waikato District Health Board, as these statistics are not currently available because of the recent cyber-attack. To the second part of the question, 13,670 patients are waiting longer than four months for treatment. This represents 23 percent of all patients waiting for treatment. 
Dr Shane Reti: What responsibility, if any, does he take for the fact that since Labour came to power in 2017, the number of overdue patients waiting more than four months for their first specialist assessment has grown by an average of 10 people every single day they have been in office?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I wouldn't quite characterise it the way that the member has characterised it himself just now. But one thing that, of course, the Government cannot take responsibility for is the arrival of the virus the COVID-19 bug, and that has created extraordinary circumstances for this country and every other country in the world. So following a four-week lockdown, this Government put additional funding into our health system—$282.5 million—to catch up on planned care that had not been able to be given, plus also to clear other waiting backlogs. Of course, even after that funding was approved, there were further lockdowns at level 3 and level 2 that caused further delays in treatment available through our hospital system. This Government, in addition to the $282.5 million last year, put in an additional $90 million this year, and in response to the extraordinary circumstances is doing extraordinary things to assist people to get the care that they need.
Dr Shane Reti: What impact does waiting longer than four months to see a cancer specialist have on the outlook of that patient or on their mental health?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I think any patient waiting for care is going to be very concerned and that's why they are encouraged to maintain contact with their GP and, once they've seen a specialist, with that specialist. But this is a health system that for a whole variety of reasons is under very great pressure and we are doing everything we can, including additional resourcing and additional clinical leadership, to make sure that our hospitals are managing the demands placed upon them as best as possible. 
Dr Shane Reti: How does he explain why, in just four years since Labour took office, the number of overdue patients at the Taranaki DHB waiting for a first specialist assessment has grown from 11 to more than 3,000?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I'm not quite sure what planet that member has been on for the last 18 months, but we are a country, like every other country in the world, that is responding to a pandemic that resulted in this country, effectively, being locked down for four weeks in March and April last year. That caused a significant backlog of cases in our health system. But we put in additional resources for hospitals, our DHBs as they currently are, to get those procedures done over a period of three years to clear their backlogs. The waiting lists that were in existence in June last year have reduced and are continuing to reduce, and we are continuing to do everything we can to alleviate that pressure from our hospitals.
Dr Shane Reti: Can he confirm that the 3,160 people overdue a first specialist assessment in Taranaki is now greater than the number overdue in the entire South Island, and will another 10 people be added to the overdue waiting list in Taranaki tomorrow?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I say what I have said already today, and that is that ours is a health system that is under extraordinary pressure. One of the reasons why we took the judgment we did and the approach we took on COVID-19 is precisely because of the years of failure to invest by the previous Government in our health system. We had to protect it from the kind of demand that they could have been under had we not managed to control the outbreak of the pandemic. We did manage to do that but it still continues to put pressure on our system. We still continue to provide additional resourcing and additional support and additional clinical leadership to assist all DHBs to clear the backlogs that they have.
Dr Shane Reti: Were the numbers for overdue patients waiting for first specialist assessment more than four months at Waikato DHB several thousand, and do these need to be added to the numbers he's quoted today?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I can't confirm what the figures are from the Waikato District Health Board precisely because their systems don't allow them to provide that data to the Ministry of Health. But what I can say is they will be—without the cyber-attack and the consequences of that—no different to any other DHB managing a backlog of planned care because of the pandemic. They are now managing an additional backlog because of the cyber-attack that they have suffered and they've continued to get additional help and additional resources from the Ministry of Health to manage through that particular event that they've suffered this year
Dr Shane Reti: What does he say to the elderly lady living alone who contacted me this week saying that she was told in April she would get her cataracts treated, but now, more than four months later, is so blind that she is suffering from falls around her home?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: That is a very distressing thing to hear and I hope that that woman is able to get the care and help that she can through her GP and through assisted care available in the community, and her DHB should be assisting her to provide that.




Question No. 3—Finance
3. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I thank the member for her enthusiasm for reports on the economy. The labour market report from Stats New Zealand out yesterday highlights that New Zealand is relatively well positioned against the countries we normally measure ourselves against. On comparable measures, New Zealand's 4 percent unemployment rate stands against 5.2 percent in Australia, 5.9 percent in the United States, and 8 percent in Canada. The OECD average is 6.6 percent. Looking at employment rates, New Zealand has performed even more favourably among OECD nations. New Zealand has the third-highest employment rate, alongside Japan. Australia is seventh, the United Kingdom is eighth, Canada is 14th, and the United States is 23rd. The Government's economic plan is working, resulting in more Kiwis in jobs and higher wages.
Arena Williams: What else has he seen from the labour market report?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The number of people unemployed fell by 17,000 in the June quarter, or 12.4 percent. This is the largest quarterly percentage fall in unemployment in 35 years, since the household labour force survey began. Māori unemployment fell by 1 percent to 7.8 percent in the June quarter, while Pacific peoples' unemployment fell by 2.6 percent, also to 7.8 percent. We've also seen a significant drop in the numbers of young people not in employment, education, or training, falling to 10.8 percent from 14.3 percent. This is a very positive result, but, as always, there is more work to do.
Arena Williams: What other reports has he seen on the economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Last week's ANZ business confidence survey reported that economic conditions remain firm across most sectors, with headline confidence easing a modest three points in July. Firms' own activity declined six points but remain above pre-COVID levels. Employment and investment intentions remain robust, with businesses reporting strong demand. In commenting on the survey, Westpac's economist said, "The combination of solid monthly imports and continued momentum in investment intentions suggests a strong print for business investment in the June quarter."




Question No. 4—Health
4. BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Health: What were the grounds for Google billionaire Larry Page being allowed entry to New Zealand while the borders were closed?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I'm advised a number of things. On 11 January 2021, the Ministry of Health received a request from a DHB to medevac a child from Fiji. The application included an adult family member, as is usual in cases involving children. I would note that January is well prior to the current significant COVID-19 outbreak in Fiji. Secondly, before an application for medevac is approved, a clinical assessment is carried out in New Zealand, and this includes a check to see whether the required treatment is available locally. Ultimately, approval must be obtained from a medical officer of health with regards to precautions to protect the community against COVID-19. I'm advised that all of the normal steps occurred in this case. Next, anyone accepted for treatment from a medevac flight is considered to require immediate treatment. The day after the application was received, a New Zealand air ambulance staffed by a New Zealand ICU nurse escort medevaced the child and the adult family member from Fiji to New Zealand. On arrival, the child and adult were taken immediately to an isolation environment in the hospital. In the event of discharge within 14 days, the child and the adult would have been required to be transferred to managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ), and I am advised that all COVID-19 orders in this respect were complied with.
Just to put some context around this, in the financial year ending 30 June 2021, only 99 patients have been accepted under the medevac scheme for treatment. The majority of medevac patients that come to New Zealand come from Pacific Islands. Costs of the medevac must be covered by either a Government to Government agreement or private insurance, or by direct payment. Costs of any medical treatment in New Zealand must also be covered for individuals not eligible for publicly funded services. Everyone has the right to health privacy under the Health Information Privacy Code, issued by the Privacy Commissioner, and I hope that we can respect those rights in this particular case, especially if, as is reported in the news media, it is an unwell child that is at the centre of this matter.
Brooke van Velden: What does he say to the New Zealanders who are still facing uncertainty in how they can get home, who will see a billionaire allowed access ahead of them as unfair?
Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister of Health is not responsible for the answer to that question.
SPEAKER: Can the member ask the question again so I can hear it.
Brooke van Velden: What does he say to New Zealanders who are still facing uncertainty in how they can get home, who will see billionaires allowed access ahead of them as unfair?
SPEAKER: Yeah, no, I rule in favour of the Leader of the House. That question is ruled out.
Brooke van Velden: What does he say to New Zealanders who are still facing uncertainty in how they can get home, including the 190 people who have applied for emergency MIQ spots who have had them declined despite having no option but to return to New Zealand, who consider them humanitarian, who see a billionaire being allowed access as unfair?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As I said in the answer to the primary question, this was a medical emergency. It met all the standard conditions of a medical emergency requiring a medical evacuation from the Islands, and every requirement and regulation that was in place in relation to medevacs and in relation to COVID-19 was complied with.
Brooke van Velden: Can he confirm that Larry Page needed to meet the exact same criteria that a New Zealander would need to meet to come through the border for the same humanitarian grounds?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As I said in my primary answer, in this particular case, all the requirements for a medevaced patient coming to New Zealand from the Islands were satisfied.
Brooke van Velden: Can he confirm that Larry Page paid for the medevac?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As I said in my primary answer, people who come here for medical reasons and have the benefit of our medical services are entitled to medical privacy, and I intend to observe that.




Question No. 5—Education (Pacific Peoples)
5. ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education (Pacific Peoples): What recent announcement has the Government made supporting Pacific people in education following the Dawn Raids Government apology?
Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister of Education (Pacific Peoples)): The formal Government apology for the Dawn Raids was held on Sunday. We announced that $2.1 million over four years would be provided in education scholarships to Pacific communities in New Zealand as part of the goodwill gestures of reconciliation for those communities impacted by the Dawn Raids. These scholarships will be known as Tulī Takes Flight scholarships. These scholarships acknowledge the importance of education for Pacific families and highlight the need to strengthen and grow Pacific education success.
Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: What are the details around the Tulī Takes Flight scholarships?
Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: Up to 12 scholarships, valued between $10,000 and $30,000, will be available to Pacific people aged 18 and over. However, to mark the inaugural year, I am pleased to announce there will be a total of 30 scholarships for study or training commencing in 2022. The first round of applications opens in September 2021. The scholarships will be awarded for a minimum of one year and a maximum of three years. The scholarships are funded by the Ministry of Education and will be administered by the Pacific Education Foundation. Study or training can include vocational and academic courses at levels 4 to 10 on the New Zealand Qualifications Framework, certificates of diploma, degree-level study, and post-graduate study.
Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: Why is it important to support Pacific communities with these scholarships?
Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: These scholarships accompany the Dawn Raids Government apology and are intended to provide opportunities and support for Pacific people to pursue tertiary or vocational education to meet their goals and aspirations as confident and proud Pacific people of Aotearoa. This gesture is part of the Government's way of expressing our deepest sorrow, noting that while we cannot change the past, we hope that this support will help in a small way to grow and create stronger relations with Pacific peoples of Aotearoa.
Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: What is the cultural significance of the tulī in relation to the Dawn Raids Government apology?
Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: From a Pacific perspective, it is not enough to say sorry; we must mean it and demonstrate it and manifest it to be genuine and meaningful in our search to be worthy of forgiveness. The tulī is a bird known as the kuaka or the godwit. It flies 22,000 kilometres non-stop from Alaska to Aotearoa and back again. The determination of the tulī is symbolic of the Pacific Aotearoa narratives of resilient people with the aspiration and determination to succeed. This is fitting in relation to how the goodwill gestures were delivered at the Dawn Raids apology with a sua talisua, which are the gifts of food parcels that support the traveling party on their long journey ahead. Education is the food that will support the long journey ahead for Pacific peoples into the future of Aotearoa New Zealand.




Question No. 6—Finance
6. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his recent statement that the highest inflation increase in a decade was just a "problem of growth"?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I stand by my full statement, which was, "New Zealand is in a strong position economically. We have lower employment. We have good levels of growth. There are now some things coming through that are the problems of growth, but there are parts of our system designed to manage that." I further went on to note, "We've managed to come through the biggest shock to the economy in many, many decades strongly, with high levels of unemployment, with resource consents increasing well beyond where we've been in the past." We are seeing some inflation as a result of the level of economic activity hitting up against some of the constraints on the current environment, including the COVID-19 - related restrictions around migration and some disruptions to global supply chains. We would much rather see an economy with low unemployment and strong wage growth that is pushing against those constraints than see a weak recovery where economic activity was far below capacity.
Andrew Bayly: How did growth contribute to the cost of fresh veggies going up nearly 12 percent in the last year, meaning Kiwi households can only afford to buy fewer items?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The beginning of that question was: how did growth contribute to that? By that, I presume the member must mean inflation growth rather that economic growth, or vegetable growth, for that matter.
SPEAKER: No, no. The member asked a question. The Minister will just answer it as asked.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: One form of growth we can point to is wage growth, which, as we heard yesterday, is running at 4 percent ahead of inflation.
Andrew Bayly: How did growth contribute to the 5 percent increase in the cost of food at their local cafe?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Again, there are many forms of growth that the member could be referring to in that question. What I can say to the member again is that while the cost of living as the inflation rate has increased in recent times, we've also seen wages increasing, including the contributions made by the Government to the lifting of the minimum wage, for example. We do not underestimate the pressures that households are under but the Government continues to support households.
Andrew Bayly: What does he say to superannuitants who Stats NZ say are among the hardest hit due to cost of living increases?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I would say to superannuitants is that this Government is committed to supporting them, including through the winter energy payment, which I note would be taken away under an ACT-National Government, given that that is the ACT Party's policy and that Judith Collins said that ACT and National now need to be seen together.
Andrew Bayly: Does he think Kiwi households believe it is a question of growth when their rents have increased by $40 over the past year and more than $100 per week over the past four years?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think what most New Zealanders would say is that this is an economy that has recovered remarkably well through the one-in-100-year shock that is COVID-19. We are seeing wages rise. We are seeing strong levels of economic growth, and we are seeing low unemployment. All households in New Zealand have been through a difficult time. They have a Government that understands that and is supporting them.
Andrew Bayly: How can the biggest annual increase in inflation in nearly 10 years be a problem of growth when Stats NZ say it was driven by higher housing and petrol costs—two areas where this Government has imposed taxes?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject the premise of the member's question. What we have seen is a Government that has backed New Zealanders to see them have higher wages, to lift the incomes of the lowest-paid New Zealanders. I think it's time for the member to just for a brief moment look at the upside of life. I know how hard it is over there to do that, but, actually, New Zealand's doing well.
Hon Chris Hipkins: Were there plans to increase fuel taxes before the current Government took office?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, there were, and in fact over successive years under the previous National Government we saw fuel taxes go up.
SPEAKER: Order! I'd hoped that the member might be able to bring the question into order, but he wasn't.




Question No. 7—Education
7. ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What new action is the Government taking to support schools to provide learning environments for their students that are "warm, dry and fit for purpose"?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): The Wellbeing Budget of 2021 invested $100 million for short-term roll growth classrooms right the way across New Zealand. This will enable students and teachers to focus on education rather than overcrowding as school rolls grow across the country. The Budget also invested $150 million in top-up funding for shovel-ready school property projects to top up those budgets for projects that were already under way or ready to get under way but needed an extra funding boost so they could begin construction in the current challenging market. All children deserve a suitable classroom to learn in, and it's our responsibility to ensure that they have that so that they can get the best possible educational opportunities. School property investment also represents an injection into our local economy as we recover from COVID-19.
Ginny Andersen: How will schools in the central and Lower Hutt—sorry, not Lower Hutt—lower North Island benefit from this investment?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Six schools across Wellington, the Manawatū, Whanganui, and Taranaki are getting a funding boost of $10 million between them so that projects can enter construction—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Especially if it was as it was originally asked, I'm quite interested.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —and deliver these much-needed works sooner. This includes $1.5 million in further funding for Cannons Creek School, which I visited this morning, which will enable a new block to be built, replacing five classrooms that were at the end of their viable life, plus 10 schools in the central and lower North Island which will benefit from short-term roll growth classrooms to cater for their rapidly growing rolls, and that'll cost an additional $14 million.
Willow-Jean Prime: How will schools in Northland benefit from this investment?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: A very good question. Kamo High School will receive $7 million in top-up funding for a major redevelopment of their main teaching block. This project replaces two end-of-life teaching blocks with a single-storey new teaching space that will provide for 22 classrooms. We've also announced four Northland schools, including Ruakākā School, that will get seven roll growth classrooms between them at a cost of $4 million.
Angela Roberts: How will schools on the East Coast benefit from this investment?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Schools in the Hawke's Bay and Tai Rāwhiti region are receiving $16.5 million to accelerate five projects across Napier, Hastings, Havelock North, and Rere near Gisborne. This includes Napier Boys' High School, where $6 million will bring forward major weathertightness remediation work on 11 different teaching blocks; Napier Girls' High School, who will receive over $5 million to advance their progress on the redevelopment of a major teaching block; and also we are funding short-term roll growth classrooms in Porangahau School in central Hawke's Bay.
Sarah Pallett: How will schools in the upper South Island benefit from this investment?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: More good news. Ten schools in the West Coast, Tasman, and Canterbury regions will see 17 classrooms and the fast-track of four new shovel-ready projects. This includes five short-term roll growth classrooms at Hillmorton High School in Christchurch to meet growing demand for schooling in the area. The Government understands that schools want to be able to focus on what's important, which is teaching and learning.




Question No. 8—Finance
8. DAMIEN SMITH (ACT) to the Minister of Finance: Is the Government concerned about the gap in average weekly income between New Zealanders and Australians; if so, what actions, if any, is the Government taking to reduce the gap?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Government is actually continuing to close the wage gap with Australia, which had got worse under the previous National-ACT Government. Since the 2017 election, average weekly earnings in New Zealand have been rising, on average, by 3.3 percent per year compared to 2.9 percent per year in Australia, according to the latest data from our respective statistics agencies. In answer, further, to the second part of the question, the Government is continuing to roll out our plan to secure the recovery from COVID-19, which has seen our quarterly unemployment rate fall to 4 percent compared to an equivalent rate of 5.2 percent for Australia in the June quarter. Our employment rate for 15- to 64-year-olds, at 77.6 percent, is also higher than Australia's, at 75.3 percent.
Damien Smith: Does he disagree that the gap in average wages between New Zealand and Australia has not improved since 2017, and that the last available data shows that the average Australian worker makes $1,807 per week, compared to the New Zealander, who makes $1,328 per week?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. As I said in my primary answer, in the period from 2017 until now, average annual growth in average weekly earnings in New Zealand is 3.3 percent; in Australia, 2.9 percent. If we do compare that to the period between 2009 and 2017, in New Zealand the average annual weekly earnings rose 2.9 percent, and, in Australia, 3.6 percent. So, yes, there is still a gap, but we're closing it.
Damien Smith: Is he concerned that the gap may increase as Australia offers tax relief to their workforce, whilst his Government offers tax increases at home?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No.
Damien Smith: Is he concerned that the higher wages in Australia will lead to New Zealanders looking for opportunities there instead of at home, unless we act urgently to boost incomes here?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in my earlier two answers, we're closing the gap.
Hon Michael Wood: Can the Minister confirm that a part of the Australian wage setting system is sector-based bargaining?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can confirm that, and, in fact, there are a number of similarities between that and the fair pay agreements that are being introduced by this Government—I look forward to the ACT Party's support for them.




Question No. 9—Transport
9. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Transport: Does a separate structure for walking and cycling alongside the Auckland Harbour Bridge remain the Government's preferred option for the Northern Pathway; if not, why not? 
Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Yes, and alongside our work to advance an alternative Waitematā Harbour crossing, we continue to look at the network and the programme for how to best give Aucklanders multimodal options to travel across the Waitematā. 
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has he asked the Minister of Finance whether his comments yesterday that he wanted the Government to bring forward work on a second Waitematā crossing means a separate structure for walking and cycling is no longer the preferred option? 
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I can confirm that on this side of the House, as colleagues, we talk to each other a lot about significant issues like this, and that we've canvassed many issues in respect of how we ensure that Aucklanders have walking and cycling access across the harbour. 
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is he still intent on proceeding with a $785 million cycle bridge, as it is currently proposed, as well as a brought-forward Waitematā crossing referred to by the Minister of Finance? 
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I can confirm, as the Minister of Finance did yesterday, that work is already under way in terms of developing options for an alternative Waitematā Harbour crossing that is public transport - focused: $60 million was allocated in the Auckland Transport Alignment Plan this year for that very purpose. We continue to move forward with that project, and we continue to move forward with options for enabling Aucklanders to walk and cycle across the harbour. 
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has he discussed with any ministerial colleagues the possibility of scrapping the $785 million separate walking and cycling bridge? 
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: No. Ministers continue to discuss the options for ensuring that Aucklanders have good, multimodal access across the harbour. At the moment, Aucklanders are able to drive across the harbour. This Government believes that they should be able to walk and cycle and take public transport across the harbour. I would encourage the member to recognise that we only solve Auckland and New Zealand's transport problems if we get out of the old approach of thinking that every transport solution has to be about cars, and giving New Zealanders options to move around in different ways. 
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Might the 62 days between the $785 million cycle bridge being announced and it being walked back make it one of the shortest-lived transport projects in recent history? 
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: No. 
Hon Michael Woodhouse: What does he say to the 81 percent of Kiwis, including 75 percent of Labour supporters, who think that he shouldn't go ahead with a $785 million cycling and walking bridge? 
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Of course, we all do look with interest at all public polls that are taken, and my reflection on that particular poll would be that if the support for any Government project was as low as levels of support for the Leader of the Opposition, then it would be in trouble. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee: That went well. 
SPEAKER: What? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Eh? 
SPEAKER: I don't think the member meant that, did he? 




Question No. 10—Health
10. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister of Health: What recent milestones have been passed in regards to the mental health workforce?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): The Budget 2019 mental wellbeing package provided funding to develop the mental health and addiction workforce. This investment has supported a range of new training programmes and placements, both to grow and to upskill existing workforces and to develop new workforces. For example, I'm happy to report that 46 additional bursaries for Māori students were offered in 2021, and 96 percent of these places have been filled. This is on top of the 80 bursaries that were already filled in 2021. The bursaries are provided through the Te Rau Puawai programme to encourage Māori into mental health - related degree programmes at Massey University, which would increase kaimahi Māori in the mental health workforce. I'm also happy to report that we're on track to provide 30 scholarships for Pacific students—77 percent of these scholarships have already been awarded. These scholarships contribute to tuition fees for students who are undertaking a course in full-time or part-time medical and mental health or disability - related studies.
Dr Tracey McLellan: What other milestones have been passed to upskill our current health workforce?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Growing our mental health workforce is one of the top priorities of the mental health wellbeing package. I can also report that 71 additional places were made available in 2021 for mental health practitioners to upskill, with post-graduate training and cognitive behavioural therapy; infant, child, and youth treatment; and co-existing mental health and substance use. Of these additional places, 97 percent have been filled. This is a good first step towards addressing our mental health workforce shortages.
Dr Tracey McLellan: What is being done to increase mental health and addiction literacy training among the wider health workforce?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Ministry of Health funded 80 additional mental health, what they call, 101 workshops in 2020 and 2021, all of which were filled with close to 2,750 people attending. These workshops—this 101 programme—includes topics of stress and wellbeing, mental health challenges, suicide, trauma, supportive language and perspective, building a connection, sharing your concerns, when to get help, and local support. This allows more health professionals across New Zealand to see the signs of mental distress early and to respond accordingly.
Matt Doocey: Why has there been close to a 40 percent increase in the number of mental health workers who have quit the workforce, from 634 in the last year of the National Government to 875 last year, under his Labour Government?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I can't explain that except we know that because of the successive under-investment by the previous Government specifically in the mental health sector, this is a workforce that is under huge pressure. And this was a Government that actually took the courage to step up and admit there is a crisis in mental health and put $1.9 billion into fixing it.




Question No. 11—Health
11. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that 19 months since the Government announced $16.3 million to help 100 people transition from mental health in-patient units to community housing, only three people have been helped at a cost of $1.8 million, and that monthly bed occupancy for mental health in-patient facilities across New Zealand has increased from 80.21 percent in May 2020 to 91.42 percent in May 2021?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): In response to the first part of the member's question, he is incorrect. The Ministry of Health is responsible for $10.9 million of the total $16.3 million allocated to support people with complex mental health and addiction needs to transition into the community. The allocated funding varies over each financial year, but for the year ending 30 June 2021, $1.8 million was planned to be spent. I can confirm that any unspent funding allocated for this initiative will be rolled over to the current financial year. The reality is that due to COVID-19 and multiple lockdowns across Aotearoa New Zealand in 2020, this programme was significantly delayed, and it's anticipated that the majority of funding allocated for the first year will be rolled over. In response to the second part of the member's question, yes.
Matt Doocey: What recent actions has the Minister taken in response to May's mental health in-patient facility occupancy rates, where only three DHBs out of 20 reported operating below the 85 percent occupancy required for patient safety?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Ministry of Health has a task force of senior clinicians set up to support DHBs who are experiencing extraordinary pressure of demand from patients, not just through things like emergency departments but in mental health facilities as well, and they are assisting those DHBs with the management of the workload pressures that they've got to make sure that patients can get access to help and are treated in a safe way.
Matt Doocey: Does the Minister think that, after 19 months, supporting just three mental health patients, as answered in written parliamentary questions (WPQs), out of a target of 100 is acceptable, and, if not, what actions has he taken to address this lack of delivery?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: What I think is a good starting point is to accept that there has been a global pandemic that has affected New Zealand. That resulted, following the announcement in February 2020, in a four-week lockdown nationwide, multiple lockdowns, particularly in Auckland, on a number of occasions following that. That has, as I said in the answer to the primary question, significantly delayed the roll out of this project. Now, I know that on "Planet National" you can sort of magic up things and things sort of work as if pandemics don't have an effect, but they do have an effect. This Government has made the investment in mental health that was long overdue, because we are serious about rising to the mental health challenge of this country. Our clinical leaders and officials in the Ministry of Health have a programme to assist DHBs to manage mental health patients in a more effective way, to encourage more community treatment where that is possible, to free up more spaces in the acute facilities, and, as part of the programme as well, to upgrade those acute facilities so there is more room to meet demand.
Matt Doocey: Can the Minister explain what the $1.8 million spent, as answered to my WPQ by him, to get just three people into community housing in 19 months has actually been spent on?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The member is just plainly incorrect. I refer to the answer to the primary question. The money not spent in the previous financial year—the $1.8 million due to be spent—is being reallocated to the current financial year. So the work that would have been done, were it not for multiple lockdowns as a result of COVID-19, is now taking place—in Auckland. There were two areas that were expected to set up these facilities—Auckland and Waikato. In Auckland, the work is close to fruition, to reach agreements with community providers to achieve what was expected. In the Waikato, an agreement is due to take effect from the middle of this month.
Matt Doocey: What is his response to reports that there are patients stuck in mental health in-patient facilities operating at clinically unsafe occupancy rates due to his Government's failure to transition them into community housing?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: This Government takes seriously the mental health crisis that was apparent many years ago and to which there was absolutely no response by the previous Government. This Government has stepped up to provide a meaningful response. That included more investment in community care for those who have spent a long time in acute facilities but who can be provided good care and safe care in the community where that is possible. It is a priority for us to get more folks who have spent a long time in acute care into the community. We made that announcement in February 2020, and within a month or so the nation was in lockdown because of COVID-19, and then following that four-week nationwide level 4 lockdown, there were multiple, more, lockdowns, and that necessarily has an effect on the ability to pull forward—
SPEAKER: Order! I think we have become repetitious.




Question No. 12—Commerce and Consumer Affairs
12. NAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What recent reports has he seen about the supermarket industry and the cost of groceries?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Last week, the Commerce Commission released its draft report into the retail grocery sector. The draft findings indicate there are problems with the current state of affairs and that New Zealanders would get better prices, range, and quality if there was increased competition in the sector. The findings of this report are currently out for public consultation until 26 August, and I'd encourage people to read the draft and make a submission. The next few weeks of feedback will inform the Commerce Commission's final recommendations, set to be released on 23 November.
Naisi Chen: Why did the Government direct the Commerce Commission to look into the grocery sector?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The average Kiwi household spends a large amount of its weekly expenses on food, and this has been increasing year on year. In fact, in the year to June 2019, food was the second-largest expenditure item for Kiwis, with the average household spending an average $234 per week on it. Put simply, consumers deserve to know if they're getting a fair deal at the supermarket checkout, and the Commerce Commission's findings currently suggest that they may not be. Delivering on our 2020 manifesto commitment to examine competition in the grocery sector is something we are doing.
Naisi Chen: What reactions has he seen on the draft Commerce Commission report?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Katherine Rich, of the Food and Grocery Council, said that the market study will be positive for Kiwi shoppers and grocery manufacturers. She also says that making sure consumers are getting a fair deal is a fair question for the Government to ask in a small market where there are two dominant market participants. Jon Duffy of Consumer New Zealand has welcomed the recommendations in the draft report, saying, "With the supermarket trade carved up between them, the two big chains are in a cosy position and there are significant barriers to potential rivals establishing a presence. That won't change without regulatory intervention."




Question No. 1—Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee
1. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Chairperson of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee: What public statements has the chair made, if any, on behalf of the committee regarding the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee's Inquiry into the Review of the Radio New Zealand Charter?
Jamie Strange (Chairperson of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. As chair, I released a media statement on behalf of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on 25 June this year, outlining the contents of the Radio New Zealand charter, what the inquiry would be addressing, and encouraging the public to be part of this important review by submitting on the inquiry. In an interview with Mediawatch published two days later, I echoed the message contained in the media release.
Melissa Lee: How many submissions have been received to date for the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee's inquiry into the review of the Radio New Zealand charter?
SPEAKER: No, that's not a matter the chair's responsible for.






SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION CONFIRMATION BILL
First Reading
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill be now read a first time. I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 6 December 2021.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Regulations Review Committee.





Instruction to the Regulations Review Committee
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill be reported to the House by 6 December 2021.
SPEAKER: The question is that the motion—[Interruption] Order! Mr Jackson, inter alia. The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.





CONVERSION PRACTICES PROHIBITION LEGISLATION BILL
First Reading
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill.
SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. I will inform the House that no member has approached me indicating their preference for a personal vote.
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Kia orana, Mr Speaker. I move, That the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.
It is with great pride that I stand here to start the debate on the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill. It gives effect to a Labour Party manifesto commitment at the last election and I want to begin by acknowledging the LGBTQI+ community, our own rainbow caucus, rainbow members of this Parliament, Rainbow Labour, and also our young Labour rainbow members who took a petition to Parliament, I believe, in 2018,
Chlöe Swarbrick: Young Greens.
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: —as well as the Young Greens, who were there also presenting that petition. I was getting there!
If you look at clause 3 of the bill: "The purpose of this Act is to—(a) prevent harm caused by conversion practices; and (b) [to] promote respectful and open discussions regarding sexuality and gender." It goes to a very fundamental right that we believe all New Zealanders have: to decide who they are or to explore who they are. It's been very clear over a long period of time that the gay community and those who are exploring their gender identity have suffered extreme harm at attempts to try and change their sexuality or their gender identity. That harm has manifested itself in mental health issues; relationship issues; in some cases, long-term mental health issues; and in some unfortunate cases, suicide attempts and suicide itself.
We want to make a very firm statement that conversion practices do not work. They cause harm for people who are going through the process of being who they are, and that is why this piece of legislation is before this House. The kinds of conversion practices that we've seen historically and we've heard from engagement with the community have been at the extreme end, the likes of electroconvulsive therapy. Now they more commonly include the likes of practices claiming to be counselling or talk therapy and some faith-based practices involving prayer, fasting, and exorcism.
I know there will be a debate around the issues around religious groups in this first reading. I want to acknowledge the church leaders that we met last week via Zoom, who we gave an indication of the direction of this bill. They said to us that by and large they support the banning of conversion therapies but had some questions about the religious freedoms that they enjoy. And I hope that since the time that we have spoken to them and them seeing the bill, they have seen that we have put in protections for the expression of their religious principles and beliefs, and that is another important protection of right that we want to make sure that is in this bill.
I think everyone in this House has a story about someone that they know or love who has had a difficult time in coming out. I certainly have one of those, and my friend—who I'm not going to go into too much detail about—came out quite late in his life, and I cannot imagine some of the difficulties that people like him and others have gone through to be who they are. And this is why I think this is such an important piece of legislation for the LGBTIQ community, to make sure that they have that right protected and that, again, we prevent the harm that is caused in those communities. Can I also acknowledge my colleague Marja Lubeck for the work that she has done in the previous Parliament to put forward a member's bill on this issue. I'm sure she's very pleased that we have got this to this stage to have this first reading. I know she will talk about a lady called Amanda Ashley, who was one of the champions of making sure that this kind of legislation came through this House.
In terms of a conversion practice itself, as it is defined in the bill, it has to be targeted at someone because of their sexual orientation or their gender identity or gender expression and it has to have the intent of changing or suppressing that gender identity or sexual orientation. Again, and depending on the circumstances, it has to be shown that there is harm or serious harm, and then the police do what they normally do and gather an evidentiary base to make sure that they may have a case against a person that may undertake a conversion practice. Then there is another protection in this bill—any matter to go to court is with the consent of the Attorney-General for a court case to proceed. We have deliberately designed this piece of legislation to make sure that it is only the serious cases that will ever make their way to a court room. There are also civil protections, civil provisions, within this bill to make sure that any issues that are not considered serious or criminal will be taken through the Human Rights Commission, and there are remedies there as well.
Again, I would stress the purpose of this bill: it is to prevent harm and to make sure we are encouraging those respectful and open discussions about people's sexual orientation and their gender identity. At the announcement last week, we also said that we will take the select committee very seriously. We will watch those submissions, we will watch the submissions and the tone of the submissions that are made by other political parties, and we will make this bill better if we think we can, but the fundamental purpose of this bill is to make sure we are preventing harm in our community when people are having their fundamental right of being who they are, or exploring who they are, impacted. Again, the mental health impacts, long-lasting mental health impacts, have for far too long plagued our rainbow community. It is well time that these conversion practices were banned.





Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): National supports the core intention of this thought. People should be free to be who they want to be and to love who they want to love. There is one major sticking point, however, which means that although we want to be supportive, we are opposing this law until it is amended. It is very clear in Kris Faafoi's interview on Newstalk ZB with Heather du Plessis-Allan, and any plain reading of this bill, that good parenting will be criminalised—
Hon Grant Robertson: Rubbish. Absolute nonsense.
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —facing up to five years'—it is exactly what it is saying—imprisonment for being parents to children under 18. The members opposite yell at me, but that is what Kris Faafoi said on Newstalk ZB, and it is wrong. 
Parents should be allowed to be parents and to explore sexuality and gender with their children. But under this law, if a mum tells her 12-year-old son or daughter, "Taihoa, before you go on puberty blockers or other hormone treatment, wait till you're 18.", that mum will be breaking the law. National believes there must be an exemption for parents.
Simeon Brown: So angry on the other side.
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: They are very angry on the other side, but I just want to address them quite clearly: the definition in clause 5 is incredibly broad and any exemption for parents is nowhere in this bill.
It is important to note that this law is broader than sexual orientation; it also covers gender identity and expression. This latter area is more complex than the former. It can involve medical interventions—blockers, hormones, surgery. These treatments are innovative and experimental. They involve long-term risks and consequences. And, in other countries, there are growing numbers of young people who have become adults who regret transitioning and seek to de-transition, with mixed success. 
Do we really want a Government intervening with the criminal law, five years in prison in conversations and decisions about medical treatment and wellbeing that parents have and make with their children? I don't think so, and I don't think that, actually, the majority of Kiwi parents do either. This bill lacks common sense. It is an ideological overreach. There must be an exemption for parents.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! There are a lot of interjections in this House. May I remind members that they can take a call, and when they make their own call they can express their views. I would like to hear this speech, whether or not you agree with it. Please, can we have order in this House.
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I'm influenced by a signature case from a full bench of three judges of the High Court of England and Wales: Keira Bell and the Tavistock clinic. It came out in December of last year—and I acknowledge it is under appeal in the UK, albeit it is the current law of the land in that much more significant, in terms of population, nation. It involved Keira Bell, 23, who wanted to transition from female to male. Ms Bell, aged 16, went to the Tavistock clinic and was quickly prescribed puberty blockers and testosterone, and at 20 had a double mastectomy. She has since, however, begun de-transitioning, and says, "It was heartbreaking to realise I'd gone down the wrong path.". I appreciate that there will be many other experiences that are different to that, but that was hers.
The other claimant in the court case was a "Mrs A", a mother of a 15-year-old autistic girl awaiting treatment at the clinic. She said, "My fear is … not that [she's transitioning] – it's that she gets it wrong." The mother said that it was "frightening" that there was so little exploration of why a child might be feeling they were the wrong sex before puberty blockers were given. Keira and the mum were representative claimants arguing that the clinic should have challenged the girls more over their decisions to transition to a male as teens; something very much against the spirit and the letter of this law, which is so-called affirmation only, rather than allowing genuine exploration.
The court held that there are long-term risks and consequences from the administration of puberty blockers and the clinical interventions being made, and "given that the treatment is as yet innovative and experimental, we recognise that clinicians may well regard these as cases where the authorisation of the court should be sought prior to commencing the clinical treatment.". The court decided that under-13s were "highly unlikely" to be able to consent to blockers. At ages 14 and 15, it was "[still] doubtful", and at 16 and 17, the courts should still decide.
Yet under this law, in New Zealand's much smaller jurisdiction, it will be a criminal offence for parents to raise any concerns; they'll only be able to affirm—
Hon Grant Robertson: No, that is not what the bill says.
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —and that is wrong. And I say, under the constant barracking from Grant Robertson, that his Government, tragically, in this term, without the blockage of Mr Peters' New Zealand First Party, has done a fine line of coming to this House and saying one thing that is motherhood and apple pie—and I accept the intent of this bill—but, actually, in the letter of the law, it does something quite different.
I intend on writing to Kris Faafoi shortly. Given the good intention of this bill, National wants to work with him so that we can support it. But, regrettably, we cannot, in good conscience, while it criminalises parents for being parents, while it intervenes in families with the criminal law over conversations and decisions about medical treatment that should be for them. We are opposing this bill until Kris Faafoi does the right thing.





Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is with great pride that I rise to take this call on this Government bill to ban conversion therapy—35 years since Fran Wilde's Homosexual Law Reform Bill passed in 1986; 17 years since the Labour Government supported the Civil Union Bill into law in 2004; eight years since my colleague Louisa Wall's marriage equality amendment bill passed in 2013; and today this bill, which began its life as a member's bill, Marja Lubeck's bill, is here as a Government bill because this Labour Government is committed to creating a more inclusive and accepting New Zealand and being the best place in the world to be a child.
Conversion therapy is harmful to mental health. We know that the rainbow community experiences worse mental health. University of Auckland research shows that same- or multiple-sex attracted people have higher rates of depressive symptoms, self-harm, and suicide attempts. The Counting Ourselves survey documents worse mental health for trans people living in Aotearoa. Behind those statistics, I think of the many friends that I know who have had those experiences: the friend who buried his boyfriend when he was in his 30s; the girlfriends who bounced in and out of mental health wards.
People subjected to conversion therapy have worse mental health outcomes. A paper in the American Journal of Public Health suggests twice the odds of experiencing suicidal ideation; a 75 percent higher risk of planning a suicide attempt. Not long ago, on 8 July, we came together in this House to debate Zero Suicide Aotearoa. Members on both sides of the House were united in their concern about suicide. Just a month ago, we heard from the Opposition about how concerned they were about these issues, and here, with an opportunity to do something about it, they are voting against a very practical measure that would make a difference to many New Zealanders.
I listened to Mr Bridges' comments. He didn't really talk about conversion therapy at all. I will talk about conversion therapy. I don't want to talk about the mental health consequences of conversion therapy anymore, because it seems to me to miss the point. The problem with conversion therapy is just how awful the practice itself is. All people, but particularly young people, want to belong. Young people are forming their identity. Naturally, they want to be accepted. Conversion therapy is about trying to erase someone's identity. It is about saying that part of you is defective and we want to root it out. Conversion therapy is coercive, because behind conversion therapy is a threat of exclusion: this part of you is wrong and you don't belong. If we did this to a prisoner, we would call it abuse or torture. It is the threat of being banished, of being cast out of society.
Lots of people complain about being cancelled over trivial matters and disagreements, but conversion therapy is actually cancelling someone. Imagine being the young person in that position; it must be traumatic, and it is totally unjustifiable. Does anyone in this House think conversion therapy is a good idea? A lot of members opposite can't look up right now. Does anyone think it's a good idea? If it's not a good idea, the Opposition has the opportunity to support this bill to select committee to address their technical objections, but they chose not to take that, to fearmonger about items that are not at all in the bill.
Conversion therapy is a sick and bizarre practice, and what is unbelievable is that these practices are called "therapy". What a misappropriation of the word "therapy". It causes hurt, not healing. To believe conversion therapy is therapy you have to believe that being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender is a disease; that it is something wrong in need of fixing. And the charlatans that engage in this practice use the language of medicine to bolster their false authority. That's why it's so important that medical, psychiatric, and psychological authorities around the world have condemned the process. I wonder what Dr Reti thinks. I wonder what mental health advocate Matt Doocey thinks.
The rainbow community has long fought homophobia. We have done this by asserting our rights, by being visible. The primary way we do this is with pride, by being proud and refusing to be ashamed. The rainbow community has progressed progressive law reform in New Zealand to ensure that our rights are upheld, and the rainbow community has called for this bill to be passed today. I am very proud to be a member of New Zealand's rainbow community, and I am proud to be a Labour MP supporting this bill. All our young people should grow up with a sense of pride in themselves. Conversion therapy is monstrous. It is not therapy; it is hate. I commend this bill to the House.





Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's probably about 95 percent of what the former speaker said that I completely agree with, and I think one of the challenges when we are in Parliament is we are actually debating what is in the bill as opposed to what the intent of the original bill was. I think that's a big part of the frustration for the National Partly because, absolutely, we condemn conversion therapy. We condemn abusive practices that prevent someone from being who they are and from loving who they choose to love. I want to make it very clear that the National Party wants to support the bill, but the issue that was raised and that the Minister has not been able to answer is the question of the prosecution of parents. That was asked of the Minister and he hasn't been able to answer that simple question so the reality for the National Party is we absolutely support the intent of it but to be responsible parliamentarians we must look at: what does the bill actually say and do?
We implore the Government to fix the problem. We implore the Government to fix the problem and not create new ones. Our primary concern is the exposure of parents to prosecution, and I would have thought members opposite would also be concerned about that—about that concern—and that's why we have very clearly and simply asked for an exemption for parents. I'm really hopeful that during the select committee process the members opposite—and I take the Minister's point; he extended the branch to listen to what Opposition parties were contributing to take them on board, to consider them, because I can speak very confidently in that the National Party wants to have a bill that we can support. We want to have a bill that can be unanimously passed through this Parliament—but the sticking point is about parents. 
So let's just explore this a bit further, because in listening to family members, listening to young people, listening to those who have been through the very sorts of things that the previous speaker expressed, I think it's really important that we consider that. Consider the sensitive years before the age of 18 when it's challenging for any young New Zealander anyway and add to that sexual orientation or gender identity—and I want people to consider young people doing that in complete isolation of their family. I think it would be a derogation of responsibility for us to in any way, shape, or form create a path where young people would do that on their own or parents would feel concerned about what they might say or what they might do, and where that might lead to a criminal prosecution. So we've asked the question. The Minister hasn't been able to clearly state that parents—
Louisa Wall: Read the bill. It's in the bill.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, yeah, I'm asking. This is a Government bill. This is the Minister—the question's been asked and that's not how we see it. So there is no exemption.
Chlöe Swarbrick: You're playing politics.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No, this is not about politics. This is absolutely not. Do not put words in my mouth. 
Experts say that research shows that how parents respond can be fundamental to their children's mental health and wellbeing now and in the future. We want parents to lean in at this time in a young person's life and not lean out. I implore the Government to consider a parental exemption so that no parent and no young person is in a situation where they're concerned about this type of engagement. We want to have open conversations with our teenagers. We want to walk alongside them. We want to offer advice. In many instances, they won't take that advice and that's fine. But we are talking here about medical procedures. Are you seriously saying as a parent, when a young person under the age of 18 is considering a medical procedure, that you as a parent, you as a parent, shouldn't engage, support, provide advice, get external advice? Obviously not. So the Labour Government members are basically saying the State should have more say over your family than parents. That's exactly it. That is the crux of it. So make the parental exemption, make the parental exemption, because this is—
Louisa Wall: They're already exempted.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, the Minister hasn't said that explicitly. That's not the expectation of what's in the bill, and that's what we want to see explicitly—a parental exemption. So young people should be able to seek advice. Young people should be able to seek advice of their families as well as others, and we don't want them excluded or criminalised, which is completely what is in the bill as written. It's a complete deviation from what was originally considered—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! I invite the member to come back to the bill.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I'm on the bill. So as the Minister said—[Interruption]
Maureen Pugh: Show some respect.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Yeah, they clearly don't care. They clearly don't care about parents because that's at the crux of this issue. We're talking about young people 18 and under and medical procedures that this bill does not protect. So that is our concern. We're happy to draw a line in the sand on that issue and that issue alone. And I will say again—I'll say again so there is no shadow of doubt—National wants to support this bill. We abhor conversion therapy and anything that harms or abuses, or creates issues for, any New Zealander to choose who they are, to be who they are, and to love who they choose. 
So that's our contribution. I'd like to think the other side's listening. They're clearly not. I'd like to see when the bill progresses that there is clarity and a parental exemption because no young person and no parent should have this hanging over them. 





CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): I seek leave of the House, Madam Speaker, to table a document. I seek leave of the House to table the document, the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill, because it appears that the Opposition has not read it.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I seek leave of the House that that document be tabled. 
Simeon Brown: Point of order. That's not a point of order—that's not a point of order. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Are you seeking a point of order, Simeon Brown? SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Well, point of order, Madam Speaker. That's a publicly available document. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Next—
NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Point of order, Madam Speaker. I'm finding it extremely difficult to hear, and I would be appreciative if the noise—as Mr Speaker had been talking about during question time—be kept at a level where we can all hear the contributions, please, that are being made. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I absolutely agree. I would like this House to be in order. I would like the members of this House to be respectful of each other. I realise that we don't always agree, especially on this bill, but can we please be respectful of each other. 





MARJA LUBECK (Labour): On this day in 1944, Anne Frank and her family were arrested after more than two years in their secret hiding place in Amsterdam. Now, one might think, what does that have to do with this Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill? Well, the link is clear: the issues that got Anne Frank and her family arrested and, ultimately, killed are still relevant today. We need to ensure we protect one another and, particularly, our rangatahi against dangers of prejudice, discrimination, and intimidation. The Hon Grant Robertson said this at the unveiling of the Anne Frank memorial in June this year: "Every single day, we see elements of discrimination and hatred around us. We see the elements of exclusion, of putting people outside, and making them the other. So every single day it is our job to call that out, to say this is not acceptable; to strive to build the world that Anne Frank talked about, a world of hope, of courage, of beauty."
Now, Aotearoa New Zealand is a country that values and accepts our rainbow community without the need to be subjected to any kind of conversion therapies, because, firstly, there's nothing wrong with anyone having a diverse sexual orientation or gender identity, but also the premise that somehow this can be changed is, of course, absolutely untrue. There's no scientific nor medical evidence to support the use of conversion therapies, and we heard my colleague Minister Verrall talk very eloquently on that. The practice is widely condemned as being against the code of ethics that's done by the medical profession and many psychological associations across the world, as well as in our own country.
So-called conversion therapy is not only just something that doesn't work; it's actually shown to be incredibly harmful, and some of the speeches have pointed that out. Trying to convert someone by making them believe that, due to their sexuality or gender identity, there is something wrong with them that requires changing can cause severe adverse mental health effects. Claiming to be able to cure homosexuality, as if it is a mental illness or some kind of behavioural problem, and giving people false hope at a time when they are struggling about who they are is harmful and can be fatal for members of the rainbow community who are already vulnerable—and five times more at-risk of mental health issues and harm.
What we need to really do is validate their identity and tell them that who they are is the right thing; everybody is free to be themselves. It brings me back to something that Kyle MacDonald said in one of the interviews I held about this topic. He talked about validation and how important that is. He said that one of the cornerstones of any psychotherapy is the idea that it's only through acceptance of ourselves, the bits we like, and—even more challenging—the bits we don't like, comes true health.
Now, we like to celebrate our country's diversity, but we still have to work to strengthen New Zealand society. When we talk about people who have suffered, what we fail to acknowledge is that we live in a society that is infused with homophobia. So the need for love and acceptance will push anyone to try and conform to the norm. The Hon Louise Upston, the previous speaker, showed that she didn't read the bill because nothing in this bill shows that talking to your children falls under a definition of conversion practices, and if you want to have it improved, support it to select committee. But not doing so will not give us an opportunity to, for example, hear the survivors' stories, and they will tell us the crucial things that we need to hear.
There are many harrowing stories from survivors of conversion therapy, and this also includes, for example, the story of the young woman who told the story of the time her mum had suggested a deliverance: a practice where a minister would pray over her to free her from the demonic forces. She said that "Looking back, it was clear that I was desperate to have connection and love from my parents, and I would do anything to get it.", but when the demons didn't budge and she walked out feeling ashamed for who she was—how can that be healthy? How can we allow any kind of messaging that tells people, that tells our rangatahi, there's something wrong with them and they need to be fixed?
One of the questions I hear most frequently is, "Well, is it actually really happening in New Zealand?" I first heard about conversion therapy when I watched a TVNZ Sunday documentary in 2018. The phrase in that programme was that it was surprisingly easy to find places that would offer it. I was shocked to think that in this day and age and in this country, Aotearoa New Zealand, diversity, inclusion—it would still be happening. But it was, and from many messages I've received, it's clear that others felt that way as well.
From Barbara, "I'm a mental health registered nurse and I was shocked to hear it's still legal in New Zealand. I've seen the damage caused to people who are told what they feel is not natural and have tried to change their sexuality. It can cause irreparable harm." From Deborah, "Because of its unspoken prevalence in New Zealand, I have friends who struggle to find where they can find physical and/or mental health care without being subjected to attempts to change who they are. Banning the practice would make it far easier for them to access safe healthcare."
Now, it was a great privilege when I was asked to accept a petition to ban conversion therapy. Young Labour and Young Greens, together with Rodney Rainbow, collected more than 20,000 signatures between them, and so I became part of the whakapapa of this current bill. Here—as the Minister rightly foreshadowed—I would like to acknowledge Amanda Ashley, a transgender activist from Rodney Rainbow. When we first met, her petition had 1,500 signatures. She would send me messages over the following weeks, excited that the petition got up to 2,000 signatures, and then 3,000, and then when the petition closed three years ago—to this date almost—7 August 2018, it had a total of 5,157 signatures on it. She was so proud. All together, those signatures on the petitions totalled more than 20,000. Long story short, as a result, my member's bill went into the ballot because I had the support of my party for a bill that would outlaw conversion therapy.
Thank you to then justice Minister, the Hon Andrew Little, for the continued support on the issue. Labour then made it part of the 2020 manifesto, and what we're doing now delivers on that particular commitment. Thank you to the Hon Kris Faafoi for shepherding this bill through the House. It's an avenue to uphold the human rights of all New Zealanders to live free from discrimination and harm.
So this all started with a petition, and Amanda Ashley will be remembered as an important part of this whakapapa. But, sadly, Amanda took her own life in 2018. She will be remembered as a beautiful, sensitive, sweetheart of a lady, and a strong activist.
I've been blessed to have the privilege to be part of this kaupapa and to have received such a warm welcome from the rainbow community. And while I've got your attention, I might as well clear this up: Paul, I'm sorry for the initial confusion. It has now been cleared up that I'm, in fact, not a lesbian, but despite the fact that you know that now, thank you for not treating me any different and still accepting me for who I am. At no stage have I ever felt any discrimination for identifying as heterosexual.
I've met many committed advocates for rainbow issues, and I want to do the following shout-outs for the support they have given me. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but they are people and organisations that have given me support that I've been in contact with and I've learnt from. So here we go: Mitch Keast, for his relentless research and optimism; my formidable Labour rainbow caucus colleagues; members of Rainbow Labour and Paul Stevens, the chair; members of the Conversion Therapy Action Group: Neihana, Max, Shaneel, Shannon Novak, Kyle MacDonald, Jim Marjoram; Terri and Ted; Princes Street Labour; Rainbow Youth; Young Labour; Young Greens; Young Nats; OutLine; Aych McArdle; St Matthew-in-the-City; St Peter's on Willis; InsideOUT; and Tabby. There are many more other champions for the rainbow community—too many to mention—but one shout-out goes to Diane Sparkes in Ōrewa, advocating for the rights of the rainbow community.
I want to finish with a message from a survivor, because survivor stories are crucial to actually try and get a glimpse of what harm, intolerance, exclusion, discrimination, and prejudice can do to a person: "I always knew my sexuality was a problem, but when you see your entire community chanting hate, that's terrifying. Spiritual abuse causes trauma, and trauma doesn't always go away when people say sorry. Many people don't make it through conversion therapy"—it's not an unusual story. 
Conversion practices simply have no place in our country, but we currently have no legislation that makes it an offence. Let's show the compassion and inclusiveness that are in line with New Zealand's values. This bill sends a clear message: we won't stand by and allow this behaviour to continue. It says: we love you, we accept you for who you are, and we will do everything in our power to protect you. I commend this bill to the House. 





Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Kia orana koutou katoatoa i te 'Epetoma o te reo Māori Kūki 'Āirani. It is with great pleasure I stand to speak on behalf of the Green Party on this kaupapa. E tuku muhi ki te Minita, Kris Faafoi, mō tēnei mahi hōhonu. Also, we acknowledge the staff here, the staff of the ministry, and the Human Rights Commission who have all worked so hard to make this happen, and, of course, all of our community leaders who largely volunteer, yet again are available for consultation and advice. I also want to acknowledge the Young Greens, Young Labour, and Young Nats, who I also had the opportunity to meet with through this process.
In February, we launched our Māori priorities at Waitangi, and we identified takatāpui rights as a Treaty issue. We did this because we understand a colonial history that brought missionaries to our country who immediately told us our enjoyment of sex was wrong, that any kind of sexual fluidity was wrong, any fluidity in gender identity was wrong. Along with trying to take away all of our language, all of our land, all of our resources, they also tried to steal that story and whakapapa from us. The fact that we are here today, and every time that I get to use the word takatāpui in this House, says that all of us since then continue to honour all of them.
A week after Waitangi, we launched a petition at Big Gay Out. We had a huge, massive response from this country: nearly 160,000 people signed that petition within a week. Many people did not know that this still existed in our country, and it was people across the political spectrum. I got letters from people saying, "We signed your petition, but we want you to know we do not like the Greens otherwise.", and I would just reply back going, "Kia ora."
Rawiri Waititi: They must be Māori Party supporters.
Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE: Ha, ha! Probably. I want to point out that that petition was the largest verified petition ever held in this country, because on the record, the two unverified petitions are the two that were presented for the homosexual law reform. I'm very, very proud that our country and this Parliament is a place where we can present the real views of actual, real people.
The hard thing about when this topic comes up, of course, is all of the letters we received from survivors from here and from around the world who were so pleased we were doing this work in our Parliament. Others have acknowledged there are those who are still surviving and living amongst our communities and dealing with the harm and the emotional impact that has had on their whole life, but, of course, we have lost so many—so many—even within the last few years, who have felt that they could not go on in the environment of this country.
I want to reiterate: in terms of whakapapa, if we're looking right back to colonisation, this is hundreds of years of discrimination against our community, and conversion therapy is only one topic of the special ways that people have tried to harm rainbow communities. It was those original missionaries, those original churches, that set up, really started, conversion therapy, and over the years, over the decades, it's been refined to an art. However, years after homosexual law reform, which was led by most of the mainstream—the protest was led by most of the mainstream—churches of this country, many of those churches would now look back in horror at what was done. Some of them have apologised for their part in it and would have no truck with it. We have only to look at what are the particular types of churches who are still offering this service, as they like to see and think of it, to see how much further we still have to go in this country.
For me, an important part of this whole kaupapa is wairua, it's our spirituality. It is my belief that our drive to be who we are, our sexuality, our gender, is part of our wairua, our spirituality, that comes to us from our ancestors, from our gods, the way that we experience them. For takatāpui, we know that our sexuality and our cultural connection is as important to us as our sexuality, as our gender identity, as our sex characteristics. The real issue around conversion therapies is (a) it's not good to tell someone that who they are is wrong, ever, in any context. What it does, though, is it takes something else that is a part of someone, their commitment to their religion, their spirituality, the way they experience that, and uses that against another part of themselves. That is the thing that our mental health system currently is nowhere close to being set up to help resolve. A shout-out to groups like OutLine, like all of the leading groups within our rainbow communities: Intersex Awareness New Zealand, Gender Minorities Aotearoa, InsideOUT, RainbowYOUTH, of course. It's left to the community to try and untangle those things, those hurts, and try and give healing.
Others have talked about the many lives we have lost. We don't have exact data on conversion therapies. We know that in the Counting Ourselves research, they had some figures that were particularly for trans and non-binary people, but we don't have a true picture, and I think that somewhere along the line, some funding needs to be allocated to actually doing that proper research.
But the main thing I want to finish on is about whānau, because the one thing I do agree with our National colleagues on here is that whānau should be able to make good decisions on behalf of their children. So to hold up this: this is a resource that we did with RainbowYOUTH, "Growing Up Takatāpui: Whānau Journeys." We interviewed young takatāpui, their parents, and their grandparents. We wanted to understand what was going on inside whānau. Young people, they talked about their fears, about talking about who they were in talking to their whānau. They said they experienced embarrassment, fear, isolation, guilt, depression, anger, and hopelessness. The whānau themselves weren't dealing well with their child coming out or wanting to transition. They talked about, also, shock and embarrassment, denial, a justified fear for their child's safety. They had grief: the future they had seen for their child had disappeared.
Now, in an inclusive society, that whānau would be looked after. There would be wrapped around with support. They would have people—those young people could go and talk to other young people and say what is going on for them. Those whānau could have people with good quality information that would say this is what's happening together. That whānau could move forward and make decisions about whatever types of groups they might want to join, ways that they could work inside their churches and places of worship. They might make some sorts of arrangements around surgical healthcare, and they would do that as a whānau. They would make those decisions together with clarity, based on knowing that what was most important was being able to uphold the mana of who someone was and that as the parents, the whānau, of this child, this young person—this adult, even—they would help make that together. That is not the world we live in.
So do we want to criminalise whānau? Of course not. Do we want to put an entire congregation who all colluded in conversion therapy of members of their congregation? Of course not. Do we want to see things put in place, though, where people are held accountable for their actions? Absolutely—absolutely. People who have had this happen to them deserve some justice, should we get more to a point where those congregations decide to learn from their mistakes, that they apologise for the harm they have caused and they beg forgiveness from their god and their communities for what they have done. We can pass this through, and we will. It's happening, people. Let us make sure it includes all people this happens to. I want to do a final shout-out for people with disabilities—it's not just rainbow communities. Kia ora.





NICOLE 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.





TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): E te Pīka tēnā koe. Mō ngā mineti e rua e toru pea ka kōrero ahau i roto i te reo Māori. Tēnā koutou te hunga e whakarongo mai ana, e mātakitaki ana, tēnā tātou katoa. 
He mihi anō ki te Minita o te Karauna, Te Minita Manatū Ture, a Kris Faafoi, taku whananga, nō te moutere ātaahua o Tokelau. E hoa, nāu i mauria mai tēnei pire ki tēnei Whare, nō reira ka nui te mihi. 
He rā whakahirahira tēnei mō te puāwaitanga o ngā tamariki mokopuna o Aotearoa kāore anō kia whānau mai. He taonga te tamaiti. He taonga te tangata. He taonga tōna mana, he taonga tōna tuakiri, mai rā anō. 
He uri tēnei o tētahi o ngā uri o Te Arawa waka, ko Tūtānekai tōna ingoa. He tangata rongonui rawa atu. Ko ia te whaiāipo a Hinemoa, te wahine tapairu o Ngāti Te Roro o te Rangi. Engari i mua i tana hononga ki a Hinemoa, kei a Tūtānekai he hoa pūmau anō. He hoa takatāpui tāna ko Tiki tōna ingoa. E ai ki te mātauranga o Te Rangikāheke, ka aroha atu a Tūtānekai ki a Tiki, ka mea atu ki a Whakaue, ke mate ahau i te aroha ki tōku hoa ki a Tiki. 
[Greetings to the Speaker. For the next two or three minutes, I will speak in Māori. Greetings to all who are listening and watching. 
I also wish to acknowledge the Minister of the Crown, the Minister of Justice, Kris Faafoi, from the beautiful island of Tokelau. Oh friend, it was you who proposed this bill to this House; therefore, I greet you. 
This is an auspicious day for the future of the children of Aotearoa who have yet to be born. Children are treasures. People are treasures. Their mana and their identity are treasures, from time immemorial. 
I am a descendant of an ancestor from Te Arawa canoe, named Tūtānekai. He was quite famous. He was the lover of Hinemoa, chieftainess of Ngāti Te Roro o te Rangi. However, before he married Hinemoa, Tūtānekai had another close friend, a gay friend called Tiki. According to the knowledge of Te Rangikāheke, Tūtānekai felt deeply for his friend Tiki and said to Whakaue, "I am overcome with love for my friend Tiki."]
You see, Tūtānekai loved Tiki, and he said to Whakaue, "I am stricken with love for my friend, for Tiki." The missionary William Williams in 1884 translated the word "takatāpui" as an "intimate companion of the same sex". Naturally, there are some back home that dispute that translation and also the nature of that relationship too. For some it's a little bit uncomfortable that a chief from our whakapapa may have enjoyed a homosexual relationship just prior to his marriage. I say that if it's OK for the Greeks, it's OK for us. That said, the word "takatāpui" has become a commonly used term and it's experiencing a renaissance within the Māori rainbow community, and I say rightfully so.
My point is that Māori have our own stories about sexuality that pre-date the arrival of Europeans and the arrival of the Bible and also those who interpret it, which has done considerable damage to the rainbow community, causing considerable harm. Colonisation reached into our cultural norms about what constituted both positive and negative relationships, and as we become more aware, we must also challenge those colonial heterosexual assumptions that have been normalised around us, and central to that is the assumption that if you aren't heterosexual, then there must be ways to fix you.
The Government's intention in this bill—which I support wholeheartedly—in prohibiting conversion practices are, one, to affirm the dignity of all people and say that no sexual orientation or gender identity is broken and in need of fixing; two, to prevent the harm conversion practices cause in New Zealand and to provide an avenue for redress; and, three, to uphold the human rights of all New Zealanders, including rainbow New Zealanders, to live free from discrimination and from harm. This bill will provide penalties to those who continue to use conversion practices and provide survivors with avenues for redress.
But I do have a concern. The criminalisation of conversion practices may just result in a change in how they're presented or how they're framed or how they're performed. The way that practices are described may become more subtle—for example, through references to "exploring sexuality" rather than changing it, and on spiritual healing and development. Conversion practices have very low public visibility now, so the prohibition will have little effect in that regard, but it is important to remember that however conversion practices are presented, survivors will now have recourse to the laws to lay complaints, both criminal and civil.
In my 20s, I wasn't able to get married, but the Civil Union Bill came in and made things a little more normal. In my 30s, I was able to, finally, get married and, again, the law changed—thank you to my colleague on my left, Louisa Wall. In my 40s, I hope to oversee the banning of conversion therapy and I hope for considerably better conditions for rainbow couples wanting to embark on parenthood. I look forward to being part of that change. 
He takatāpui e tēnei, e tautoko ana i tēnei piri. Kia ora. 
[I am takatāpui, and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.]





LOUISA WALL (Labour): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa, whakamanatia ngā takatāpui [To the Speaker of the House, greetings to all, acknowledge all gay people,], or, as Rawiri would say, I'm proud to be takatāpui. 
I have some evidence from the United States about how damaging conversion therapy, conversion practices, are. Of the young people who experienced conversion therapy and who attempted suicide in 2020, 28 percent of the young people who went through conversion therapy experienced suicide. No experience of conversion therapy: 12 percent. So it's harmful. I want us to be really clear about what conversion therapy is. Conversion therapy was started in 1899 by a German psychiatrist. I won't go into his name, but, essentially, the proposition at that time was that being gay was a disease and it must be cured. What they did—or what he purported to do—was turn gays straight by hypnosis and also trips to the brothel. Why? Because at that time we were seen as sinful, as deviant, as criminals. So, obviously, that religious overlay in our lives, without clear scientific evidence, was the prevailing doctrine, which is why it was called a therapy. In the 1920s they actually performed testicle transplants, to remove testicles from gay men and give them—
Terisa Ngobi: That's torture.
LOUISA WALL: It is torture—absolutely. The majority of clinicians said being gay was a disease so we could experience electroconvulsive therapy, lobotomies, shock treatment, porn and brothels, and, latterly, it became aversion therapy, where homosexual men had to watch porn and the shock therapy was through their penises—because, obviously, if you were disgusted by homosexuality, then you would be cured and you would lead a normal life. In 1973, this all changed when the American Psychiatric Association deemed that conversion practices were harmful and that there was no scientific evidence that they worked.
 So the reality of today is that these practices are still happening, except that they happen in camps, Christian camps. They happen through prayer vigils. They happen through talk therapy. They happen through exorcisms. And for women, they include corrective rape. That is what conversion therapy is, which is why we want to ban it. It's abhorrent. It's disgusting. It's a relic of a historical positioning about LGBTIQ+ peoples somehow being wrong. We are not wrong. We are born exactly as we're meant to be, and we deserve the protection of the State.
What conversion therapy is not—and I want to reference the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. They have a position statement on sexual orientation change efforts. They do "not support the use sexual orientation change efforts of any kind. There is no scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Sexual orientation change efforts risk causing significant harm to individuals." What they're really clear about, however, is that sexual orientation change efforts do not refer to those undergoing gender affirmation therapy or management. 
And herein lies the relevance to clause 5(2)(b) of this piece of legislation, which says that conversion practice does not include assisting an individual who is undergoing or considering undergoing a gender transition. So people who are worried about parents being criminalised because they stop their children from receiving hormones that are prescribed by a clinician—get real. It's not a real conversation, it's misinformation, and trying to create in the public panic that parents are going to be criminalised. I think it's an absolutely abhorrent position for anybody to take on this piece of legislation. At the heart of this is our children and them knowing that they are perfect as they are, that they are loved, and that we as a society will value them and not let any harm happen to them in their exploration and their expression of who they are. I seriously say to the National Party, you are on the wrong side of history. [Interruption] 
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! This is a split call. [Interruption] Order! Please, can I just say to the people in the gallery that this is a debate for members in the Chamber, and we have members waiting to seek their call. You know, I can understand a little bit of applause, but it's going on too long. You might have that opportunity at the end. 





CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill. National speakers have already stated, I think, pretty clearly that we support the core, original intent of the bill—namely, that practices that are unwanted or coercive in their nature and, particularly, with an element of physicality are not practices that we support. Therefore, in terms of the bill, if the issues that we've raised so far—and which I just want to detail a bit further in this contribution—can be addressed, then we'll be pleased to be in a position where we'll be able to support the bill. 
That National position relates to a couple of key points, one of which is in relation to the role of parents, or whānau more generally. Of course, it's important to acknowledge different family arrangements that are possible and that indeed do prevail in Aotearoa New Zealand in 2021. 
So in the BORA vet—the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act advice to the Attorney-General—as tabled along with the bill, does note the fact that there is a possibility of a, or rather—or I may as well quote directly: "a potential chilling effect on legitimate expressions of opinion within families/whānau about sexuality and gender,". I think it's probably fair if I do acknowledge that that is under the heading in the view of the officials who have provided the advice of justified limitation, and they do believe that there is a measure of consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act for a few key reasons. I would potentially disagree with at least one of those, but in the time available to me I'll not dwell on that aspect. But I think it's a fair point that the chilling effect is to be considered seriously alongside what is in the bill and what might be subject to interpretation by some members of the House differently from others and by, for example, individual police constables and so on who might be asked to give a view in any individual case. 
The other one is in relation to the fact that it's not possible to consent to things that might be considered within the definition of practices. Clause 10 of the bill is very clear in that regard. It says that the offences specified in clauses 8 and 9 do not enjoy a defence, even if the individual who was receiving those practices consented to them. Obviously, the concept of consent is pretty complex under the law, and I do acknowledge that consent that is seemingly given but is subject to coercion or undue influence is not real consent in itself. So, again, we do acknowledge the complexity of this. Not only is it a theoretical matter in a matter of law but, of course, on the ground in a person's home, for example, and in many other contexts, for that matter. 
So with those points having been made, and noting as well the point also made under the heading of "Freedom of expression" under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet—again, in the document to which I've previously referred—the document notes the potential for the broad definition of a practice to extend further beyond what they currently consider on their interpretation to be within the realm of justified limitation. I think these are matters that can and should be examined at the select committee process, and, of course, much has been said in this House about the fact that different parties in this Parliament will have the opportunity to state their views in that process. But I think, more importantly, people throughout New Zealand who have been affected in different ways and who will have different views, inevitably, on the legislation will have their opportunity at that point. So that debate is to be welcomed, it's not to be shied away from, and I think that all members of Parliament should feel obliged to listen carefully to those comments and evidence that the select committee will hear. 
My final comment before the end of the allocated time is just in relation to the rule of law more generally. Of course, it's an aspect of our legal arrangements—and particularly where criminal justice is concerned; particularly where we are saying that a person must act in a certain way or not act in a certain way under pain of imprisonment by the State—that it should be as clear as possible. That's an aspect of the bargain that's struck between the State and the citizen whereby the citizen has to comply with laws, but the State's obliged to state clearly what they are. It seems to me that there is a considerable uncertainty in some of these aspects, and I think, with all due respect, we're seeing that from the Minister of Justice when asked about key aspects in relation to the bill. So we look forward to gaining clarity—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired. 





RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tatou e te Whare. I'm going to be on the right side of history in this debate, and I will not wait for a valedictory speech to apologise to the rest of New Zealand. It is probably not often that politicians get up and admit, in this House, and freely, that there is stuff they don't know, but I'm going to do that today. I have a lot to learn from our takatāpui community as a straight man. Their experience is not my experience; it would be wrong to pretend that it is. What I do know and have always known is that takatāpui are whānau. End of story. No ifs, no buts, no maybes. I'm on a journey to deepen my understanding so I can support all of our whānau as a political representative of tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti in this place. Our people always celebrated our diversity as Te Ao Māori. We each come with our own whakapapa, our own upbringings, and our own identities, but at the end of the day we are all whānau.
It was colonisation and the imposition of European ideas around gender and sexuality that started criminalising and oppressing people for being who they are; turning us against our own whānau. My language tells me this. Our language is non-binary. Ko ia, ko koe, ko au, ko koutou, ko mātou, ko tātou. We need to decolonise ourselves, and maybe we should put some kind of therapy law to start decolonising ourselves and reaffirm the tikanga of our tipuna.
Conversion therapy is a direct attack on our whakapapa. It fails to uphold our mana motuhake, to be who we are, and does not meet our aspirations of mana orite—equality for all people. We will always support whānau to be who they are. Conversion therapy, which tries to stop takatāpui from being who they are, has no place in Aotearoa—maybe in New Zealand, but not Aotearoa!
Te Paati Māori wholeheartedly support and welcome this much-needed, overdue bill. In our 2020 election campaign, we committed in our policy manifesto to ban conversion therapy. We are the movement that leaves no one behind. But just as I recognise that I need to learn more, so does our party. We humbly ask our takatāpui whānau and kaitautoko to support us on this journey.
I want to acknowledge the Government for bringing forward this bill, but, more importantly, the leaders, advocates, and allies of the takatāpui community who have pushed for so long to see legislation of this kind before the House. Today is your day. Ka nui te mihi ki a koutou e hika mā.
[I acknowledge you all very much.]
I strongly believe that banning conversion therapy is a necessary step to addressing the larger issue of the dire state of our mental health system in Aotearoa. We know that young Māori takatāpui are one of the most at-risk groups of mental illness, self-harm, and suicide. Many of our mental health services are rooted in harmful colonial values that hurt our people, especially our takatāpui whānau. We oppose all of these backward colonial practices and ideas and laws and practices which cause our whānau to feel shame and guilt for being who they are.
We are looking forward to consideration of this bill at select committee, and I encourage our takatāpui community to make submissions and ensure your voices are heard in the process. It is important that we make sure the wording of the legislation is right and that provisions are strong enough to keep our people safe. The successful passage of this bill through the House will put us one step closer to an Aotearoa hō where all of us—tangata whenua, tanga Tiriti, and tangata moana—feel empowered and liberated to be who we truly are.
As a minister of Te Ringatū church, I leave you with these three lines: he hōnore, he korōria ki te Atua. He maungārongo ki te whenua. He whakaaro pai ki ngā tāngata katoa. Honour and glory to God, peace on earth, and goodwill to all mankind. Kia ora tatou.





GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Grandmother God, Creator of all things; the lover of seekers and dreamers, of the disaffected and the disillusioned, of the worn-out, burnt-out, washed-up; lover of the rejected, the leavers and the grievers; lover of the queens and the divas, of the transgender, gays, and lesbians, of the intersex, cis, non-binary, and of our fabulous rainbow community. In our moments of marginalisation, isolation, and bigotry grant us the ability to act boldly along the road to human liberation. Our gender, sexual orientation, and faith beliefs do not define us. May our roads be one of freedom. Christ is freedom. May we know wholeness, know our bodies, and know you. Ake, ake, ake, Āmine. 
I rise this afternoon as someone who is from the church and as someone who is from the rainbow community, and there have been moments in my upbringing, in my life, where I felt rejected from both of them. But today I stand here feeling affirmed, knowing I have a faith community behind me that loves, affirms, and supports me. Kia ora. 
Now, for many of us listening, for many of us here today, we're not talking about theory. We're not talking about legislation. We're not talking about an issue. I am not an issue. I am not an issue; I'm fabulous. I want to thank our Labour Party and our Government on delivering on this manifesto promise. I want to thank our Minister Faafoi. I want to thank Marja Lubeck and the work you've done. I want to thank our transgender and intersex whānau who often feel left out of these conversations. Thank you for being patient with us cis, gay males. And I want to thank all those who have gone before us, both living and passed on. 
In my lifetime, a lot has happened. My two-year-old self, back in 1977, was when, finally, the World Health Organization chose to declassify homosexuality and take it out of the international classification of diseases. I was two. In that same period here in New Zealand, my issue was seen as a mild form of schizophrenia. My nine-year-old self saw homosexual law reform pass in this House, in this place, and I was part of a church that was not affirming at that time. And I thank the member of ACT for talking about the Salvation Army, who came out last week in support of this piece of legislation, which makes me so proud. My 18-year-old self—yeah, you're figuring out how old I am now, I'm sure—back in 1993 was when the discrimination of sexual and gender expression was banned, and then my 29-year-old self in 2004 saw in this House civil unions passed. Then my 37-year-old self, back in 2013, saw—thank you Louisa Wall—marriage equality pass in this House. 
I am so disappointed today to hear that the Hon Simon Bridges and the Hon Louise Upston, who both voted against marriage equality, standing up here telling me that I'm still an issue and I'm still a problem. Where are the liberals from the National Party? Where is the support from the National Party? Where is the leader of the National Party who said, I might add, that she opposes conversion therapy? I'm a parent and I have to say to my son, and I hope other parents would also say this, "Just be who you are." That's unconditional love, not trying to convert your child to anything else, the Hon Judith Collins.
Then in 2017, my 41-year-old self saw the Government apologise to men who have been convicted from past acts of homosexual offending. And then in February 2021, this year, my 45-year-old self got married in this place. This place is a place and has been a place of oppression. I said this in my maiden speech. But this place also is a place of liberation and I feel liberated to be part of this Parliament, of this Government, who makes transformational change for the sake of freedom and faith. 
Now, for me, I'm fortunate. I didn't get too pressured into having conversion therapy when I was growing up in the church. I remember being scared and afraid. I remember going to a few healing services. I remember having hands laid on me, someone trying to force me to the ground as I was released from my evilness. But I wasn't, because there was nothing to release from me. And the psalmist says that I was fearfully and wonderfully made—I was fearfully and wonderfully made. 
Now, today we are talking about this piece of legislation that is around protection. It's to make sure that people are kept safe and the unhealthy practices don't occur in our nation anymore. This bill is about freedom, something that I know well. Growing up in the church, I learnt that the truth will set me free. And I thank my God and my faith that I've been set free and am able to be the man that I am today with the husband that I have. 
Now, conversion practices do emotional harm, they do physical harm, they do social harm, and, as the member of the Green Party and also Te Paati Māori said, they do spiritual harm. As a Christian, it grieves me to see the harm and the hurt that my faith has caused for centuries and centuries. And I experienced that. I felt like I was broken. I felt like I needed to be fixed. I heard words like "abomination"—I am an abomination, a thing that causes disgust and loathing. I am not an abomination. My God does not believe that I am an abomination. He loves me just the way I am. And I'm grateful that I found my faith, my true faith—that is loved and knows that he's beautifully and wonderfully made. I also want to say thank you to the Salvation Army for coming out strongly in support of this piece of legislation. 
Like I said earlier, as a nine year old, my church led a petition to stop the passing of homosexual law reform, a church that aligned themselves with MPs from this House who told my whānau, who told us to "go back to the gutters, to go back to the sewers where you belong." And I'm grateful today that I am connected to a church that came out last week and said this: "Christians are called to be like God and therefore to be living examples of his love in action in this world. Conversion practices, which have been shown to be both ineffective and deeply harmful, are the antithesis of this." And then it goes on to say, "We are told [in the Scriptures] to 'Accept one another … just as Christ accepted [us] … and to be 'sympathetic, love one another, [to] be compassionate, [to be] humble' " That is what my God says and I am proud to follow them. 
In closing, I'm going to do a repeat of what was just said at the end of the last speech. I come from Taranaki and Parihaka is a place that's special to me, and this makes complete sense because it talks about glory to God above. It talks about peace on Earth, which is not just amongst the land, it's amongst the people. It's amongst your own self. And it talks about goodwill to all people—goodwill to all people—caring for our whānau, caring for those you don't understand, caring for those who are different to us. So, in closing, I will also close with those words: "He Hōnore, he kōroria ki te Atua. He maungārongo ki te whenua. He whakaaro pai ki ngā tāngata katoa. Āmine."





BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Mr Speaker. There has been a lot of tension in the House this afternoon in people speaking to the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill. That is understandable because there is no place for violent and abusive conversion therapy practices in New Zealand, and I want to say from the outset of my speech that no one in the National Party believes that there is a place for violent and abusive conversion therapy practices in New Zealand. We support the core intent of this bill.
Now, just in terms of legislation—and I know there's a lot of participation from the public in here today—we came to Parliament, all of us, to make better legislation. Legislation goes through three readings and a submissions process, and it goes through the committee of the whole House, and the whole intention of that is to make better legislation. Rawiri Waititi said just a few minutes ago that we want to ensure the wording is right. That is why we are standing here today saying that we do not support conversion therapy but we're not in a place yet where we can support this piece of legislation. We want to. We want you to help us. I know there have been lots of people on the opposite side of the House today who have genuinely been shaking their head and saying it's not going to affect parents. We've got some advice here which says interactions within a family would also be captured if they meet the definition of conversion practices. 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. This would align with other existing regulatory controls of parental behaviour that could harm children.
Now, there is a lot of wording in this bill that is quite vague. The language is very vague, and so it's hard to understand exactly what is considered conversion practices under the law. In this bill, our primary concern is that this bill exposes parents to prosecution. So if there are people over on the other side of the House who truly believe that there is absolutely zero risk of that, good luck to you, but we want to be sure, we want to sit down, and we want to have the conversation. We want to hear the submissions on this, because one piece of precedent under law—if there was one piece of law that set a precedent around this stuff, then we've got a problem on our hands. Is it too much to ask that we sit down at select committee and we have an adult discussion around this conversation? The history of conversion therapy practices is abhorrent. We want it gone; we just want to make sure that in the process of finding ourselves in a place where we could move to support this bill—and I'm telling you today, and other members of our caucus have told you, we want to support this bill. We just want to make sure that we have the best piece of legislation that is possible to be able to support this bill.
The thing is, in this bill, there is a real conflation around the language that is very vague, talking about sexual orientation and gender identity expression, and it's confused things. So sexual orientation requires no medical intervention, whereas when it comes to gender identity expression, parents are naturally concerned about being able to make decisions about their children being given puberty blockers and hormones. We want to make sure that the public of New Zealand has the ability to understand the conversations that can and can't be had around these things, and we want to be able to separate that from what is historically known or has been bad practice of the past.
I saw Dr Elizabeth Kerekere up before with a book, which I haven't seen before, and I would really love to have a copy of that book, as I'm sure many members of our party would, because it sounded to me like there was a lot of good wording in that book and good methods to be able to understand how whānau and family can deal with situations like this. And I'm hoping that, going forward, family and whānau will be a lot more accepting of this than what they have been in the past, because certainly I don't want people ending up feeling like Glen Bennett—and look, we're both from Taranaki. I don't want people to feel in the future like they're an issue, as Glen Bennett did. Everyone's got the right to be who they want to be; there is no argument around that. We support LGBTI people. We condemn those who are intolerant. We do not want to be intolerant. But what we want is we want to make sure that we have got a watertight piece of legislation. This is not—for the Government, I'm sure you all know this is a first reading. This is not a third reading—[Interruption]
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Sorry to interrupt the member. Sorry, I'm going to warn the members on the Government side that that's a barrage of interjections, which is out of order—OK. That's just way too much.
BARBARA KURIGER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. So all we're asking for is the Government members to engage at select committee with public submissions to ensure that you allay our fears around the whānau. I can see Dr Elizabeth Kerekere nodding. I really do want to have a look at that, and I know other members in our party will do. We want to be absolutely sure when we support this piece of legislation that all our concerns and fears around parents and families have been allayed—that is all we are asking for. The reason, I believe, that part of the barrage over on the other side of the House today has been happening is because we've heard all sorts of things about how we're not supportive of this. We are absolutely supportive of this—
Louisa Wall: Well, then you have to vote for it.
BARBARA KURIGER: No, we are not voting for it today. We are being cautious and we are preserving our rights as members of Parliament to completely understand that when we make a decision, we're making the right decision.
And it may be only a matter of changing a clause in the bill that will satisfy us that we are not going to create any further harm by having families caught up in something that we're not sure that they won't be caught up in. So we're just asking the Government—and look, we've got that opportunity for select committee. You might not be willing to give us a bit of leeway today, but we do know that we've got the select committee process coming up, and we will be looking for you to reassure us around that clause in the bill that we believe at the moment could have the potential to implicate parents. We're asking to just make this piece of legislation more foolproof than what it has been, and if you can do that, we'll certainly be going back, because we all want to support this piece of legislation. And it's not too much to ask that you convince us that this piece of legislation that we're very concerned about—just this one little piece in the legislation. 
And if you can do that, we will have no problem. We would support it, we want to support it, and we're just giving the Government the opportunity to make one clause better. And after all these years, for a bit of certainty, to make one clause better is, in our view, not asking for a whole lot. So we look forward to the select committee process so we can help make this a better piece of legislation. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Te Māngai o te Whare tēnā koe, ki runga, e mihi ana ki a koutou i tēnei rā, mō tō manaakitanga mō tō tautoko mō te kaupapa nei, tēnā rawa atu ki a koutou. He mihi aroha, nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou tēnā tātou katoa. Nāku te rourou nāu te rourou ka ora ai te iwi.
[To the Speaker of the House, and everyone above, greetings to you all today, for your generosity and support for this matter, thank you all, with all my love, thank you all. With my food basket and your food basket the people will thrive.]
With my food basket and your food basket, and even your food baskets [Directs speech towards the National Party benches], our iwi will thrive.
As the chair of our Labour rainbow caucus, it's my pleasure to take a call on this bill; a vital bill and an important bill and piece of legislation for our rainbow whānau, our LGBTIQ+ plus plus whānau, the takatāpui whānau and their communities, parents, and families. Today we see you, we hear you, and here we are together. I see this legislation as another step to building a progressive and inclusive Aotearoa New Zealand and Labour has always, always stood with our rainbow communities: in 1986, homosexual law reform; 2001, inclusion in the property relations Act; 2004, civil unions; 2012, equal marriage; 2018, expunging historical homosexual convictions. In this term of Government, we established the rainbow legacy fund to support organisations working to improve mental health and wellbeing of our rainbow communities, we increased access to gender affirming genital surgery, we increased funding for HIV and sexually transmitted infection prevention services and research. And Labour is relentlessly proud of our rainbow communities and their whānau.
I want to thank the Minister of Justice, the Hon Kris Faafoi, for getting this bill into the House so quickly after the general election only last year, and for working with our rainbow caucus and committees to finalise its provisions that are before us today. I also want to acknowledge the MPs from all sides of the House that have supported making lives better and more equal for our communities and their whānau. I would particularly like to acknowledge, also, other MPs in history that have made a contribution: the Hon Katherine O'Regan for her amendments to the Human Rights Act in 1993 to prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or disease status; the Hon James Shaw for his work in the last Parliament, which will see sexual orientation and gender identity questions in the next census; and, of course, my colleague and friend Marja Lubeck, who received this petition from Young Labour and Young Greens, which led to her member's bill, which is the pre-curser to the bill we have in front of us today. I mihi also to my takatāpui sister and whanaunga, Dr Elizabeth Kerekere, and my brother across the House, Rawiri Waititi, for their strong advocacy and support on this issue today.
This, indeed, is a part of our whakapapa and the story that I have just shared is whakapapa. And today it is in the spirit of kotahitanga that I believe our Parliament should approach this bill and move forward. One's sexuality or one's gender identity or gender expression is not a political issue, it is an issue of humanity. Members from all parties represented in this House have members of their whānau or someone else they love who belong to our rainbow communities. Our loved ones are looking to us all to collectively work together to prevent these harmful practices and give the dignity to unapologetically be who they are. 
So I have to say that today I am hugely disappointed with the National Party for not supporting this bill even through to a select committee process where we can iron out any issues that they face. If we cannot be united as a Parliament to at least debate these issues and work through them for the betterment of our rainbow communities, we must question why we are here. Your decision today only creates division, and when division is created it puts our most marginalised people at the centre, and the backlash will take place again. By not supporting this bill, even to its first reading, it is a support to continue the practice of conversion therapy as status quo, and it is shameful. 
Now, we all know that despite all of the years of progress that we have made in Aotearoa in the past 35 years since law reform, many in our rainbow communities still find it difficult to come out and live their authentic lives. The 2021 Youthline health and wellbeing survey of 36,000 students led out of Auckland University and Victoria University of Wellington reported that just over half—53 percent—of same-sex or multiple-sex - attracted students reported significant depressive symptoms. Half said that they had self-harmed in the past year. More than one in 10 had attempted suicide. Only 42 percent of rainbow rangitahi Māori report good wellbeing. More than half report symptoms of depression, and close to half report serious thoughts of suicide in the last year. Just over half—52 percent—of Pasifika rainbow young people report good wellbeing. Close to half report clinically significant symptoms of depression and over 40 percent report serious thoughts of suicide in the last year. 
We hear you today and we see you, and these challenges are much higher than those recorded by non-rainbow young people. We have to act to protect our young people from the further harm that subjecting them to bogus conversion practices would cause, and let us be in no doubt that our rainbow communities are being targeted by these harmful practices—yes, even still today. 
The 2019 Counting Ourselves Aotearoa New Zealand trans and non-binary health survey of more than 1,000 people found this: more than one in six, or 17 percent, reported that they had experienced conversion therapy—17 percent—and the same proportion said that a professional had tried to stop them from being trans or non-binary. A further 12 percent were not sure if this had happened to them. They questioned it. Participants reported a much higher rate of high or very high psychological distress than the rest of the population, and very high rates of suicidal thoughts and attempts of suicide. 
It is time for us to act and put a stop to these destructive practices, which can include aversion therapy, where subjects are physically punished or forced to take cold showers if they become aroused by same-sex erotic images or thoughts; psychoanalysis; talk therapy, where subjects are repeatedly told their sexual orientation or gender expression is a mental illness that can be healed—and, evidentially, it cannot. These practices have no science, evidence, or medicine. Our rainbow communities do not need or want to be healed. We want to be respected, we want to be valued, and, most of all, we want to be loved for the people that we are. 
I accept that some people hold a different view to me and may not support this bill even through the first reading. I hope that in time, all New Zealanders of Aotearoa will come to an acceptance of each other and not opt for the status quo. But this bill will not stop New Zealanders from expressing their opinions. The right to free speech is not impinged upon by this legislation. 
As I wrap up, I acknowledge RainbowYOUTH, OUTLine, my friend Shaneel Lal and the Conversion Therapy Action Group, Young Labour, Young Greens, Young Nationals, InsideOUT, Silent Gays, and the many, many people that have come to support our first reading today. 
Today, we kick off our journey to ban conversion practice. It is time we see each other. We want to be loved. Today, we start the journey, and I commend this bill to the House. 





DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I put the question, can I explain to the members of the public that there are two motions that have to be passed. If the first one passes, the Clerk will read the bill, and then there's a second one. If you can hold the applause until after the second one, that would be great.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 87
New Zealand Labour 65; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 33
New Zealand National 33.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.
Ayes 87
New Zealand Labour 65; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 33
New Zealand National 33.
Motion agreed to.
Bill referred to the Justice Committee.





DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, as we have come to a time past 16.55, I declare that the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 10 August 2021. Tēnā rā tātou.
The House adjourned at 4.55 p.m.