Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): That legislative statement is published under authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

I move, That the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill be now read a second time.

This bill was subject to robust debate at the Governance and Administration Committee in 2018. The select committee reported back with an enhanced version of the bill, with amendments that did a number of things. The Government supports the amendments presented by the select committee in 2018, and, as the Minister for Internal Affairs, I’m pleased to be progressing the bill.

I have identified several improvements to these amendments that I believe will better support the needs of transgender, non-binary, and intersex communities and individuals of all ages. These amendments are contained in draft Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 59 that was released yesterday. We want to ensure that these provisions adequately support the people they purport to serve. I’m, therefore, now not only resuming progress on this bill by caring for the committee’s 2018 recommendations but I’m also signalling my intent before the House to invite the Governance and Administration Committee to use its inquiry powers to consider Supplementary Order Paper 59 following this second reading. I will be requesting a full public submission process be part of this inquiry to ensure New Zealanders can have their say. I’ll come back to speak to that part of the bill shortly, but, firstly, I’d like to outline for the House the substantive parts of the bill in regards to the administration and upgrading of our Births, Deaths, and Marriages register.

Fundamentally, this bill makes important changes to New Zealand’s register of Births, Deaths and Marriages, a national record that collates information from our first to our last breath, and a lot of very important life events in between. Protecting the integrity of this record is critical. New Zealanders, rightly, have a growing expectation that all Government services are accessible through the online and digital platforms they use. The bill underpins how we create, change, use, and access identity documents in a way that reflects and supports the ever-changing profile of our communities.

The bill establishes a legislative framework that will facilitate the development of new access channels for all Births, Deaths and Marriages information, and allow greater electronic access to information. We’ve taken the utmost care to ensure that we are also mitigating the misuse of information, through robust criteria and evidence of identity that can be verified online.

These are all important changes, but one of the changes that came back from select committee in 2018 has been subject to a fair amount of public debate, and that is around the gender self-identification provisions. The process to amend registered sex has not changed since 1995, and yet, as a country, we have. This Government believes that all New Zealanders, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or sex characteristics, have the right to safety, dignity, and to live free from discrimination. Yet our current law requires transgender and intersex New Zealanders to undergo a complex, intimidating, and often inaccessible process based on the provision of medical evidence to amend the sex on their birth certificate. A survey in 2019 found that 83 percent of this community did not have the correct gender represented on their birth certificate.

Today, we are proud to be the most rainbow Parliament in the world, and yet, for many of our rainbow community, basic life events where a birth certificate is often used, such as enrolling a child at school or opening a new bank account, become a moment of stress, forced outing, and discrimination. And as Minister of Internal Affairs, I think it’s unacceptable for us to continue using a government-issued birth certificate that causes pain and discrimination for some New Zealanders. Under this bill, transgender, non-binary, and intersex New Zealanders will no longer require proof of medical treatment or to show a court that they physically conform to the deeply held and lived knowledge of who they know themselves to be.

I’d like to take a moment to put some facts on the record, as there has been some confusing information about what this bill will and won’t do. So, to be clear, you can already change the gender on a birth certificate. The change of your gender on a passport or a licence already can happen. The bill does not propose changes to the way we collect or record sex information at birth. What we are proposing here, and what I am asking the select committee to use their inquiry powers to look at, is removing what are, frankly, unnecessary barriers for a small but important group of New Zealanders to identify their gender on their birth certificate. This isn’t something that has been dreamt up overnight; this has been part of a substantial policy process to do what this Government knows is the right thing to do for our transgender, intersex, and non-binary communities. I don’t believe that these changes will impact, impinge, or threaten the rights of any other New Zealanders, but they will increase the rights of some vulnerable members of our community who deserve the dignity and right to be able to self-identify their gender on their birth certificate without financial, medical, or legal barriers.

We are also not alone in making these changes. Since 2012, 15 other countries have adopted a self-identification process, as well as the Australian states of Tasmania and Victoria. There has been no substantial evidence found on any serious or unmanageable consequences of introducing a self-identification process. However, if any unintended consequences do arise, we have built in a statutory review of the self-identification provisions five years after the commencement of this bill, as per the 2018 select committee’s recommendations.

The SOP also has an 18-month transition period, which is slightly longer than what I had initially hoped, but we do think it’s necessary to ensure this legislation provides the framework intended and that technical infrastructure is in place and ready to give effect to the changes in a way that works for all involved.

Another aspect of the self-identification provisions that we have given careful consideration of is the rights of transgender, intersex, and non-binary children. This Government believes that children are aware of their gender from a young age, but the Act does not reflect this. The bill also introduces two age categories with different requirements that focus on consent and reflect the cognitive development of older adolescents. The draft Supplementary Order Paper 59 released recommends that young people aged 16 or 17 years can apply on their own behalf and can choose to accompany this with either consent from a guardian, or a letter of support from a suitably qualified third party. For under-16s, they still require their guardian to apply on their behalf. This approach is consistent with other legislation in New Zealand—for example, 16 is the age at which you can apply for a learner driver’s licence and consent to general medical procedures.

Before I conclude, I want to briefly outline other policy changes the SOP makes to improve on the foundations provided by the select committee. A key amendment is to allow for multiple changes of a sex marker, in recognition that gender can be fluid and can develop over the course of a lifetime. The Government also proposes setting in regulation a wider range of sex markers than those outlined in the bill. Again, this is to ensure that regulation can be adjusted as gender theory and terminology evolves, and allows for a culturally inclusive marker.

Another area of further consideration is access to self-identification for people whose births are not on the New Zealand birth register. This is a complicated area, given New Zealand’s legislation has no jurisdiction over offshore regulations. Therefore, New Zealand’s self-identification provisions cannot be used to change the birth records of another country. The Government recognises this causes concern for some New Zealanders and residents who were born overseas, and my officials are currently working to address this issue as the bill progresses.

In order to progress this important work, following this debate I will write to the chair of the Governance and Administration Committee and request that it conducts an inquiry into the draft Supplementary Order Paper, to give effect to the proposals that I have outlined today. I will also request that the committee call for public submissions. It is my intention to progress the bill to the committee of the whole House stage in three months’ time, as the House would benefit from having the select committee’s report available for debate prior to the committee stage. I will also present another Supplementary Order Paper, unrelated to self-identification, at the committee of the whole House stage that will include minor and technical amendments.

The bill and proposed amendments are consistent with this Government’s focus on ensuring better health and social outcomes for all New Zealanders, and I am extremely proud to commend this bill to the House.

I rise, as the National Party’s spokesperson for women, to take a call on the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill, which National is pleased to support tonight. Can I start by acknowledging the trans community of New Zealand who we welcome, we embrace, and I commit now that, so long as I am a member of this House, I will work to advance their rights and protections—and I say that to every single woman in New Zealand, irrespective of the sex marker on their birth certificate.

This bill has had a complicated passage through the House so far. It was originally introduced four years ago to re-enact and update the 1995 legislation. The bill, as introduced, included provisions around digital access to information and responded to the review of burial and cremation law by the Law Commission. The House was unanimous in the first reading, and its contents were well canvassed by the select committee. So why are we here four years later for the second reading debate? It’s because of a wholesale repeal of current law requiring people to get a Family Court declaration to change the sex recorded on their birth certificate. That has been the law in New Zealand for 25 years and, as Crown Law has observed, the fast-paced social recognition of a diversity of genders and self-identification has outstripped the legal framework to accommodate it.

After the select committee received a number of submissions about the limitations of the existing process and without any further public consultation, it decided to replace it with a new administrative process based on self-ID. But it got messy. In February 2019, the then Minister of Internal Affairs, Tracey Martin, announced the bill would be deferred to deal with problems caused by that select committee process. She said, at the time, that the changes had been made without adequate public consultation and that this had created a fundamental legal issue. Six months later, she announced some interim measures to make things easier, like waiving fees for applications, and also announced the establishment of a working group to provide advice on how to further reduce barriers. In April this year, Minister Tinetti announced more changes to improve the current regime, following that working group report. So that brings us up to today, where we are debating the bill’s second reading before a draft Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) is referred to the select committee for public submission and consultation.

It’s, frankly, been an odd process. For whatever the reason, the Government’s decided to have a second reading and refer the draft SOP to the committee, instead of the bill itself. Now, I sit on the committee that will consider it and would like to remind the Government that in its 2017 minority view, National set out four concerns about the proposed changes. They were the consequences of proceeding with the reforms before amendments can be made to the Corrections Regulations, the broad scope of the definition of “health professional”, that lack of defined criteria or tests determining a change for under-18s would be in their best interests, and that there be no defined test to determine if the consequences of an application are truly understood by an eligible adult. Because of the process adopted, though, none of these issues has been able to be addressed in the text of the bill that we’re debating tonight. So I thank the Minister for circulating her draft SOP and legislative statement yesterday, so I’m not flying totally blind.

The proposed amendments will address some but not all of our concerns—for example, the definition of “health professional” has disappeared altogether and been replaced by “suitably qualified third party”, which we’re now told will be defined post facto in regulation. Most people in this House are aware that definitions of terms in legislation should not be left for regulation unless there’s very good reason to do so and I’m not convinced that such a reason’s here. We should be dealing with as many issues as possible up front; not kicking them down the road. I’m also concerned about the 18-month transition period that the Minister’s mentioned. My view is that we are better if we can agree the detail and get the work done immediately rather than leave them to be worked out for another year and a half, bearing in mind this bill has already been before the House almost four years. But we in the select committee can have a look at these issues in detail, along with other legal uncertainties detailed in that Crown Law advice.

Critically, New Zealanders will now be able to have their say. I think we’re all aware that the insertion of the new provisions at the end of the last select committee process has caused much angst. To all the women, groups, and organisations who have taken the time to write to me and to speak to me, thank you. You’ve educated me. I’ve listened to your views, your concerns, your fears, and now you get a chance to make them public.

I’m a former journalist who’s made every effort to approach this bill as objectively and as impartially as I possibly could. I’ve not listened to hyperbole and I’ve not been swayed by hysteria. What I have done is met with every single group and person who has asked me. I’ve read every single email that has been sent to me. I’ve read websites. Some, like the parents of transgender and gender-diverse children—and I’ve conscientiously listened to every single view offered to me. I’ve heard loud and clear the concern from some groups that allowing people to change the sex on their birth certificate, according with how they self-ID, will lead to an increase of male-bodied people in changing rooms or bathrooms. So, in front of this House, I give my assurance that while I hold a seat on the Governance and Administration Committee, I’ll ensure your voice is heard. For that, I might be called a TERF—a trans-exclusionary radical feminist—but I’d like to assure this House that I am neither exclusionary nor radical. But some of the vitriol that I have seen online has been nothing short of vile. There is no place in New Zealand for the abuse that I’ve seen coming from some quarters and it needs to stop because nobody wins, least of all those who are publishing it.

As members of this House, we are, first and foremost, legislators. We have a duty to examine all the consequences of changes that we make to the statute book whatever the policy area. In many areas, including this one, we must do it with the utmost sensitivity and without ever forgetting that we are making decisions that will affect the daily lives of New Zealanders. There can be no denying gender transition is a long, hard road. It can be full of confusion, trepidation, heartbreak, but also joy. It takes heart and it takes guts. And to those of you on that journey, may I offer my deepest respect—respect for your sincerity, your determination, and your belief in your sense of self. I have a strong belief that both the Government and this Parliament have duties to New Zealanders to make progressive, humanitarian updates to law, especially when the law makes the lives of some New Zealanders harder than it does for others. We should reform and we should liberalise where we can. And as a member of a party that emerged out of a great reform and liberal era some 85 years ago, I’m proud to be continuing that movement.

It is imperative that the public, the experts, the clinicians, and trans New Zealanders can all have the opportunity to have a say and feed into this legislation. Organisations, groups, and individuals who have concerns about the impact of sex self-ID have not had the opportunity to contribute and be a part of the democratic process. It is now time for their voice to be heard. It has been a messy process, but I look forward to the select committee consideration of the proposed changes and to seeing if we in this House can produce a high-quality piece of legislation for all women. And I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of the second reading of this bill, the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill. It is a bill that has been on the Order Paper for quite some time. It is historical in nature, I guess, and I just want to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Jan Tinetti, for, effectively, pushing the go button again to kickstart the process. I have to say that I’m pleased to learn this evening that the Opposition will be supporting the progress of this legislation.

There are many things in life, the integrity of which is so important. Births, deaths, marriages, and civil unions are four examples that are covered by that level of importance. They are important for those who are subject to the issue of the certificate itself or who are subject to the issue of the licence, but they’re also important to those further down the track: for family research, historical research, and genealogical purposes as well. But what is also important is the accessibility of those documents—that, apart from being accurate, they are also accessible in a way that is meeting the desires of modern times. And that is exactly what this bill does do.

Many people will know, for example, that when it comes to marriage licences, the old approach was that you would have to trot down to the District Court, complete the paperwork, and then the celebrant would be required to lodge that with the District Court. That is not the case anymore. People can apply for those licences online, and a celebrant simply needs to take a snap—a photo—of the documentation and email it through. So times have very much changed.

I want to thank the Minister for her tabling of draft Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 59, because what that does is seek to address discrimination, pain, and hurt that is experienced and felt by members in our community because the current law actually prevents them from truly, in an administrative sense, identifying themselves as who they wish to be in a non-complex way. The current law actually does not support the validation of identity for many who face other barriers around being identified as who they truly wish to be. And so Supplementary Order Paper 59, effectively, delivers on that.

I want to indicate that, as the deputy chair of the Governance and Administration Committee, I am looking forward to the select committee availing itself of its inquiry powers to consider the draft SOP. I know that is a committee that is collegial. It works really hard, and I look forward to the public submissions and that process being open to allow members of our community to submit, and we look forward to hearing from them. But I do expect to hear from members of our rainbow community. I expect to hear from members of our Māori, Pasifika, new migrant community, and also other communities in Aotearoa New Zealand. I’m delighted that the second reading has come and that this draft Supplementary Order Paper 59 in the Minister’s name will be referred to the select committee. I commend this to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and speak on the second reading of the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill tonight and to support taking this bill back to the select committee. I rise not only as a member of the National Party caucus but also as chair of the Governance and Administration Committee, and I would like to echo the words of Mr Tangi Utikere, which is that we are a good, collegial committee and we will make our best endeavours around doing our best with our inquiry powers on this piece of legislation.

What I would also like to do is say that this bill underwent its first reading such a long time ago, in December 2017—and it has been expressed tonight that the time has come to bring it to the House—but the select committee at that stage made substantial amendments, including an allowance for individuals to change the sex on their birth certificate via an administrative process based on self-identification. The change occurred after the public submissions had closed and following the presentation of a petition with 23 signatories.

Now, what I would like to say about that is I really want to commend Minister Jan Tinetti for coming in and being very thorough with the legislation which she puts in front of the House and for recognising the fact that those changes had been made. The bill had previously been withdrawn by the then Minister of Internal Affairs, Tracey Martin, in February 2019, noting the significant changes. Minister Jan Tinetti has come in and recognised that those changes were rather too significant to just plough through with the bill. As we often see with pieces of legislation, sometimes pride in having things getting passed gets in the road. This Minister, I believe, is a good Minister, who is intent on making sure that the legislation that we pass ends up in a very fit for purpose state.

So the National Party minority view that went with the first session of this through the Governance and Administration Committee back in 2018 included: “members are broadly supportive of the bill as introduced into the House in 2017, along with the technical and clarifying amendments recommended by officials. While the National Party members do not wish to stand in the way of reform of self-identification of nominated sex on birth certificates … serious concerns remain with respect to some aspects of the recommendations.”. The specific aspects of those were: “proceeding with reform before amendments to Corrections Regulations 2005 are determined; the broad scope of the definition of health professional; no defined criteria and/or tests to be applied to determine that a change to nominated sex for under 18 year olds is in the individual’s ‘best interests’; no defined test to evidence that the consequences of an application are truly understood for an eligible adult.”

So those were our concerns, and they weren’t just the concerns of the National caucus. Obviously, Minister Tinetti has become aware of a range of concerns, and I welcome her Supplementary Order Paper 59. Obviously, there’s been some work done here, because there’s some changes in here that we will definitely be looking at as a committee.

I want to give the commitment that the Governance and Administration Committee looks forward to using our inquiry powers and being objective and thorough. We’ll be listening to the feedback that comes through to make sure that this bill is fit for purpose so that we can bring it back to the House in a state where we can stand and say that we have listened to the concerns of the public, we have taken the submissions in, and we have fully considered them and turned the bill around. We will bring it back to the House so that we can be comfortable that the legislation has had a fair hearing from the public, because, at the end of the day, when legislation hasn’t had a fair hearing from the public, it doesn’t always turn out in the way that is expected, and, again, I commend the Minister for taking this into account.

So, with that, I recommend and commend the second reading of this bill. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to take a call on the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill. I want to thank Minister Tinetti for her leadership on this bill, and the former members of the Governance and Administration Committee and officials for their work.

While this bill has been in the public eye for a number of months due to the amendments surrounding self-identification on birth certificates, the bill also makes changes to how New Zealand operates the Births, Deaths, and Marriages register. Put simply, the bill makes changes to the register to allow greater electronic access to information, while also mitigating the misuse of information through robust criteria and evidence of identity that can be verified online. This will ensure the right balance is struck between individual privacy and access to personal information for New Zealanders.

Since this bill was first introduced and considered by the select committee, the committee—following submissions—reported back to the House with suggested changes that would remove unnecessary barriers for people to self-identify their gender on their birth certificate. Under our current law, transgender and intersex New Zealanders have to undergo a complex and inaccessible process based on medical evidence to amend the sex on their birth certificate. This process excludes people who are unable or unwilling to undertake medical treatment as part of their transition. This means that many people who are transgender do not have their correct gender represented on their birth certificate. The bill will allow people to change the sex on their birth certificate by moving to a self-identification process.

Some of the criticism pointed at this bill suggests that the current process is working fine and doesn’t need to change. However, I note that New Zealanders can already currently self-identify their gender on their driver’s licence or passport.

It has been unfortunate and distressing that some groups have sought to demonise trans people by claiming that men will change the sex on their birth certificate so that they can access women’s spaces such as prisons, changing rooms, and women’s refuges.

Before entering Parliament, I was a board member at the Nelson Women’s and Children’s Refuge. It is not the policy of Refuge to require a birth certificate to access the lifesaving services of Refuge. Our policy is inclusive of diversity. The Nelson Women’s Refuge’s diverse-needs policy states, and I’ll read it, “The Refuge understands that gender identity can be non-binary and is open to providing services to cis wāhine, transgender, genderqueer, intersex, or people who choose to live with a more fluid gender identity.” Furthermore, it states, “The Refuge respects the right for clients to choose not to disclose their sexual identity.”

For so-called women’s advocacy or rights groups to suggest that the work of Women’s Refuge will be put at risk and that women will be unsafe because of this bill is outrageous, it is wrong, and it is disgraceful. As a woman who has campaigned and worked for women’s refuges, I’m offended that these people suppose to speak for me; they do not. Likewise, it would be most unusual to ask a woman to produce a birth certificate in order to enter a public toilet or a changing room. I have never been asked to produce a birth certificate to enter a women’s space, and it’s disgraceful to suggest that this bill would make women’s spaces unsafe for women.

Another area of further consideration that the Government is looking into is access to self-identification for people who were born overseas. This is a difficult task. It’s a situation that causes distress for people, including one of my own constituents.

Our young members of our rainbow community can be subject to discrimination as they go about their daily lives, at school, at work, at church, and in the community. For transgender New Zealanders, this discrimination can be even tougher.

In Nelson, over 100 people—many of them young—protested against this campaign of misinformation. I want to acknowledge the work of Q-Youth, Nelson Pride, and all their allies for their work in pushing back on the damaging and hurtful misinformation put into the public domain. I am incredibly proud of them, and I want them to know that I have their back.

As a member of the Governance and Administration Committee that will be considering this bill, I look forward to hearing from our diverse communities about how we can continue to make Aotearoa a safer and more inclusive country. I am very proud tonight to commend this bill to the House.

It is with great pleasure that after generations of systemic discrimination and decades of community activism, the Green Party is proudly here today to maintain our long-stated policy that takatāpui, trans, intersex, and non-binary people should be able to self-identify their gender on their birth certificate, so that all New Zealanders can have documents of identity that reflect who they are. Ngā mihi ki a Minister Jan Tinetti for bringing this bill into the House, after it has been stalled for so long. We acknowledge there are many other aspects to this bill, but we are focusing on legal gender recognition tonight.

August 2021 will go down in the history books as one of the most momentous months for rainbow communities, because, only last week, the conversion practices bill passed its first reading and Laurel Hubbard competed as the first openly trans woman at the Olympics. Who knows how well Laurel could have performed if the entire world wasn’t watching her so closely, with so many of them judging her, not just for being there but for her very existence. Tēnā koe e te rangatira. Greetings to all of you in the gallery tonight, all our youth leaders, all of our community leaders, and a particular shout-out to Mani Mitchell, whose leadership for intersex people has taught us all, and as a mentor to me, tēnā koe.

The Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill has arrived here today without the fanfare that accompanied the conversion practices bill. It is, however, no less significant. I offer a peppered whakapapa that got us to the point. It is by no means the full extent of organising in our communities, or even in this House. As with many of the issues facing people with diverse genders, sexualities, and sex characteristics, the discrimination against us can be easily traced back to colonisation and the way that early colonists and missionaries pathologised and criminalised us, and any person who did not fit their construct of a real man, a real woman, and people who should be in heterosexual, non-monogamous—no, monogamous!—relationships. Our people rejected and subverted it back then, and we’ve continued to do so ever since.

Fast forward to this century. In 2004, the first openly trans member of Parliament in the world, the legendary Georgina Beyer, had her member’s bill drawn from the biscuit tin to specify gender identity in the Human Rights Act. The acting Solicitor-General at the time, however, concluded that trans people were already included in the sex section of the Act, so she withdrew it. The Human Rights Commission has maintained since then, and even before then, that that it is the correct position. However, gender expression is not included. After extensive consultation in 2017, the Human Rights Commission produced To Be Who I Am, Report of the Inquiry into Discrimination Experienced by Transgender People. It identified the lack of protection for trans people, whose documents of identity did not match their actual gender identity or expression. Unfortunately, though many of us cited it, the recommendations contained within were left to languish. Until, that is, in 2012 as a direct result, the Department of Internal Affairs amended their passport policy, allowing holders to select F, M, or X options for their sex, through a statutory declaration process with no requirement for medical evidence. In 2013, the New Zealand Transport Authority—you know, that radical department—followed suit, with options of male, female, and indeterminate. So, contrary to the ominous predictions and fearmongering of anti-trans lobbyists, no women’s rights have been eroded since then, in changing rooms, bathrooms, or anywhere else. What has happened is that trans, intersex, and non-binary people have gained some more dignity in their lives.

Also in 2013, trans activists and allies wrote the first Universal Periodic Review to the United Nations which raised this issue—shout-out to Joey Macdonald and Jack Byrne and all the other activists who fed into the work at that time. Around that time, my colleague and long-time rainbow leader in this House, the fabulous—but humble—Jan Logie ran a consultation with the trans community to identify the issues they wanted the Green Party to progress for them. Jan met with Allyson Hamblett, another trans woman, regarding their struggles with legal gender recognition. Jan supported Allyson to make a petition.

In 2015, a coalition of rainbow organisations was formed in Wellington—shout-out to InsideOUT, Tīwhanawhana, Bella Simpson, and other groups who are part of that coalition—and we took a series of recommendations to Parliament, and, of course, this was part of it. The International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia Coalition presented again in 2016, and has maintained contact with the Parliamentary Rainbow Network ever since. Allyson Hamblett presented her petition in 2016. It called on the Minister of Internal Affairs to enable adults with intersex conditions, trans, and other gender-diverse adults, to change the sex details on any official documentation. In 2017, the Government Administration Committee agreed, and recommended that the Minister of Internal Affairs instruct officials to review section 28 of the Act, with a view to amending it to an approach predicated on self-identification. I acknowledge the members of that select committee, the chair Hon Ruth Dyson, Matt Doocey, Paul Foster-Bell, Hon Nanaia Mahuta, Hon Scott Simpson, and Jan Logie, who replaced Barry Coates for the Greens. I am told that one National member uttered the fateful words, “Why would the court get to decide someone’s gender?” Why indeed? The Hon Ruth Dyson spoke directly to the Minister at that time, who was Hon Peter Dunne, who was very receptive. In that same year, the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill was first introduced to Parliament. The select committee heard the evidence of the multiple activists, however, as we’ve been told, the Minister decided not to proceed.

In 2020, the PRISM report—if you’re involved with rainbow communities, you should be very familiar, and if you have not got this, then I suggest you do—Human Rights issues relating to Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression, and Sex Characteristics (SOGIESC) in Aotearoa New Zealand. Shout-out to Taine Polkinghorne from the Human Rights Commission, who co-ran the consultations and wrote this report. It states the current process “presents an obstacle to the full enjoyment of the right to legal gender recognition by restricting access and privileging those who pursue a medical transition. Such a process is inconsistent with the rights to bodily autonomy and integrity due to the requirement of modifying one’s body in order to acquire a birth certificate displaying the correct sex. UN bodies have found that if a person is forced or coerced to undergo surgeries or hormone treatment in order to obtain legal [documents], this may amount to ill-treatment or torture”.

So let’s look at the legislation itself—the light reading of 118 pages we got given yesterday. This process will enable trans, intersex, non-binary, and takatāpui people to move from a Family Court process to one where they can make a statutory declaration. It is only fair that every takatāpui, trans, non-binary, and intersex person born in Aotearoa should be able to change the gender marker on their birth certificate through a process that is mana-enhancing, accessible, and affordable. We think this Supplementary Order Paper is close to achieving that. We do have some issues. We’ll continue that conversation inside the select committee, but, particularly for tonight, I want to point out that we agree that there must be pathways for New Zealand citizens who were born overseas, migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers to obtain certificates or other documents of identity issued by Internal Affairs in their self-identified gender.

To conclude, I look at where we have come to, and I wonder what we can learn from all of this. Number one: all the hard work is worth it. Every hui, every submission, every petition—it is worth it. All the collaboration, the checking of each other’s work, making sure we have consistent language, the tiredness—it is worth it. Number two: we have allies who will help us and who will stick their necks out for us, in the community and in this House. Never pre-judge somebody based on their political affiliations. We do not know what is happening in their lives, we do not know what is happening in their heart. To conclude: as a takatāpui cis lesbian femme ally to our takatāpui, trans, intersex, and non-binary whānau, to all of those here and those of you watching, and in honour of all of those we have lost because of that discrimination and violence against you, I am very proud to commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill. This is a piece of legislation whose original genesis might have been described charitably as pedestrian. Rearranging some of the administrative provisions in law for the registration of births, deaths, marriages, and relationships may not have been the kind of political projects that brought the original Minister to the House and made them want to pursue a political career. Needless to say, as people who have followed this issue will be aware, at select committee stage it entered into political controversy that is best located in a long tradition of New Zealanders moving toward the light of liberty, a tradition that has seen New Zealanders, over time, gradually gain additional freedoms and additional equality between different New Zealanders. It’s a very proud history, although it has often been a fraught one.

Perhaps New Zealand’s greatest political achievement, votes for every adult New Zealander—the first truly world-leading political achievement of our country—was none the less controversial in its time, difficult as that may now be to imagine. As we have gone on, equality in terms of sexuality in this House, the civil unions and then marriage equality, and, dare I say it, the End of Life Choice Act, have each increased the freedom of New Zealanders to live as they wish to live, to be who they want to be, and to have autonomy over their body. It is a very proud tradition, but in each case there have also been people that have objected, for a range of reasons—some valid; some not. So has been the case with this piece of legislation.

It is clear that there are many New Zealanders who feel that their identity at birth does not represent their true identity, and the way they feel about that may change over time. I think it’s important, and I think it’s important to put on record for people who doubt that that those feelings are sincere and genuine and are supported, actually, by considerable objective evidence too. None the less, it is important that we also listen to a variety of voices. This is where I would like to commend the Minister for not only the policy changes that she’s proposed in this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) but the procedural dexterity that she has shown in being prepared to send the bill back to select committee to hear more voices and give it further consideration.

I hesitate, but I can’t help myself from comparing that to some of the instances of legislation that has been rushed through the House in this and the previous term of Parliament by this Government. But the Minister responsible for this bill, Jan Tinetti, has chosen to do the opposite. She’s chosen to send the bill, after a long period of consideration, having previously been to a select committee, back to select committee again, with a considerable number of changes proposed. Most critical among them takes into account some of the objections that have been raised and acknowledges that there will be times when, for some legal purposes by some entities, the sex identity that was given at birth may still be relevant to some people for some purposes, and I think that the Minister has artfully allowed for that possibility in the way that that SOP is drafted. That, I think, is not only good lawmaking, it’s actually good citizenry to promote a process that allows all voices to be heard and all considerations to be made in what has been a sensitive issue for people on both sides of a debate.

The ACT Party looks forward to the bill being considered in select committee. We look forward to this legislation progressing to achieve the many noble—if pedestrian and, perhaps, perfunctory—tasks that it was originally launched to do, but also to resolve what has been one of the more controversial issues in New Zealand politics. That is the kind of progress that New Zealand has always managed to make in the end. It’s one of the things that makes me proud to be a New Zealander, to live in a country where, through civil conversation, we ultimately resolve issues and manage to live together in relative harmony.

With that, I commend the bill to this House on its second reading. I look forward to the select committee process and a further committee of the whole House process, where we’ll be able to truly say that this piece of legislation has been given the full complement of consideration that a piece of legislation can have from our democratic process, and that we will be a better and stronger country for it, a more compassionate and inclusive society for it, and that is lawmaking at its best. I commend the Minister in particular and this bill to the House at its second reading. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m going to jump straight into it. Thank you to our Minister, Jan Tinetti, for bringing this to the House. Thank you to the other parties of this Parliament for also putting in your support behind it. Also thank you, of course, to the people that submitted, that took that time three years ago to front up to the select committee and put their thoughts to it. I’m going to focus on the self-identification of birth certificates, because for me, this is the game-changer. This is going to be the thing that allows our trans community across the country to breathe a sigh of relief tonight and, hopefully, reverse some of the negative outcomes that we know plague our trans community. Tonight, we’re talking business. So let me get into it.

First of all, I want to start with a submitter who took a cultural lens to this whole debate. They said, “In Aotearoa, traditionally, Māori allowed a space for a wide range of gender definitions. It has been through a process of colonisation and cultural genocide that these were reduced to two—and that gender is biologically determined. Within Aotearoa—that same characteristic of gender fluidity is now linked to disproportionately high rates of assault, [of] murder, [of] suicide, particularly for Māori and Pacific Island transgender youth. The inability to have your gender identity publicly acknowledged has been linked to all kinds of fatal outcomes in multiple studies.” The submitter said, “It is … my submission that any move to reduce gender to biological determination places Māori and Pacific Island youth at continued (and increased) risk of suicide.” That’s from Tina Ngata and I thank her for bringing that kaupapa kōrero to the fore.

Another submission talked about the great lengths that trans people go through under the status quo, the discrimination that they face. They talked about applying for a job; using a birth certificate, which might be the only form of ID that you have; the potential discrimination in the hiring process; and the trauma. That said, also enrolling in things like study, which for many of us is just a very easy process to go through. But when the gender doesn’t match the person that’s sitting in front of the administrator, the registrar, actually, that creates quite an incredibly intimidating and off-putting situation. It can make things quite overwhelming. Copy that same situation over to access to healthcare, access to Government services, Government support. Especially when you’re travelling and living overseas, if your birth certificate is that thing that you have to use, again, it traumatises and re-traumatises our trans community. And that was a submission that was put forward by the Intersex Trust Aotearoa New Zealand. So thank you to Mani and to Aych for bringing that submission.

The other submission that I wanted to talk about was from Sharyn Forsyth and Tommy Hamilton, both champions within the community, and they put in their submission on behalf of Parents and Caregivers of Transgender and Gender Diverse Children in New Zealand. The group has approximately 180 parent and caregiver members from across New Zealand. If nothing else, if there is a family out there that didn’t know that this group exists, now you do. But what they took lengths to point out was that the protection of our children through this whole process has got to be something that we think about front of centre. They said, “We’re interested in this Bill as gender identity, and the social and legal recognition of that gender identity as expressed by an individual, is considered to be a key factor in positive mental health outcomes for our children and other gender diverse individuals. When our children live their lives as one gender, and then are forced through legal documents to be referred to as a gender that isn’t their own, it hurts them.” They go on to say, “We have experience of our children being singled out (… [say] on domestic flights) because they are ‘in the system’ as their biological sex as opposed to their gender—and this leads to scrutiny and questioning and embarrassment.” They have seen that in their own children’s lives, that being mis-gendered makes that far, far worse.

So, to all of the rainbow community that are out there listening tonight and to all of our allies that are swinging into support, we want to say to our trans community: “Your lives matter, your stories matter, your struggles matter. We see you, we hear you, and tonight we stand beside you.” Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m proud to speak in the second reading in support of the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill, which is, of course, a very clear example of how societal change isn’t matched by legal changes. When the bill was first introduced in 2017 in August it was, of course, a National Government at that time, and it was changing a piece of legislation that had only been introduced and passed in 1995. But even within this short period of time, things have changed further.

As others in the House have talked about, the fact that it was introduced in 2017 was pretty straightforward—pretty straightforward in terms of just modernising some of the access, the ability to change information and access records. It also was looking at burial and cremation law. In 2018, there were significant changes that were recommended. Part of that came from a petition, and that just demonstrates for people who are considering petitions to Parliament that what you do, what you present to Parliament, can make changes. So I would encourage people who want to engage with the Parliament to do exactly that. So the petition to the Governance and Administration Committee did lead to quite substantial changes to the bill, which allowed people to change their sex on their birth certificate via an administrative process based on self-identification. Of course, it was then withdrawn in 2019 by the then Minister, Tracey Martin, and Jan Tinetti has done a significant amount of work in 2021 to draft a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), SOP 59, that has been discussed at length today.

I do want to put on record, though, the concerns that my colleague Nicola Grigg clearly outlined and the concerns that the National caucus put in the minority view. I would urge members of the select committee that is going to be dealing with the inquiry to also consider the issues or the concerns that were raised at the time. One of the things that I think is unfortunate is that most people don’t get to see the working mechanics of how a select committee actually engages. That’s always been, probably, a disappointment of mine, because if you think about where the real work of parliamentarians occurs, it’s often in that select committee. So I am going to take this opportunity to urge the members on the Governance and Administration Committee to not only deal with the issues in the SOP using their inquiry powers, which is an unusual kind of mechanism that the Minister’s chosen, but also consider the other issues and concerns that the National members raised in the minority view.

So there is an opportunity for further input and scrutiny, and I’d encourage people to take the opportunity to do that. As the ACT member David Seymour outlined, it is a sensitive issue. I would say it’s also a complex issue, and one we shouldn’t shy away from: the very important need to make it easier for a person to change their sex recorded on their birth certificate and the need to maintain women’s rights to retain protected spaces and services aimed at women. So I do encourage the public to participate in the inquiry, and I do encourage the select committee members to consider the issues on the table. Thank you.

E te Māngai o te Whare tēnā koe, otirā tēnā tātou katoa i roto i tēnei Whare i tēnei pō. Koutou e whakarongo mai ana ki konei, ki te kāinga hoki, tēnei te mihi nui ki a koutou. E te Māngai o te Whare e tautoko ana ahau i tēnei pire pau te kaha nā te mea ki ahau, mōku ake, he aha te mea nui o tēnei ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata.

E hiahia ana ahau ki te rongo i ngā kōrero a ngā tāngata mō rātou tēnei pire mehemea ka tutuki ō rātou wawata me ngā raruraru e pā ana ki tēnei take nunui mō rātou. E te Māngai o te Whare e tautoko hoki ana ahau i ngā kōrero a te kaikōrero a Tāmati Coffey, kātahi anō ka mutu tana kōrero e pā ana ki tētahi tono, ā, nā Tina Ngata. E tino hiahia ana ahau ki te rongo i ngā kōrero o Te Ao Māori e pā ana ki tēnei take nui. Ka huri atu ahau ki tērā atu o ngā reo.

[Madam Speaker, my greetings to you, to everyone in this House this evening, and to those listening here or at home. I resolutely support this bill because to me, personally, what is the most important thing in this world? It is people, it is people, it is people.

I would like to hear the opinions of the people whom this bill is designed to serve, whether it meets their aspirations and whether there are any problems for them relating to this major issue. I also support the words of Tāmati Coffey, who has just spoken regarding a submission on this important issue made by Tina Ngata. I very much want to hear the voice of the Māori world regarding this important issue. I will now turn to the English language.]

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a short call on the bill this evening. I firstly wanted to mihi to all of those who are here tonight debating this, also in the gallery, and those watching at home. It is a very important take [subject] to many people, and I wanted to remind everybody of a whakataukī that is very famous up North: what is the most important thing in this world? It is people. It is people. It is people. I hope that during this debate, we remember that whakataukī.

I want to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Jan Tinetti. Her and I are walking friends, and so we go for a walk during the dinner break. We have talked about this issue and how challenging it can be at times, from the type of correspondence that she receives on this issue, but I am really proud of the principled approach that she has taken to doing what is right and what is fair to a group in our community. So I’m pleased that it has made it to this stage in the process.

I did want to highlight a couple of things from her speech that really struck me. I think the real issue that I agree with is that people are being caused pain and discrimination because of a Government-issued birth certificate. You know, I think back in our history and this hasn’t always existed, but since it has existed, it has created a problem for some people. Under this bill, transgender, non-binary, and intersex New Zealanders will no longer require proof of medical treatment or to show a court that they physically conform to the deeply held and lived knowledge of who they are and who they know themselves to be.

The Minister gave, in her opening speech, some evidence which I think is really compelling. When a survey was undertaken in 2019, 83 percent of the community surveyed did not have the correct gender represented on their birth certificate, and it’s those people in that percentage who responded to the survey that I think we really need to concentrate on and focus on. So I’m pleased that the Minister is recommending that this be referred back to the select committee, that there be an inquiry process, and I really hope that for those who are impacted by this legislation, for those who this legislation is intended to serve, they submit and tell us whether it meets their needs or not. I’m not a member of that select committee, but I really do hope that they feel safe and able to participate in that process.

Also, for those that might be listening, a point was made that while New Zealand does lead in many areas in the world, this is actually one area where we aren’t. There are at least 15 other countries in the world who, in fact, already do this, and so I think that it is time for us to get on with it, to refer it to the select committee. I encourage everybody to participate in that process, particularly those who this legislation is intended to serve. Tēnā koe.

Thank you, Madam Speaker—and as I say that, I think maybe Standing Orders need to be reviewed when it comes to “Madam Speaker” or “Mr Speaker” and other forms, again, as we are here looking at titles. Firstly, this evening, I want to say a big thankyou to our transgender, non-binary, intersex, takatāpui, and gender-diverse whānau—thank you for bearing with us; thank you for waiting for us to get to this point.

Now, this bill brings our Births, Deaths, and Marriages register into the 21st century. Now, this isn’t just a technology thing creating greater access; this is also a cultural thing. This is also a space that brings modern society into this legislation. As we know, and as Tāmati Coffey spoke about earlier—around Māori language in terms of those pronouns, or lack of, and, of course, in our English language, if you’re referring to others, there’s the four: there’s he, she, he—him, her—sorry, that wasn’t that hard was it! But, of course, if we go back in time, good-old English actually didn’t have that, back many, many centuries ago; “thee” and “thou” were used commonly. So we are always on the move as a culture and as a nation. I’m proud to be part of this Parliament, as we progress and as we ensure that we are an inclusive nation.

I came into this House because I knew what it was like to be on the margins, and I came into this House to ensure that my voice was part of the voice of the margins here at Parliament. I want to speak up for our community. I want to give a voice. I hope that this piece of legislation helps to remove the shame and the trauma that comes when having to negotiate paperwork and birth certificates.

Thank you to our Minister Jan Tinetti, as she said earlier, and was referred to just before, in that survey in 2019, 83 percent of our transgender, intersex, and non-binary whānau did not have the correct gender represented on their birth certificate. I dream of a nation that loves, nurtures, and includes all people, where our transgender, intersex, and non-binary whānau feel affirmed, empowered, and free to have their gender that they want on their birth certificate.

I want to thank all the parties in this Parliament for supporting this piece of legislation. This bill is a bill that is deeply affirming for some in our community. I look forward to the day when gender identity is not even considered. I don’t know about going back to a day when we use “thee” and “thou”, but maybe a day when “they” and “them” is common place. I commend this bill to the House.

The key thing whenever we get into the space of rights, and particularly what we’re talking about here at the core of one’s identity or the community at large, is there’s competing views. And there’s probably nothing more essential than the sense of one’s biological sex and then the sense of one’s gender identity and how it’s expressed, not only in itself but then how the community receives that. So I think it’s a very positive decision tonight that the House, by the sound of it, is going to pass this second reading, but, importantly, put the bill—or parts of the bill, effectively—back to the select committee through an inquiry mechanism to have a discussion, because if one thing has been very, very clear, it is that there are, if you will, two sides to this discussion, this debate, and both have said they want a chance to speak. So I think that’s a very healthy way forward, but the key, too, for any debate and discussion is respectful, rational debate. That’s something I’m looking forward to, I’m sure, from members of Parliament who sit on that committee, and it’s something that I look forward to seeing much more of from the communities who come before the Parliament to share their views.

I wish to begin by thanking the Minister of Internal Affairs for bringing this Supplementary Order Paper 59 to the House and for sending it to the select committee for an inquiry. I wish to thank all the speakers tonight who have approached this matter very carefully and, I think, respectfully. I want to reflect on the words of a wise man—Damien O’Connor, for the record. It’s something that Damien—Mr O’Connor, Damien, whatever: that man—

💬 Hon Peeni Henare: “Chainsaw”, “Chainsaw”.

—“Chainsaw”, “Chainsaw”—said to me, as a relatively new parliamentarian, and some others about a year in. He said that in this House, we don’t legislate for the ordinary case; we legislate for the margins. And tonight, we are here legislating for the marginalised to try to help make the world a better place for people who have been pushed to the margins of our society. I’ve reflected on that for a long time, that legislating for the margins, realising that our job here as parliamentarians is to protect the vulnerable, is to support those who need extra help, and is to support people in unusual circumstances who just wish to lead ordinary lives. That is what we hope to enable them to do.

I know that some of the people listening in tonight won’t understand what it’s all about. They just don’t get it. You know, what’s the problem with birth certificates and sex and official documents and the like? And, you know, that’s a pretty easy position for someone who is cisgender to take, for someone who just exists in the body they were born with and no worries about it. But actually those of us who are cisgender don’t need to understand. All we need to understand is that our trans whānau would like us to make this change to make their lives better. So that is what we are about. So, tonight, I stand here for Kate, for Lissa who comes to see me in my electorate office from time to time, for Roy, for Sarah, for Cushla’s stepson, for Anna’s boy, and for Emma’s boy. These are friends and friends’ children who are working through this difficult process which should not be difficult. That is who we are here for tonight: for the marginalised.

I urge those who submit to the select committee to remember to treat this process with care and respect. Why? Because we are talking about the marginalised and we should have more care and more respect when that is what we are doing. And so with those words, I commend this to the House.

The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Governance and Administration Committee by majority be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.