Carrying out a “conversion practice” is a crime if it causes serious harm. Carrying out a conversion practice on someone under 18 years old is a crime even if they didn’t experience any harm at all. In both cases, consent is not a defence.
It is also unlawful under civil law to perform or arrange a conversion practice.
A conversion practice is a “practice, sustained effort, or treatment” that is “directed towards an individual” and intended to change or suppress their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.1
Why were conversion practices banned?
The Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Act 2022 was designed to “recognise and prevent harm caused by conversion practices” and to “promote respectful and open discussions regarding sexuality and gender.”2
Introducing the bill to Parliament, the Minister of Justice at the time said:3
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. ...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. … this is such an important piece of legislation for the LGBTIQ community ….
In response, concerns were raised about the potential for the bill to criminalise parents’ conversations with their children, and to unjustifiably limit religious freedom.
The bill was nevertheless passed into law in 2022.
What is a conversion practice?
A conversion practice can be a one-off behaviour or a cumulative series of actions over a period of time.4 It must be “directed towards an individual” and intended to change that person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.
None of those terms are defined. In the Human Rights Act, “sexual orientation” means “a heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation”, which may be narrower than is intended in this Act.5 “Gender identity” may mean someone’s “deeply felt internal experience of gender” and their “internal sense of identity as male, female or another gender or genders”.6 “Gender expression” may mean “a person’s presentation of gender through physical appearance, mannerisms, speech, behavioural patterns and names”, which “may or may not conform with their gender identity.”7
The emphasis on intention is important, and in advice on the bill before it became law the Crown Law Office said that it would only ban “practices that are are intended to change or suppress rather than merely confront or reject”.8 However, this may be a difficult distinction to draw in practice—confronting or rejecting may effectively be (or be seen to be) an attempt to change or suppress—and there would likely be legal risks involved in that behaviour.
The Act gives some examples of conversion practices, which include:
- using shame or coercion intending to give an individual an aversion to same-sex attractions or to encourage gender-conforming behaviour:
- 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.
Another example appears in a recent Human Rights Commission report on “conversion ideology”, that is, beliefs said to lead to conversion practices. The Commission stated that “Catholic leaders recommend celibacy as the path for those with diverse sexualities. This is still, however, a form of suppression of Rainbow people and may, in some cases, constitute a conversion practice.”9
Exclusions from the definition of “conversion practice”
The Act provides, however, that a defined set of actions do not count as conversion practices.10
The first of these exclusions is for “any action that a health practitioner takes when providing a health service” if he or she believes that is appropriate applying “reasonable professional judgement” and “complies with all legal, professional, and ethical standards”.11
A health practitioner is someone registered with specified professional bodies such as a doctor or psychiatrist.12 Note that this does not include counsellors.
“Health services” are services provided to assess, improve, protect or manage someone’s physical or mental health.13 A health practitioner’s conduct will only qualify for the exclusion when they are providing such services, not when they are acting in a different context.
The reference to “legal, professional, and ethical standards” will include formal requirements and codes published by regulatory bodies. The select committee that considered the bill made it clear that “this clause is not intended to act as a blanket exemption for health practitioners to perform conversion practices.”14
The next four exclusions broadly relate to providing some sort of assistance or support to another person. That is, it is not a conversion practice when someone is:15
- assisting an individual who is undergoing, or considering undergoing, a gender transition; or
- assisting an individual to express their gender identity; or
- providing acceptance, support, or understanding of an individual; or
- facilitating an individual’s coping skills, development, or identity exploration, or facilitating social support for the individual;
These exclusions probably reflect the second of the Act’s stated purposes—to “promote respectful and open discussions”—and will most obviously apply where conversations are respectful rather than shame-based or coercive (as per the examples given by the Act). However, those examples also make it clear that merely being respectful and open will not be enough. A “prayer-based” practice may be open and respectful but, if it is intended to change or suppress someone’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, it will nonetheless be a conversion practice.
The final exclusion permits “the expression only of a belief or a religious principle made to an individual that is not intended to change or suppress the individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.”16
Again, this is probably meant to allow for open and respectful conversation, but any such conversation that nonetheless is meant to have a changing or suppressive effect is still a conversion practice.
Consequences for carrying out a conversion practice
It is a criminal offence to perform a conversion practice if it causes “serious harm” and the person performing the conversion practice knew that serious harm would result or was reckless about it. The offence is punishable by up to 5 years in prison.17
“Serious harm” is a crucial element of this offence. If no harm results, or if there is harm but it is not serious, no offence was committed. Equally, if the person performing the conversion practice did not know that serious harm would result, or was not reckless about that possibility, no offence was committed. Serious harm is defined as “any physical, psychological, or emotional harm that seriously affects the health, safety, or welfare of the individual” subjected to the conversion practice.18
However, if the person subjected to the conversion practice was under 18 or lacked decision-making capacity, it is an offence to perform a conversion practice on them even if no harm was caused. If the person carrying out the conversion practice knew or was reckless about whether the subject was under 18 or lacked capacity, they commit an offence punishable by up to 3 years in prison.19 These conversion practices are criminalised even when no harm results because the subjects are seen as particularly vulnerable due to their age or lack of capacity.20
Consent is not a defence to these offences; that is, it does not make any difference if the subject of the conversion practice agreed to it.21
There is, however, a safeguard in the law. Conversion practices can only be prosecuted if the Attorney-General consents to this.22 This is meant to ensure that “it is only the serious cases that will ever make their way to a court room”.23
But this safeguard does not apply to the civil law pathway which the Act also created. It is possible to complain to the Human Rights Commission that someone has performed a conversion practice or arranged for one to be performed.24 There is no requirement to show that serious harm, or any harm, was caused by the conversion practice to make a complaint, though presumably the Commission will take that into account when deciding how to respond.
Does the Act prohibit a “wait and see” approach?
A “wait and see” approach, also called “watchful waiting”, means allowing time for someone to develop and explore their identity without seeking to affirm, suppress or change it.25
The Act prohibits attempts to “change or suppress”, but it does not mandate an affirmative approach. Nicolette Levy KC has written that:26
The Act places no obligation on a health professional or counsellor to affirm a child or young person asserting a transgender identity. In the absence of such an obligation, an exploratory approach would seem to be in keeping with the stated purpose of the Act, and not prohibited by it.
Similarly, Crown Law considered that the exclusions were available for “genuine therapeutic interventions.”27
Therefore if a health practitioner, exercising reasonable professional judgement and complying with relevant professional standards, adopts an exploratory approach and, as a result, recommends a “wait and see” approach, this should not amount to a conversion practice.
The situation is less clear for others who are not health practitioners. However, it is not a conversion practice to, for example, help someone explore their identity, and exploration must logically include the possibility that that person concludes their gender identity aligns with their biological sex. Advising someone that a “wait and see” approach is one available option would be consistent with helping that person to explore their identity. Similarly, recommending a “wait and see” approach after careful and reasoned consideration of relevant factors is unlikely to be a conversion practice.28
Speaking in Parliament, Select Committee chair Ginny Andersen put it like this:29
The definition [of conversion practice] would not capture, for example, a parent not supporting their child to seek support for gender dysphoria, withholding consent for the administration of puberty blockers, or advising a wait-and-see approach to gender-affirming care. ... people who are struggling with their sexuality or gender should be able to receive the support they need, including that ability to explore their identity or to reconcile their faith and sexuality. However, rather than being supportive or exploratory, conversion practices are external attempts to achieve a predetermined outcome of changing or suppressing a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.
Does this affect what parents can say to their children?
There is no exemption for parental conversations. Andersen’s comments should be read as endorsing supportive or exploratory parental behaviours. It is clear from what she said and from the Act itself that parents can commit a conversion practice if their behaviour is intended to change or suppress the child’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. The Crown Law Office considered that there was “no doubt that as expressed the prohibition will extend to activities and communications that occur within families”.30
The key questions will be whether those parental behaviours meet the definition of a conversion practice and whether any of the exclusions are available.
Does this prevent speaking or preaching about these issues?
To count as a conversion practice, a behaviour must be directed to an individual. Speaking or preaching to a group in general terms would not be a conversion practice. Thus Crown Law advised that, “[s]tating a religious belief about sexuality or gender in the course of a sermon would not be criminalised”.31 However, a speaker or preacher should take care if they know that members of the group are questioning their sexuality or gender identity or expression. And if they are addressing a group but intending to target an individual in that group, they will commit a conversion practice.
Even if someone is speaking directly to an individual rather than a group, it is not a conversion practice if the speaker merely expresses “a belief or religious principle” to that person provided that it is not meant to change or suppress that person’s sexuality or gender identity or expression. If it is meant to change or suppress, the fact that the speaker is expressing their beliefs will not save them from committing a conversion practice.
Does the law apply in both directions, or does it only capture “non-affirming” behaviour?
The law is written neutrally, meaning it would apparently prohibit efforts to encourage someone to change their gender as well as efforts to persuade someone not to change.
However, some of the exclusions read most naturally as permissions to support someone to change their sexuality or gender identity or expression. For example, the Act says it is not a conversion practice to assist someone who is undergoing a gender transition or considering one, and it is also permissible to assist someone to express their gender identity.
The purpose of the Act is also relevant. It is meant to prevent “harm caused by conversion practices,” and multiple speeches in Parliament made it clear that this was meant to be for the benefit of the LGBTIQ or rainbow community.
It is therefore likely that someone attempting to dissuade another person from changing gender would have a harder time taking advantage of the exclusions than someone encouraging them to change their gender.
Conclusion
The key concept in the Act is “change or suppress”. Anything that is directed at another person and meant to change or suppress their sexuality or gender identity or expression will likely be a conversion practice. That kind of behaviour does not align well with the exclusions and examples available in the Act, and indeed is expressly ruled out in some of them.
Having said that, the Act is relatively new and has not been tested in court. As decisions are made, they may shed more light on the law’s practical effect.
This explainer offers general information only. It is not legal or other advice and should not be relied on as such. Examples are given only to illustrate the law and the issues. If you have questions or need assistance with a particular situation, we’d love to hear from you at contact@ethosalliance.nz.
Endnotes
1. Section 5 of the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Act 2022.
2. Section 3 of the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Act 2022.
3. Hon. Kris Faafoi, “Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill – First reading,” Hansard, New ZealandParliament, 5 August 2021, https://www3.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansD_20210805_20210805.
4. Report of the Justice Committee, “Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill”, 3.
5. Section 21(1)(m) of the Human Rights Act 1993.
6. New Zealand Law Commission, Ia Tangata: Protections in the Human Rights Act 1993 for people who are transgender, people who are non-binary and people with innate variations of sex characteristics (Wellington: NZLC R150, 2025), [2.6] and [7.48].
7. New Zealand Law Commission, Ia Tangata: Protections in the Human Rights Act 1993for people who are transgender, people who are non-binary and people with innate variations of sex characteristics, [7.67].
8. Crown Law, “BORA Vet: Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill,” 29 June 2021, [7].
9. Human Rights Commission, “Conversion Practices in Aotearoa New Zealand: Insights and recommendations from a human rights perspective” (2024), 35.
10. Section 5(2) of the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Act 2022.
11. Section 9(2)(a) of the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Act 2022.
12. Section 4 of the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Act 2022, referencing s5(1) of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003
13. Section 4 of the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Act 2022, referencing s5(1) of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003.
14. Report of the Justice Committee, “Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill”, 4.
15. Section 9(2)(b)-(e) of the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Act 2022.
16. Section 9(2)(f) of the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Act 2022.
17. Section 9 of the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Act 2022.
18. Section 4 of the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Act 2022.
19. Section 8 of the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Act 2022.
20. Crown Law, “BORA Vet: Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill,” [10].
21. Section 10 of the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Act 2022.
22. Section 12 of the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Act 2022.
23. Hon. Kris Faafoi, “Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill – First reading.”
24. Section 63A of the Human Rights Act 1993.
25. Gael Goulter and Alex Penk, Students and Social Transition: A gender identity guide for New Zealand schools (Auckland:Ethos Alliance, 2024), 3.
26. Nicolette Levy KC, “Genspect - Countering Hate Speech Aotearoa Complaints to RNZCPG and others”, Free Speech Union, 30 October 2023, https://www.fsu.nz/genspect_countering_hate_speech_aotearoa_complaints_to_rnzcgp_and_others.
27. Crown Law, “BORA Vet: Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill,” [3].
28. For discussion of a careful and reasoned “watchful waiting” process and relevant factors, see Gael Goulter and Alex Penk, Students and Social Transition: A gender identity guide for New Zealand schools, 6-7.
29. Ginny Anderson, “Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill – Second reading,” Hansard, New Zealand Parliament, 8 February 2022, https://www3.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansD_20220208_20220208.
30. Crown Law, “BORA Vet: Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill,” [3].
31. Crown Law, “BORA Vet: Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill,” [8].
