McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party but more importantly for my two colleagues who are not here this evening to speak to this bill: Karen Chhour who sits on the Social Services and Community Committee and Damien Smith who is our sports and recreation spokesperson who also sat in on the committee during the hearings of the submissions for this the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill.We're going through all remaining stages this evening so I'm going to concentrate my second reading speech on a particular aspect of the select committee report and speak to the two Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that my colleague Karen Chhour is hoping to have on the bill for speaking to at the committee stage. In the third reading I will then look to speak to the other issues that have come out of the bill.There were less than four weeks for submissions and we were told that 183 were received with 19 being oral submissions as well. I'd like to acknowledge all of those that submitted both in writing and those that came to appear in front of the committee whether it be through presenting themselves or through Zoom which has been a great way to get people to participate in select committee processes. And I'd like to as part of my emphasis on one aspect of this bill acknowledge those that submitted including—and I'm going to quote here directly from the select committee report—the significant proportion of submitters [that] raised the issue of the participation of trans people in sport." and the concerns that were raised there around the fairness of participation. While others are concerned this bill will ultimately end up reducing the participation of females in sport those submitters' concerns were determined by the committee to be out of scope. So relatively they were ignored because it was out of scope of the bill.Yet the bill itself when enacted could cause a transgendered person to be eligible to compete in an event designed for females only because of the discrimination factors about to be legislated into this bill. When there is a significant proportion of submitters as has been reported in the select committee report who have raised an issue around this we need to make sure that we can in some way look to address that as fully as submitters would like. As a way of being able to do that ACT have submitted two different Supplementary Order Papers for the next stage the committee of the whole House and they are supplementary order papers 410 and 411.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! I'm just going to warn the member that if she were to refer to Speakers' rulings—and I'd encourage members to do that as they're writing their speeches—Speaker's ruling 115/1: "At the second reading of a bill it has long been accepted that the broad intention of the bill the broad principles of it are a proper subject of discussion"—and thank you the member has done that. Speakers' ruling 115/2 "On the second reading of a bill discussion must be confined to the bill before the House as printed." And we go on to Speakers' ruling 115/3 "(1) A member may … refer to the subject matter of an amendment appearing on a Supplementary Order Paper but it cannot be discussed in detail; that is a matter for [the committee of the whole House]". So I would ask the member to reflect on those Speakers' rulings and craft her speech accordingly.NICOLE McKEE: Thank you Madam Speaker. ACT finds it troubling that a bill claiming to address sporting integrity issues fails to address a global issue of sports integrity—that is the issue of biological women having to compete in sport against biological males who choose to identify as women. Male puberty makes people on average significantly taller with greater muscle and bone mass and this has actually been directly responded to within the Human Rights Act at section 49. This actually does make a difference to those who participate in sport—and depending on the sport a significant difference; for example if a person was weightlifting if they were running or even if they were swimming. An American college sportsperson who's a 6 foot 4 swimmer called Lia Thomas bounced from rank No. 462 in men's swimming to No. 1 in the women's code after transitioning. And New Zealand's own Laurel Hubbard who transitioned at the age of 34 went on to win gold medals in an international weightlifting competition.This is not an issue of transphobia. ACT says people should be able to live however they want if they're not affecting other people. This is an issue of fairness. Speaking as an athlete who has represented New Zealand on the international stage at multiple times I understand the blood sweat and tears that goes into training for an event and goes into training to achieve the success of what it is that you're trying to get medals in or win competitions in. Luckily the sport that I participate in is gender neutral and there is no issue there. However I recognise that after literally years of training to become elite in a field of expertise to have someone with such an unfair advantage come along potentially to take that achievement away from me is in itself unfair.So when we're looking at what it is that has potentially been changed we see that women's rights and actually women themselves have been added into the bill but we still do not within the bill actually look to make sure that women are able to have safe spaces within their sport and be able to compete in fairness. The Human Rights Act 1993 at section 49 actually speaks to this and in their own words not mine—Angie Warren-Clark: Point of order.NICOLE McKEE: —it actually says nothing in section 44 shall prevent quote—Angie Warren-Clark: Point of order.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Oh point of order. Sorry I didn't hear the member.Angie Warren-Clark: Thank you Madam Speaker. The matter that is being raised currently is out of scope and we have heard it for quite a period of time. The matter of transgender is not part of the bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you for that. I have been reading through—this is the first time I've looked at this bill. I have noted though that there is discussion in the select committee report on rainbow communities. Now I believe and I determine that that is close enough though I'm listening very carefully to the member. It is my ruling that yes the discussion which is consistent with a second reading focus on the principles of a bill is in order.NICOLE McKEE: Thank you Madam Speaker. I'd like to also point out—I believe it's on page 4 of the select committee report where it is acknowledged as I quoted at the beginning of my speech—the "significant proportion of submitters [that] raised the issue of the participation of trans people in sport". In order to be able to ensure that their voices are heard in the second reading speech as part of the select committee report—this is why the ACT Party are standing up for those particular submitters.As I was starting to talk about the Human Rights Act 1993 section 49 actually refers to nothing in section 44 preventing "the exclusion of persons of one sex from participation in any competitive sporting activity in which the strength stamina or physique of competitors is relevant." And so that's why we've brought it up today.I look forward in the third reading to speaking to some of the other points within this bill. But it looks like I'm getting pretty close to my time so I will finish it there and speak to my SOPs in the next stage the committee of the whole House. Meanwhile ACT does oppose this bill. Thank you."