| WHAT DID THE SELECT COMMITTEE SAY…
Here’s some of the key disturbing statements in the report:
 The definition of conversion practice does not explicitly state whether it would cover both one-off and cumulative practices. We believe that the definition should cover both, as harm can be caused by one-off acts as well as by cumulative practices.”
This has expanded the possibility of a parent or youthworker or pastor being caught. A simple one-off discussion could be caught – as could a weekly bible study on sex and gender.
We believe examples would be useful to provide further context for behaviours that could be captured by the definition. Therefore, we recommend amending clause 5 to include examples of what constitutes a conversion practice…. Examples would include:
– encouraging an individual to believe that their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression needs changing because it is a defect or disorder
– carrying out a prayer-based practice, a deliverance practice, or an exorcism intending to change or suppress an individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.
So prayer is specifically included as a ‘conversion’ practice – even when requested by the person. The Ministry of Justice advice to the Government in its Regulatory Impact Statement already admitted that Prayer and counselling will be caught under the law. The ban would be useless if they didn’t include prayer (they explicitly state this!)
The other concern is that the Committee is admitting that the definition is not clear and needs further clarification – something that thousands of submitters told them.
Clause 5(2)(f) would exclude expressing a religious principle or belief from what is captured under the definition of a conversion practice. However, it would need to be expressed without the intention to change or suppress the sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression of the individual it is being expressed to.
 The problem is that the opinion by Grant Illingworth QC warns that parental guidance and counselling could potentially be caught if expressed in words or conduct, that conversion “practice” could readily include teaching, counselling and praying for someone, and that there is a risk of serious disruption within religious communities including Muslim and Christian faiths which will be significant and substantial, will have a ‘chilling effect’ on freedom of expression concerning gender issues, and will fail in its stated purpose of promoting respectful and open discussions regarding sexuality and gender.
We disagree that gender-affirming care or supporting a gender transition could be classified as conversion practices.
How convenient. But it is the key point to note. If this bill is passed, conversion therapy will still be legal. As long as you’re converting someone to homosexuality or to be transgender, that will still be supported and endorsed by the state. As long as you are going in the direction dictated by the activists, everything is cool – and legal.
…some submitters were concerned that parents and whānau could be criminalised for having these conversations. Many submitters also recommended that an exemption should be included for religious groups. We consider that many of these conversations would not meet the criteria for what the bill defines as a “conversion practice” or would be excluded by clauses 5(2)(b) to (f). Accordingly, we do not believe that any additional exemptions are needed or appropriate to meet the purpose of the bill…. We consider that conversations between parents and children would not be criminalised under the offence in clause 8. We believe that the standard for a behaviour to be considered a conversion practice in the bill is appropriately high.
The Select Committee members are completely wrong and are peddling misinformation. FOUR legal opinions written by a leading New Zealand QC, a leading Australian family law expert, the government’s own Ministry of Justice, and Crown Law completely disagree with this assertion. But hey – these politicians know better eh. We saw that during the Select Committee process!
Some submitters who oppose clause 10 said that it would breach a parent’s right to make decisions on behalf of their children. Others in opposition were concerned that clause 10 would interfere with a person’s ability to seek or impart counselling. They argued that removing consent as a defence would breach rights and freedoms guaranteed by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA)… We do not consider that clause 10 would place an unjustified limit on the rights and freedoms in NZBORA. We note that Crown Law provided advice to the Attorney-General that the bill is consistent with NZBORA.
Yes, but Crown Law advice to the Attorney-General also stated
* “There is no doubt that as expressed the prohibition will extend to activities and communications that occur within families and within religious groupings.”
* “the broad definition of those practices creates the risk that it could extend further, to the exchange of thoughts or opinions about sexuality and gender that occur within the family/whānau or religious groups that do warrant protection and where the limitation could not easily be justified.”
* “The Bill of Rights Act protects both the right to have religious or conscientious beliefs (s 13) and the manifestation of those beliefs (s 15)… It is possible that the conversion practice itself is properly to be seen as a manifestation of the religious belief just described.”
* “there is a potential chilling effect on legitimate expressions of opinion within families/whānau about sexuality and gender” |
Sadly, National have 
