Grigg NicolaNICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): 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."