Media Release 6 July 2014
Family First NZ says that a controversial proposal by Labour MP Louisa Wall to include ‘gender identity’ as a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Human Rights Act has been rejected by her own party colleagues and others on the Select Committee and will be removed from consideration as part of the Statutes Amendment Bill after an appeal by Family First.
In a letter to a lobby of submitters supporting the proposal, the clerk of the committee has said ‘The Government Administration Committee does not consider that the Statutes Amendment Bill is the right vehicle for this amendment and has therefore decided it will not be hearing from submitters whose primary concern is the matter contained in the SOP’.
“This is a great decision for families and is welcomed. Among the implications of the proposal – dubbed the “bathroom bill” in overseas jurisdictions – is that sex-specific facilities, including gyms like Contours and swimming pools who have dedicated times for females only, plus the use of men’s and women’s public toilets and changing rooms, could no longer be limited on the basis of a person’s actual biological sex. A biological male who feels he identifies as a female would demand the right to use the female changing rooms or toilets,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
“But the expectation of parents and families is to see people of the same gender in places like public toilets and changing rooms, and for toilets and changing rooms in schools to be specific to the biological sex of the students.”
“Of most concern was that the Labour MP was pushing the amendment under the shadow of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) which is a bill which deals with ‘technical, short, and non-controversial amendments to a range of Acts’. This proposed amendment is anything but non-controversial,” says Mr McCoskrie.
“This is great news for families. Those with gender dissatisfaction must have the same rights as all New Zealanders, but should not be given special rights which place others at risk,” says Mr McCoskrie.
“It appears this proposal was simply a stunt with the intention of attempting to sneak some highly contentious legislation through Parliament via the back door. The politicians were right to flush it away.”