Grigg NicolaNICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): I rise as the National Party's spokesperson for women also to speak in support of the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Bill. I think we'd all agree that few bills have had such a complicated passage through this House. I think though that we have made it to the third reading with a bill which is in a much better state than the first one that was introduced back in 2017.While I wasn't in the House for the original select committee consideration in 2018 I did sit on the Governance and Administration Committee for the inquiry of Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 59 and I acknowledge my committee members across the House over there. We had a number of core arguments for and against the bill and they have been widely canvassed during that committee process.In the second reading of the bill I committed to the House that so long as I am a member of Parliament I will work to advance the rights and protections of women irrespective of the sex marker on their birth certificate. So let me say that I do understand entirely the strong views on both sides of this debate around this bill. Throughout the submission process I've heard from people for whom this legislation is very important and for them it is another step in feeling accepted and free to be who they are. We also heard and met with many people concerned about what was being proposed and I'd like to say that I do understand the fear that some have expressed that allowing people to change their birth certificate according to how they self-identify might somehow diminish the status of women in society and it might also represent a step in the direction of replacing the concept of sex in law and public policy with the concept of gender. Those views are genuinely held by a number of people and their expression of them is a valid contribution to the conversation that we've had in the debate that has gone on but we as parliamentarians do have an obligation to listen to them and to take them seriously and to respect them.I have to say I have been concerned that during the passage of this bill some groups who have wished to hold public meetings public debate in public venues have been blocked from doing so. This is wrong. It is a clear overreach by those venues in question. We can't have a situation in New Zealand where the views of others that might be disagreed with are somehow branded as harmful or dangerous or offensive. There is no right in this country to be offended by what other people think or what their opinions might be. If we shut down the full expression on topics such as this in this House we won't benefit from considering a full range of views as we debate complex policy and ideas and I do worry about the societal impacts of people feeling that their views are no longer able to be expressed. We really do need to draw a line in the sand on this censorious restrictive direction of free speech in this country.On the committee I listened to all the submissions with as much of an open mind as possible and I tried to understand where the different submitters were coming from and—importantly—to assess those submissions in light of the legislation and in light of SOP 59. Ultimately I came to this conclusion: this bill is a small liberalisation of a law that will make life easier for many New Zealanders and the current law is causing unnecessary distress for people for whom it is a really important matter. I'm not convinced that it sets a broader precedent and that the various policy ramifications on other areas like corrections and health and education are going to be restrictive. They have been worked through and there is a clear pathway forward on all of them.So Parliament has done what it should do. It's examined a Government proposal at a multiple of stages considered the implications improved them tightened up protections weighed the views of all those who contributed and we've decided on a way forward. I understand it's not a way forward that will meet with the approval of everyone who submitted on the bill—far from it—but it is a reasonable and fair outcome. I do encourage everyone to continue to contribute to the development of this policy area. There's going to be another year and a half for public submission on regulations and as we all know the legislation will be reviewed five years from now.My expectation is that as with other societal shifts and liberalisations in policy and law that we've seen in the past the fears some hold that their freedoms will be removed and that they'll be affected and the rights they hold will be affected—I believe that as we've seen in the past these fears will be unfounded. Our laws in this country need to reflect the times that we live in and remembering that this bill—all it is doing is modernising a process that is already in place. It was a dated Act of Parliament. This is a shift in the right direction.So can I think the Minister for the approach that she's taken to the passage of this bill. I thank my select committee. Thank you again to Minister Tinetti for the open way you've communicated with me. I think that Parliament passes better legislation when we're able to work in such a collegial manner and may I commend this bill to the House.