Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill

Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill First Reading JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) (19:58): I move, That the Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill be now read the first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill. New Zealand has led the world in women’s rights. We’ve been driven by a pioneering spirit that dates back to 1893, when Kate Sheppard led an historic movement granting women the right to vote. For over a century, women have fought for specific rights based on their biological sex. These were hard-won rights, and there have been many advances that have come since, but the fight is not over; the job is not yet done. Over recent years, a set of ideas often described as “gender identity” has moved rapidly from theory into practice. Progressive politics prioritise ideology over reality and identity over biology. If anyone can be a man or woman purely by declaration, then those words cease to have clear meaning, and when words lose meaning, the law that depends on them becomes unstable. This is not a trivial issue and should concern every member of this House. What it means to be a woman is under attack. The Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill will ensure clarity and consistency in New Zealand law by providing biologically grounded meanings for the terms “woman” and “man”. The bill will amend the Legislation Act 2019 by inserting two new sections—new section 13A defines “woman” as “an adult human biological female” and new section 13B defines “man” as “an adult human biological male”—and mandates that these definitions apply across all New Zealand legislation, regardless of gender identity, unless a specific Act explicitly states otherwise. The Legislation Act 2019 provides the default definitions for all New Zealand laws. By fixing these definitions there, we ensure legal certainty across the entire statute book, preventing conflicting or ideologically driven interpretations from creeping into different areas of the law. Legal certainty for biological women and biological men. To date, this has been a one-sided conversation, where one group of people have demanded their rights, but at the expense of another group’s rights. This debate we’re having today has resulted from the infringing on the rights of women. The proposition that seeking rights for a particular group while trampling on the rights of others invalidates one’s moral high ground—this is fundamental principle in ethics, political philosophy, and human rights law, often described as the need for a “balance of rights”. The balancing of competing rights is, essentially, the task of this House. That is why it is necessary for Parliament to balance the rights of women, because, unless we do so, there is no fair outcome for women. This amendment bill is a return to a common-sense approach to law-making that reflects the views of the quiet majority of New Zealanders. It upholds the common view that has existed for millennia about what men and women are. Since Adam and Eve, people have known what a woman and a man are and, even if you’re not a person of faith, people have known this since the dawn of time. New Zealanders should have confidence that their institutions and the very language of their laws reflect reality. Clarity in law is not a distraction. It is a prerequisite for a functioning society. Social cohesion is destroyed when a minority tries to use social engineering to redefine reality for the quiet majority. True cohesion comes from laws that make common sense and protect our communities. There is legal precedence for this if we look to the UK. A landmark ruling by the UK Supreme Court in April last year found that the term “woman” refers to “biological sex”. This ruling was a victory for the rights of women and girls. Most people already know this: biological sex matters. The UK’s unanimous ruling is confirmation. So let us be clear: there is no New Zealand exception to biological reality. Kiwi women, on the other side of the planet, could not be defined differently to a woman in the UK. To do so is an absurdity; that is legal nonsense—and crikey, someone needs to let the Aussies know. Our Parliament should be backing women all the way. New Zealand First has long been aware of the issues at stake and the dismay of those being told they must change their thinking and accept fringe ideas as being perfectly normal. Women have had a guts full of the gaslighting. It is misogyny in a modern form to cancel women when we speak up. It is misogyny in a modern form to deny our biological reality. Australia’s Federal Court sent shock waves around the world last Friday with its decision in the Tickle v Giggle case. The ruling found against the creator of a female-only app who had removed membership from a biological male. As the app’s creator, Sall Grover, says, “Men who claim to be women have more rights than actual women in Australia”. Misogyny much, across the Ditch? Now, they are scrambling, with urgent calls for the Australian Parliament to amend their law to include a definition of a man and a woman. Today, our Parliament has an opportunity to show our neighbours across the Tasman that New Zealand stands for the rights of women and girls to have safe, single-sex spaces and places by voting for this amendment bill—lest we become a laughing stock like Australia. While some critics tried to dismiss my member’s bill as unimportant, the pendulum is swinging back towards common sense. We’re seeing a growing realisation that ignoring biological reality has negative consequences for women’s safety and fair competition in sports. The National - New Zealand First coalition agreement is crystal clear that publicly funded sporting bodies support fair competition that is not compromised by rules relating to gender. We don’t accept that doping is fair in any sport, so why should female athletes be made to accept the unfair advantages that male athletes have over them? Fairness also means safety. The performance gap is predictable. Biological males competing in female sports have an advantage. The International Olympic Committee recognised this reality in March this year, now stating that the eligibility for any female category event at the Olympic Games is now limited to biological females. Biological reality, please take the podium. The protection of women and girls should not be controversial. Their rights to safety, dignity, privacy, and fairness are common sense. According to Speak Up For Women—and I quote—“When the law loses the ability to distinguish between sex and identity, it becomes almost impossible to maintain genuine female-only spaces, services and protections”. Their recent nationwide review of council-owned swimming pool facilities has revealed that only eight councils across New Zealand clearly provide female-only changing and showering facilities. Nearly nine out of 10 either do not or cannot clearly say that they do. Our councils are captured by ideology and don’t give a hoot about the privacy and dignity of women and girls. Words matter. The language we use in legislation matters. My colleague, the Hon Casey Costello, directed the Ministry of Health to use sex-specific language. This was necessary, because the ministry seems to have erased the word “women”. Perhaps it was the invisible ink they were using. It’s clear a woke contagion infected the health department, deleting the word “women” to be substituted with “pregnant people”, “people with a cervix”, “individuals capable of childbearing”, and “chest-feeders”. It defies absolute biological reality. What’s more, it is deeply insulting to women. Like all ideologies captured and constructed on a gobbledegook of pejorative phrases, they fly over the heads of ordinary people who are, frankly, tired of being told how they must think and feel. Without this amendment bill, it will leave the law open to ambiguous or ideologically driven interpretations which gives rise to the pompous speak of officialdom captured by ideology. There is a gap between what the law says and how it is being implemented. That gap has been filled not by Parliament but by guidance, advocacy, and institutional interpretation. That is not how laws should evolve. It is the role of this House to provide clarity. It surprises me, as it surprises many, that this bill is needed—and yet, this is what we’ve come to. The Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill will not take away the rights of anyone. It is not anti-anyone or anti-anything, and it is important to state this plainly. Protecting sex-based rights does not mean denying the rights of others to live free from harassment or discrimination; those protections already exist. So I ask, does this Parliament have the will to vote on the side of sex-based rights for women and girls—and for men and boys—to vote for reality and law? Will we end up like Australia and the shame that they now face, or like the UK, where it took their Supreme Court to tell their Parliament the most fundamental and obvious thing: that biological sex matters? My leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, declared a “war on woke”, and so I ask this Parliament to vote for reality in law. I’m hearing an echo ripple across the generations. I’m hearing the words of our suffragist forebearers: vote for women. Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for Women) (20:08): I rise to speak on the Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill. At the outset, I want to acknowledge that this is a sensitive and deeply personal issue for many New Zealanders. It raises questions of identity, fairness, and how we reflect those concepts in our law. It’s important that we approach this debate with care, with respect, and with a genuine willingness to listen to one another. This bill proposes inserting definitions into the Legislation Act 2019 defining “woman” as “an adult human biological female” and “man” as “an adult human biological male”. Supporters argue that doing so would provide clarity and consistency in law. They contend it would ensure the meaning of these terms is clear across legislation and that this clarity is necessary to protect what are described as “sex-based rights”. However, there are real and substantive concerns with this approach. The first is a practical one. New Zealand legislation has, over time, generally moved away from the use of gender-specific language. Most laws apply to all people regardless of sex or gender, and, therefore, do not rely on terms like “woman” or “man” in the first place. Where gender-specific language is used, it is typically for very targeted policy purposes, such as in relation to pregnancy or cervical screening, where it is necessary to deliver practical, real-world outcomes. In those contexts, precision already exists where it is required. That raises a very real question about whether inserting broad, sweeping definitions into the Legislation Act would have any meaningful effect, which brings me to the second concern—whether this bill would achieve anything of substance. Inserting these terms across legislation, it is far from clear that it would deliver the clarity that proponents suggest. In many cases, legislation already functions effectively without relying on these definitions at all. In other words, there is a risk that this bill would create complexity without delivering tangible benefit. But the most important point is this: I’m not convinced that this bill will advance the rights and opportunities or the wellbeing of women and girls in any way, shape, or form in New Zealand. As Minister for Women, my focus is firmly on the real challenges facing women today. That includes closing the gender pay gap so women are fairly recognised and rewarded in the workforce. It includes supporting more women into leadership across business, across rural sectors, and across public life. It includes addressing issues of safety—particularly family and sexual violence—which continues to disproportionately affect women. And it includes improving access to economic opportunities so that women and girls can thrive no matter where they live. These are the issues that make a material difference to women’s lives. This bill does not in any way contribute to those outcomes. It does not mean, however, that the issues it raises should be dismissed. As I’ve said, there are New Zealanders who feel strongly about the questions that this bill engages with, particularly around clarity in law and the assumption this will protect sex-based rights. Those views exist in our communities, and they deserve to be heard. Parliament has an important role in providing a forum for that discussion. For that reason, while I do have strong reservations about this bill, the National Party will support this bill to select committee. We do so to ensure that New Zealanders have the opportunity to have their say through a proper democratic process. The select committee stage is important. It will allow us to hear from a wide range of submitters, it will test assumptions underpinning the bill, and it will consider whether there are unintended consequences. Shanan Halbert: Dirty sell-out! Hon NICOLA GRIGG: I note Shanan Halbert has called me a dirty sell-out. I did make a very clear point that, for this bill to advance the rights of women and girls in this country, this conversation must be respectful, and you can do better than that, Shanan Halbert. The select committee will allow us to carefully assess whether the bill would, in practice, improve the operation of our laws or whether it would create more issues than it resolves. This is not a simple issue, and it is not one that should be reduced to slogans or simplified arguments. It requires careful thought, Shanan Halbert, a balanced approach, and a commitment to evidence. As we consider this bill, my focus and the Government’s focus remain clear. We are committed to advancing the rights and wellbeing of women and girls in New Zealand in ways that are practical, meaningful, and enduring. For now, the National Party is supporting this bill. We will listen to New Zealanders through the select committee process, we will consider the evidence with an open mind, and we will ultimately assess this bill against that test. I commend this bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Just before I call Vanushi Walters, I didn’t interfere on that comment, because I think the speaker handled it well, but I just wonder, in a sensitive topic like this, whether such emotive terminology and insulting terminology is really adding to the decorum of the House. VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (20:14): Thank you, Mr Speaker. There is a word for this bill, and it is “irresponsible”. I’m very disappointed that the National Party colleagues are supporting this through to select committee, because that is extremely irresponsible. The reason it is irresponsible is because it creates a platform for hate, and that is what we’re going to see in the select committee process. We firmly, firmly oppose this bill. We stand in support of the rights of the rainbow New Zealanders out there. We also stand in support of New Zealanders who would like this Government to be focused on addressing the cost of living, as opposed to supporting a bill that will take up the time of the House and that will encourage division. The bill confronts the development of human rights principles internationally and in New Zealand, it also ignores the medical reality for a number of New Zealanders, and it also ignores the progress that the House made last term in maturing our approach to human rights. In terms of the international framework, the UN has acknowledged that trans rights require protection. Here in New Zealand, we have a Solicitor-General legal opinion that says the Human Rights Act already covers gender identity; it is already there, and legislation that affects that could be in breach, therefore, of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Intersex Aotearoa points out that, in the 2023 census, approximately 15,000 people noted being born with a variation of their sex characteristics. This includes people who are XXY or who may have one gene rather than two. This is a medical reality for people that New Zealand First would just like to ignore. They’re alsoignoring the great progress this House made together last term when the changes to the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act were passed and the House, without New Zealand First present, recognised the right of self-identification. Now, for anyone interested in a responsible, well-researched, evidence-based assessment of the rights of transand non-binary and intersex New Zealanders in New Zealand, I would recommend that they do not read this bill but that they read the Law Commission report that was produced last year that set out a number of recommendations that were evidence based. The Government’s response to that well-researched piece of work was that there’s not enough time on the House’s agenda to be able to consider those well-researched recommendations.However, there is apparently time for the Government to support the House’s use of the time for this bill that will create division. Hon Members: It’s a members’ day. VANUSHI WALTERS: It’s a members’ day, but the National Party have decided to support it through to select committee, and that is absolutely appalling. I oppose this bill and all attempts by New Zealand First, whether in relation to race or in relation to gender identity, to seed division between New Zealanders. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) (20:18): I, along with so many millions of New Zealanders and so many billions of people around this world, am tired. We’re tired of Governments throwing minorities under the bus with one hand and syphoning all of our communities’ wealth up to corporations and slashing public services with the other. All that New Zealanders want is affordable groceries, affordable power bills, and affordable housing. They want clean drinking water; they want decent jobs and education; they want a functional healthcare system; they want emergency services that aren’t having to go on strike twice a week because the fire trucks meant to save lives are falling apart; they want to go on great walks in nature; and they want to spend time with their families and friends and do the things that they love. If this Government cared about women, they wouldn’t have surprised our 300,000 lowest-paid working women by cutting off their rights to pay equity days before last year’s Budget. If this Government cared about women, they would not be cutting funding to sexual violence prevention services, which are now being forced to close their doors. If this Government cared about women, they wouldn’t be forcing them into being financially dependent upon their partners when they lose paid employment. But I think that what we’re learning about this Government is that they don’t really care about anything other than carving up our country, our public assets, and our environment and selling them to the highest bidder. I don’t really know if, at the end of the day, they really actually care about, believe in, or stand for anything. Every day this Government shows us that they would not have stood against apartheid South Africa. They would not have been the Government that granted same-sex marriage. They, as Christopher Luxon frequently demonstrates, would not have stood up against the United States for a nuclear-free Pacific. Honestly, I don’t think, if we didn’t already have it, this would have been a Government that granted women the right to vote. This debate is a time warp back more than 100 years when men in power sought to define and suppress women to our physical parts alone. What is a woman? Whatever the hell she wants to be. New Zealanders have so, so much more in common with their fellow New Zealander—man, woman, trans, non-binary, intersex, all of the colours of the rainbow—than they do with the divisive politicians on that side of the House and the corporate overlords that they so diligently serve. We have seen, the world over, that communities and people can become divided when they are under immense financial pressure, stressed, and subjected to incessant, well-funded political messaging that paints a bogeyman of migrants and trans people. My message tonight is not for this cynical, bitterly disappointing one-term Government. My message is for New Zealanders: if something scares you about a group of people that you don’t really know or understand, I invite you to reach out and to try and understand. To my woke lefties, I invite you to put down your armour. If we are to rebuild this country into something that we can be proud of, we need to work together—that is, regular New Zealanders, side by side, for something bigger than any one of us could ever achieve alone. I am talking about real safety and security, the kind that comes from knowing that you belong and that other people in this country will fight for your basic rights in the same way that you will fight for theirs. That’s going to take a lot of deprogramming, but, really simply, it just means talking to each other and listening. We have so much in common. We need the same basic things. When the world feels really complicated, we can go back to the basics—not the esoteric basics that so many politicians seem to talk about; the basic basics, the things that everybody needs to live a baseline decent life: a home, an education, food, a job, transport, and energy. Those are the basic things that bring New Zealanders together, and that’s what the Green Party is here to fight for. Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (20:23): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill asks Parliament to affirm something that until very recently most New Zealanders never imagined would be controversial, that men and women are biologically different—not socially different, not stereotypically different, but biologically different. For many New Zealanders, the confusion is not about science; it is about why speaking plainly about basic reality has suddenly become treated as offensive. Most people understand instinctively that biological sex is real. It is observable at birth, and it matters in medicine, reproduction, sports, prisons, and spaces where privacy and safety are important. Yet, increasingly, people are being told that acknowledging these realities is somehow hateful or discriminatory. It is not hateful to observe reality. It is not hateful to believe women deserve fairness in sport, or that vulnerable women deserve sex-based protections. It’s not hateful for mothers to want language that recognises motherhood without being treated as exclusionary for using the word “woman”. What many New Zealanders are growing tired of is the pressure to pretend—to pretend biology is meaningless and doesn’t matter, to pretend words no longer have stable meaning, and to pretend that reality itself can bend to ideology. Free societies cannot function properly when people are afraid to say what they know to be true. History teaches us that progress comes through open debate, honest inquiry, and the freedom to question ideas without fear. Once society starts demanding that people deny the truths in public life, it creates something corrosive: fear of speaking honestly, fear of asking questions, fear of losing your job, fear of losing your reputation for expressing what, until recently, was considered entirely normal. Most New Zealanders are compassionate people. They want people who choose to identify the way they want to, to live a safe, dignified life free from harassment and abuse, and they should. Every person deserves dignity and respect, but respect cannot mean compelled agreement, and inclusion cannot mean removing rights, language, or protections of others. Rights sometimes come into conflict, and Parliament has a responsibility to navigate these conflicts honestly. Women fought for generations for sex-based protections and opportunities because biological differences matter. They matter in sport, where male puberty creates physical advantages that can’t be ignored. They matter in healthcare, where biological sex affects diagnosis and treatment. They matter in safeguarding vulnerable women and girls. If society cannot clearly define men and women, it will lose the ability to measure discrimination fairly at all. I hear concerns from many New Zealanders about the policing of language. People notice terms like “pregnant people” or “chest-feeding” replacing previously understood terminologies. They notice women being shouted down for raising concerns about their fairness or safety. They notice ordinary people self-censoring because they fear being labelled hateful. I think many New Zealanders are just simply saying, “Enough with pretending. Enough with punishing dissent. Enough with turning ordinary people into villains for believing what humanity has understood for thousands of years.” This debate should never become an excuse for cruelty. There are people struggling deeply with identity and belonging. There are children and young people trying to understand themselves in a world that is often confusing and unforgiving. They deserve compassion and support, but compassion cannot require society to abandon truth, and kindness cannot require silence from everyone else. A mature society should be capable of holding two ideas at once. People deserve respect and safety, and biological sex is real and matters. At the same time, I do not believe these deeply personal issues are helped by reducing them to slogans or culture war politics. Many New Zealanders are trying to navigate this issue in good faith. They want compassion for people who are different, but they also want fairness, privacy, and freedom to speak honestly without fear of cancellation. At its heart, this debate is not about hate; it is about whether ordinary people are still allowed to trust their own eyes, speak honestly, and defend sex-based rights without being shamed into silence. ACT believe they should be, and for those reasons, ACT will support this bill to select committee. ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (20:28): When I entered this House, I entered with my entire being, and that was, basically, as the first representative of Te Aho Matua. Te Aho Matua is the foundation of kura kaupapa Māori. As one of the first-generation graduates of Te Aho Matua, I need to explain—well, not explain but maybe educate the House on the philosophies and the ethos of kura kaupapa Māori, which is this: section one, “Te Ira Tangata”: “ahakoa iti, he iti māpihi pounamu. He kākano i ruia mai i Rangiātea, e kore ia e ngaro. Kia mārama rawa te hunga whakaako ki te āhua o te tangata, kātahi ka taea te hanga kaupapa whakaako mō te hunga tamariki. 1.1 Nō ngā rangi tūhāhā te wairua o te tangata. I tōna whakairatanga, ka hono te wairua me te tinana o te tangata. I tērā wā tonu, ka tau tōna mauri, tōna tapu, tōna wehi, tōna ihomatua, tōna hinengaro, tōna auahatanga, tōna ngākau, tōna pūmanawa. Nā ka tupu ngātahi te wairua me te tinana i roto i te kōpū o te whaea, ā whānau noa.” A simple translation: a human being is just that, a being descended from te wāhi ngaro, from Io, from Rangi-e-tū-nei, from Papa-e-takoto-nei, from our atua Māori. In te reo Māori, there is no differentiation of a man and woman. It is tangata. One of the most prominent proverbs that we hear generation after generation hails from the Far North by a kuia and it has been twisted in context, but it has become what is known as a very profound proverb—a whakataukī: “He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata” [“What is the most important thing in the world? It is people, it is people, it is people”]. It doesn’t say, nor define, a man or a woman. He wahine ahau—I am a woman. The architect of this bill does not speak for me, does not speak for Māori communities who safeguard our trans whānau, who are trans themselves. My very first kaiako in life, my very first teacher—[Interruption] Let me speak. My very first kaiako was a trans. At that time, at kōhanga reo—language nest—in 1983, my very first kaiako was given a chance by my grandparents—a man and a woman from Tūhoe. They took a chance on this person because this person was ostracised by their own whānau, who didn’t, couldn’t accept a trans member within their whānau rangatira. They came to Tāmaki-makau-rau searching for an opportunity. My grandparents gave them an opportunity to teach te reo Māori, tikanga. That’s where my reo comes from, that’s where my tuakiri—my identity—comes from. It comes from people who cared about us, who care about us still, and I care about them. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Talk about the bill. ORIINI KAIPARA: I will. I’ll talk about the people that this bill aims to discriminate continuously. This is not a fair conversation when it is not received with care and respect from the other side of this country, where Māori are tangata whenua and mātauranga Māori tuku iho [traditional Māori knowledge handed down] in this House of Representatives. I represent Māori. I represent te ao Māori in Tāmaki Makarau. This bill achieves almost nothing in practical legal terms but it risks causing enormous social harm to trans and takatāpui communities, the majority of whom live in my rohe. I represent the vast majority of Māori in all of Aotearoa—more than 200,000 reside in Tāmaki Makaurau. Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, you don’t. Don’t make us laugh. ORIINI KAIPARA: Check your facts—check your facts. The fact is this—with respect. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): You’re talking to me. ORIINI KAIPARA: I’m talking to you, Mr Speaker, and I implore this House to have careful consideration but urgent attention to what are the founding principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi, and that is to protect our taonga. Our taonga—our most important taonga—is people, tangata. Nō reira kāore rawa atu au e whakaae ki tēnei pire. [Therefore, I absolutely do not agree with this bill.] CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (20:33): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m very sorry that we are debating on this issue in the House tonight. Although this bill professes to define two groups, the actual target of this bill is not defined in this legislation. It is the trans community in New Zealand whom this bill attempts to exclude, some of them, from the definition that they choose for themselves. It is regretful. I always think of children who I know myself and I’ve seen grow up who do not associate with the identity they were born with. I believe that they are people this House needs to respect. I don’t think this bill does that, and I am so sorry—so sorry—that this bill has come to the House and for the hurt that this will cause many people, not only here but during the select committee process. We oppose this bill because of what I’ve just outlined: that it seeks to exclude. We also oppose this bill because it is in many ways unworkable, and I will explain to you why. I’ve read the opinion of the Attorney-General, and the Attorney-General has acknowledged that this bill cannot be justified because it is contrary to the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of age. That is because this bill includes the word “adult” before it defines “woman” and “man”. That means quite a serious thing, actually. I’d be interested to know whether people thought that a select committee process that no one has any control over what will get changed—whether this was still a responsible thing to take to select committee. I’m not making this up myself. I am quoting from the opinion of the Attorney-General, who is a member of the National Party. He has outlined concerns that women under the age of 20, after the passage of this bill, may no longer be eligible to apply to the court for a declaration of paternity. They may no longer be able to access the defence on infanticide under the Crimes Act. No penalty would be available under the Crimes Act for giving in marriage or transferring a woman under the age of 20 to another person without their consent. A partner or spouse of a woman under the age of 20 would be unable to take parental leave because the law requires a certificate certifying that a woman is pregnant. The death of a woman under the age of 20 while giving birth would not have to be reported to the Police. And there’s another matter, which has always been very important to people who have fought for women’s rights in this country, and that is the abortion and sterilisation Act. In that Act, it defines and references women. Now, the bill that defines the age of maturity—it’s actually mentioned in this. The age of majority in 1970 states that, if you do not clarify what “adult” means, it means someone who is 20. That means that, if this bill was to pass as it stands at the moment—and it is a very short bill, so people say it may be changed at select committee; you’d be looking at changing almost 50 percent of the contents—this may prevent women under the age of 20 accessing abortion services. This shows how problematic this type of bill is. If you remove the word “adult” from this, which would be the only way to fix this bill, you would have to define “women” as meaning “children”. Now, we know, when we talk about women—or men—we don’t mean boys and girls. This is an unworkable bill. I commend the fact that the Attorney-General has looked into this and seen that it is unworkable. I agree with what Nicola Grigg said when she said we need to be focusing on closing the gender pay gap, we need to be focusing on gender-based violence. There is no issue that will be solved for New Zealand women by the passage of this bill. This bill will do harm. I am sorry to our trans community that is up for debate in this House. But, separate to that, this bill does not work, and it risks the rights that New Zealanders hold dear. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (20:38): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill. As my colleague the Hon Nicola Grigg said in our first National Party contribution, we are providing our support as the National Party to this bill at the first reading. We think it’s important that we provide New Zealanders across the country the opportunity to have their say on this legislation at the select committee stage, where the member has instructed that it’s going to be going to the Social Services and Community Committee. We want to hear from New Zealanders, around their views on this piece of legislation, both in favour and opposed to it. We want to hear a balanced argument across the country from people around their views about the changes this bill is looking to make in our legislation. One of the points I want to focus on in my contribution does relate to the report of the Attorney-General. We know, in this House, it has a section 7 report—around how does this piece of legislation refer or relate or is pertinent to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Now, we are supporting the legislation, but I do want to raise the concerns that the Attorney-General has raised in his contribution, where he has concluded that the bill limits the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of the age and cannot be justified under section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I quote, “I consider the bill gives rise to discrimination on the basis of age. This is because the bill defines ‘woman’ and ‘man’ in a way that requires them to be adults. This effect of the bill means that people under 20 would be excluded from the scope of statutory provisions that use terms ‘woman’ and ‘man’ unless the content or context of the legislation requires a different interpretation.” The concern the Attorney-General is raising in his section 7 report is that, for people under the age of 20, they will not be able to have the term “woman” or “man” that this legislation is seeking to bring associated with them. Now, what I’m doing by bringing that into the debate is raising that concern so that I can welcome the select committee and submissions from members of the public to say, “Does there need to be a fix here to actually fix that issue that the Attorney-General is raising in his report?”, which we will call “section 7”. I’ve heard, over the last few days, from many, many New Zealanders across New Zealand, but many also in my local Bay of Plenty community who have written to me. The majority, by far, have sought to ask that I, as their local representative, support this legislation so that they can have the opportunity to have their say at the select committee stage. To those members of my local community who wrote, who got in touch, not just to me but to all members of Parliament across this House, we say thank you. That is your democratic right to us as your elected members, and we thank you for getting in touch and sharing your views with us. Now we put the onus back on you. This is now your opportunity, when the bill is referred to the select committee, to have your say, and we encourage you to do so. One email I received from a constituent—I want to quote him. He said, “Woman and our female children and grandchildren need to be safe without the threat of, in this case, biological males taking advantage.” Many of the emails I received from local constituents share that concern. There is genuine and widespread concern, and that’s why we are supporting this bill at the first reading. The select committee is the perfect opportunity to allow a proper testing of the detail and consideration of evidence. It’s the perfect opportunity to dive into the section 7 report and see if there’s an opportunity for it to be ironed out. This is a really sensitive and personal issue for many New Zealanders, and I’ve been disappointed by some of the backhanded comments and remarks made by some members in this House— Hon Member: Below the belt. TOM RUTHERFORD: —which have really been below the belt. Because the debate needs to be respectful, needs to be compassionate, it needs to be based on evidence and not ideology. Recognising biological reality in law is not bigotry. At the same time, I think it’s only fair that all New Zealanders are treated with dignity and respect. The bill is about clarity, not cruelty. We commend the bill to the select committee. We look forward to receiving submissions from New Zealanders up and down this country, and I commend it to the House. GLEN BENNETT (Labour) (20:43): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. In about six weeks, we will be commemorating something in this House, a time of courage, a time of stepping against the odds, a time of stepping out against the cultural norms at a time when hate and homophobia was still rife in this country. In this very Chamber, coming up 40 years ago, members of this House were courageous and walked through the Ayes door to support homosexual law reform. I was 10 years old, and I didn’t want to be queer. I didn’t want to be different. I didn’t want people to notice who I was, but 40 years later, I’m proud to be the person I am and to be part of the community I’m part of. While I’m acknowledge my privilege, I’m a white cis gay man, and I cannot fathom what it is like to be a member of the transgender community. We’ve come a long way as a nation, but we have a long way to go, and I encourage anyone to walk in my shoes or walk in the shoes of the transgender community and understand the challenges that are there. What does this bill do? It risks further marginalising our transgender, our intersex, and our gender diverse communities. To our transgender community tonight, if you’re watching this debate, I want you to hear something very clearly from the floor of this Parliament. You belong, you are enough, and you are loved. You are valued members of our community. You enrich our workplaces, our schools, our whānau, our churches, our sports groups, our arts groups, our music groups, our public life. I want to acknowledge the extraordinary courage it takes to live authentically in a world that does not always make space for you. This bill isn’t just a legal tidy-up, it is a political choice, a choice to single out and target some of our most vulnerable communities. At its heart, this debate is not about definitions. This debate is about who is in and who is out; it’s about who is included and who is excluded. It makes me very sad to be standing here tonight discussing it. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Can I just ask some of those conversations down here, just keep it down, they’re interfering with the noise around the House. Carry on, Mr Bennett. GLEN BENNETT: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Colleagues on this side of the House acknowledge the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act about self-identification, a piece of legislation first worked on by a New Zealand First Minister, then voted on by the ACT party, by the National Party, by the Greens, Te Pāti Māori, and Labour. I don’t want to prolong this debate because this debate does hurt, but to our transgender, our intersex, to our gender diverse communities, thank you for being vibrant, for being funny, for being talented, for being generous, for being resilient, for being creative. And, yes, thank you for being wonderfully fabulous. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (20:47): I rise to add my thoughts on the Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill in its first reading, a member’s bill in the name of our New Zealand First colleague Mrs Jenny Marcroft. I too want to begin my kōrero by saying and acknowledging the delicacy of this subject matter, the delicacy of what we are embarking upon. It’s interesting that we need to talk about delicacy, Madam Speaker—welcome to the Chair. It’s interesting that we have to talk about delicacy when it’s something that for many people is a biological fact, whether someone is born as a woman or born as a man. There are many thoughts that are going to be expressed around the House. To be honest, I’m disgusted with what we’ve heard from some members of the Opposition parties in terms of referring to our Minister for Women, the Hon Nicola Grigg. Nicola Grigg’s great, great, great grandfather was Sir John Hall, who sponsored Kate Sheppard’s petition to give women the right to vote. It is said that the roll of petition signatures was so long that it reached the end of the debating chamber with a thud. So, please, please, members of the Opposition, please have some respect when we’re approaching this subject with respect. I also heard an Opposition member say that we’re being irresponsible. Well, I have letters and letters from constituents in the great electorate of Takanini that have sent me emails asking for me to support this bill. Now, I love the fact that in our caucus room, as a broad church of the National Party, yes, we have robust conversations, but we have decided to support this bill to select committee because we acknowledge, notwithstanding the delicacies, that these are real concerns for many people in our communities. If you don’t mind, I’d like to refer to one of the ladies in my electorate in the Conifer Grove suburb that wrote to me and ended her letter with, “Please ensure that language in law reflects biological reality. Where the needs of others need to be protected, let it be done explicitly in specific legislation, but the overall definition should refer to biology.” I want to say this. I’ve spoken about one of my sisters who is a psychologist. She has shared with me that some of the most heartbreaking clients she has had to work with are people who are struggling with their gender, and it actually has made her cry after the sessions. We understand that there are people who may feel they might be targeted with this bill, but I’m resting assured that that is not going to be the case, because we won’t allow that to happen. One area that is a big issue of contention for many mothers I speak to is the area of sports. I know that I have nieces and I have cousins’ children and their mothers have decided not to bother letting them go into cross-country running or any other sports because they ask what the point is if, in their early adulthood, there’s just going to be an unfair advantage for people who weren’t biologically born as a woman and who will just surpass them very easily with what happens with the male chromosomes. That’s a real issue. That is something that a lot of parents take very seriously. Does it mean they’re being bigots? No. Does it mean they’re being hateful, as has been suggested by the other side? Absolutely not. It’s a real issue, and it goes back to biology, and to continue to be somehow in denial about this is really rejecting the serious concerns of many parents out there around our beautiful country of New Zealand. Let’s get this bill to select committee, let’s listen to different views, and let’s see if it is really necessary that in law we need to clarify that the definitions of a “man” and a “woman” are based on biology. Let’s be respectful about it, and let’s keep in mind everyone who is part of our beautiful community of New Zealand. Whether they be homosexual, whether they be trans, or whether they be straight, let’s have respect for everyone, including those who are of the view that the definitions of a “man” and a “woman” are ones linked to biology. For now, I commend this bill to the House. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Jenny Marcroft, in reply. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) (20:52): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to begin this speech in reply by thanking the members of the House for their contributions today. It has traversed many emotions, I believe. I would particularly like to thank the National Party for putting their support behind taking this piece of legislation to the select committee. I’d also particularly like to acknowledge and thank and say that I am very grateful to the ACT Party as well, for showing courage to speak to this bill in support of it. I think it will be an important piece of legislation for the select committee to do a lot of work on and to hear the voices of the public, because this is a particular topic that people really feel afraid to speak up about. Perhaps providing this opportunity through the select committee process will give them the opportunity to share their voice, and so I’m looking forward to the work that the committee will be doing. I acknowledge that the chair of the committee will no doubt get very busy. We’re expecting to see quite a lot of submissions come in, and I wish them all the very best. Thank you very much to all of the members on the Social Services and Community Committee, which will be looking at this bill. I’d also like to acknowledge a couple of other people: Suzanne Levy, for your advocacy for Speak Up For Women; and Bob McCoskrie from Family First. There was one other email I received yesterday, and I was surprised but delighted to receive support from this particular group to see that this bill goes to select committee. I’d like to do a shout-out to the LGB Alliance Aotearoa New Zealand. They want to see this piece of legislation discussed and analysed through the select committee process, and so I very much thank them for sharing their thoughts on it. I’d like to talk about a couple of things. The conversation flowed a little bit around trans rights, and I wanted to point out to members of this House that one of the original architects of the Yogyakarta Principles, Robert Wintemute, has actually pushed back on what the transgender activists want the law to be. He claims that an abuse of sympathy and an escalation of demand, including the call to remove sex from birth certificates, has seen, in fact, a political backlash. Wintemute—now, this is a guy who was involved in writing those original Yogyakarta Principles—said that, in fact, there is a conflict of rights and he argues that freedom of expression must protect women’s right to question certain demands made by trans activists, even if those questions cause offence. Perhaps members of this House could reflect on that. This bill is to address an issue that many New Zealanders recognise that far too few feel able to discuss openly. It’s not because the issue is trivial; it’s because it has become in some circles unsayable, and that in itself should concern every member of this House. There’s been a bit of confusion in institutions, Government agencies, councils, and all of that. Much of this confusion actually traces back to a 2006 Crown Law opinion. That opinion suggested that transgender people may be protected from discrimination under the ground of sex, but it did not say that sex and gender identity are the same thing, and it did not suggest that sex-based exceptions in the law should be reinterpreted to include the opposite sex. That distinction matters, because what has followed was not the careful legal development, but policy drift, and that drift has consequences. In conclusion, this issue is not going away. Public awareness is growing, concerns are increasing, and the current lack of clarity is unsustainable. We can continue as we are, with confusion, inconsistency, and a quiet erosion of rights, or we can do what Parliament is here to do, which is to define our terms, clarify our laws, and ensure that they operate as intended. This bill is an opportunity to begin that process—not to end the discussion but to bring it into the open, where it belongs. I commend it to the House. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. Ayes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time.