Majority Support For Bill Defining ‘Woman' & ‘Man'
ONLY 29% OPPOSITION TO THE BILL
A new poll has found majority support for a Member's Bill that would ensure the biological definition of a woman and man are defined in law according to biology, with two in three voters of the coalition government parties in support.
The Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill will provide clarity and consistency in New Zealand law by defining 'woman' as 'an adult human biological female' and 'man' as 'an adult human biological male' in the Legislation Act 2019, and was introduced by NZ First.
In the independent polling commissioned by Family First NZ and carried out by Curia Market Research, 1,000 respondents were asked 'A Member of Parliament has proposed a law that would define a woman as an adult human biological female and a man as an adult human biological male regardless of gender identity. Would you support or oppose this proposed law?'
52% of respondents said they support the proposed law and only 29% oppose it. (A further 19% were unsure).
Women net support was +4% with a further 27% unsure, but men were strongly in favour with net support +42%.
Net support by age is +19% for under 40s, +22% for 40-59 year olds, and +26% for over 60s.
In terms of party vote, ACT voters were most supportive (72%) followed by NZ First (68%) and National (64%). Undecided voters were 54% in favour.
Labour were 35% for and 44% against, Greens -15% net support and TPM -13%.
The nationwide poll was carried out between 30 April and 4 May and has a margin of error of +/- 3.1%.
Family First's Bob McCoskrie says:
'Given the recent decision by the UK Supreme Court, it's time that NZ's Government also removes the confusion and returns to simple biological reality. Family First is calling on both the National Party and the ACT Party to fast-track NZ First's Member's Bill and adopt it as a Government bill. It's clearly supported by 2/3'rds or more of your voters. Contrary to media and left wing commentary, this is not a negative 'populist' proposal. This is a very popular proposal!'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
5 hours ago
- Scoop
Legislation Introduced To Restrict Farm-To-Forest Conversions
Press Release – New Zealand Government The Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme – Forestry Conversions) Amendment Bill will restrict wholesale conversions of farmland to exotic forestry by stopping LUC 1-5 land from entering the ETS and capping new ETS registrations on LUC 6 land. Minister of Agriculture Today Agriculture and Forestry Minister Todd McClay introduced long awaited legislation that will put a stop to large-scale farm-to-forestry conversions – delivering on a key election promise to protect the future of New Zealand food production. 'For too long, productive sheep and beef farms have been replaced by pine trees in the race for carbon credits. That ends under this Government,' Mr McClay says. 'The Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme – Forestry Conversions) Amendment Bill will restrict wholesale conversions of farmland to exotic forestry by stopping LUC 1-5 land from entering the ETS and capping new ETS registrations on LUC 6 land. 'It will also protect farmers' ability to diversify – allowing up to 25 per cent of a farm to go into trees, while stopping the kind of blanket ETS planting that's been gutting rural communities in places like the East Coast, Wairarapa, the King Country, and Southland.' As previously announced the new restrictions will take effect from 4 December 2024. The law will: Restrict farm conversions to exotic ETS forests on high-to-medium versatility farmland (LUC classes 1-6) A limit of 15,000 hectares per year for exotic conversions on medium versality farmland (LUC class 6) The annual limit of 15,000 hectares for LUC 6 farmland will be allocated by a ballot process, including a reserved quota for small block holders, with the first ballot proposed to be held in mid-2026. Allow for up to 25 per cent of a farm's LUC 1-6 land to still be planted in exotic forestry for the ETS, ensuring farmers retain flexibility and choice. Protect specific categories of Māori-owned land, in line with Treaty obligations The Bill proposes time-limited transitional exemptions in rare cases for people who were in the process of afforestation prior to these changes originally being announced on 4 December 2024. To be eligible for a transitional exemption, applicants need to show sufficient evidence that they made a qualifying forestry investment between 1 January 2021 and 4 December 2024. Transactions that commenced after this date will not be eligible to register in the ETS. The applicant will need to demonstrate that the investment relates to the specific Land Use Capability (LUC) class 1–6 land they are applying to register in the ETS. Registry of 25 per cent of LUC 1-6 land will be registered against the properties title to restrict further planting as a result of subdivision. 'Labour's careless ETS settings turbocharged the sell-off of our farming base. They let speculators put short-term profits ahead of long-term food production. That was careless – and it ends now,' Mr McClay says. 'This Government is backing farmers, restoring balance, and making sure the ETS doesn't come at the cost of New Zealand's rural economy. 'This policy is pro-farming, pro-food production, pro-commercial forestry and pro-rural New Zealand.' The legislation is now before Parliament and is to come into force October 2025.
Scoop
6 hours ago
- Scoop
Legislation Introduced To Restrict Farm-To-Forest Conversions
Press Release – New Zealand Government The Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme – Forestry Conversions) Amendment Bill will restrict wholesale conversions of farmland to exotic forestry by stopping LUC 1-5 land from entering the ETS and capping new ETS registrations on LUC 6 land. Minister of Agriculture Today Agriculture and Forestry Minister Todd McClay introduced long awaited legislation that will put a stop to large-scale farm-to-forestry conversions – delivering on a key election promise to protect the future of New Zealand food production. 'For too long, productive sheep and beef farms have been replaced by pine trees in the race for carbon credits. That ends under this Government,' Mr McClay says. 'The Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme – Forestry Conversions) Amendment Bill will restrict wholesale conversions of farmland to exotic forestry by stopping LUC 1-5 land from entering the ETS and capping new ETS registrations on LUC 6 land. 'It will also protect farmers' ability to diversify – allowing up to 25 per cent of a farm to go into trees, while stopping the kind of blanket ETS planting that's been gutting rural communities in places like the East Coast, Wairarapa, the King Country, and Southland.' As previously announced the new restrictions will take effect from 4 December 2024. The law will: Restrict farm conversions to exotic ETS forests on high-to-medium versatility farmland (LUC classes 1-6) A limit of 15,000 hectares per year for exotic conversions on medium versality farmland (LUC class 6) The annual limit of 15,000 hectares for LUC 6 farmland will be allocated by a ballot process, including a reserved quota for small block holders, with the first ballot proposed to be held in mid-2026. Allow for up to 25 per cent of a farm's LUC 1-6 land to still be planted in exotic forestry for the ETS, ensuring farmers retain flexibility and choice. Protect specific categories of Māori-owned land, in line with Treaty obligations The Bill proposes time-limited transitional exemptions in rare cases for people who were in the process of afforestation prior to these changes originally being announced on 4 December 2024. To be eligible for a transitional exemption, applicants need to show sufficient evidence that they made a qualifying forestry investment between 1 January 2021 and 4 December 2024. Transactions that commenced after this date will not be eligible to register in the ETS. The applicant will need to demonstrate that the investment relates to the specific Land Use Capability (LUC) class 1–6 land they are applying to register in the ETS. Registry of 25 per cent of LUC 1-6 land will be registered against the properties title to restrict further planting as a result of subdivision. 'Labour's careless ETS settings turbocharged the sell-off of our farming base. They let speculators put short-term profits ahead of long-term food production. That was careless – and it ends now,' Mr McClay says. 'This Government is backing farmers, restoring balance, and making sure the ETS doesn't come at the cost of New Zealand's rural economy. 'This policy is pro-farming, pro-food production, pro-commercial forestry and pro-rural New Zealand.' The legislation is now before Parliament and is to come into force October 2025.
RNZ News
9 hours ago
- RNZ News
The Regulatory Standards Bill: What is it, what does it propose and what's next?
The Regulatory Standards Bill was introduced by ACT Party leader David Seymour. Photo: RNZ Graphic / Nik Dirga Explainer - A new bill would make big changes to how legislation is drafted in New Zealand, but has also drawn considerable criticism as it works its way through Parliament. The Regulatory Standards Bill presented by ACT Party leader David Seymour is complex, but the heart of the matter is about how the rules and regulations that we all live by are put together, and whether that can or should be done better. It's now out for public comment through submissions to the select committee, due by 23 June. The bill has been called everything from a libertarian power grab to a common-sense solution to cutting red tape. But what's it all about, really? RNZ is here to tell you what you need to know. The bill proposes a set of regulatory principles that lawmakers, agencies and ministries would have to consider in regulation design. Those principles cover the rule of law, personal liberties, taking of property, taxes, fees and levies and the role of courts. Makers of legislation would be required to assess proposed and existing legislation against those principles. The definitions in the legislation as drafted set out Seymour's ideal for what makes good law, but are contested. (See end of article for a complete summary of the principles.) Seymour called the principles "focused on the effect of legislation on existing interests and liberties," while Victoria University of Wellington law professor Dean Knight said they are "strongly libertarian in character". The bill would set up a Regulatory Standards Board to consider how legislation measures up to the principles. Members of the board would be appointed by the Minister for Regulation, currently Seymour. In putting the bill forward , Seymour said: "In a high-cost economy, regulation isn't neutral - it's a tax on growth. This government is committed to clearing the path of needless regulations by improving how laws are made." The bill wants politicians to show their workings, he said . "This bill turns the explanation from politicians' 'because we said so' into 'because here is the justification according to a set of principles'." The bill was part of the coalition agreements National, ACT and New Zealand First agreed to in 2023 which included a pledge to improve the quality of regulation and pass a "Regulatory Standards Act as soon as practicable" (page 4). The bill passed its first reading in Parliament on 23 May. It is now before the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee and open for public feedback. You can read the complete text of the bill right here: Read the Regulatory Standards Bill 2025 . The government's departmental disclosure statement also gives further information regarding the scrutiny of the bill. The Ministry of Regulation, which was formed just last year with Seymour named as the minister in charge, says that "regulation is all around us in our daily lives". "It's in the workplace, the sports field, the home, the shopping mall - in our cities and the great outdoors. Regulation protects our rights and safety, our property and the environment." But what does that actually mean? "Fundamentally, it's a law, something that tells you you have to do something or something that tells you you can't do something," said constitutional law expert Graeme Edgeler. Yes, such as the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee (LDAC), which produce legislative guidelines and advises on legislative design. "There already are a range of 'best practice' lawmaking guides and practices within government, such as the LDAC's 'Legislation Guidelines', Regulatory Impact Statements, and departmental disclosure statements under the Legislation Act," University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said. Seymour has said the bill is about adding transparency, not enforcement. In an FAQ on the bill, the Ministry for Regulation says the bill "does not require new legislation to be consistent with the principles ". "It requires that legislation is assessed for any inconsistency with the principles, and that this assessment is made available to the public. Agencies and ministers are required to be transparent about any identified inconsistencies, but this would not stop new legislation from progressing." Geddis said while the bill was intended to operate in the executive branch of government only, it may have implications for the courts. "Once the particular standards of 'good lawmaking' included in the RSB are written into our law by Parliament, the courts cannot but take notice of that fact," he said. "And so, these standards may become relevant to how the courts interpret and apply legislation, or how they review the way the executive government makes regulatory decisions." Similar bills have been introduced by ACT before and failed. Photo: RNZ / Angus Dreaver That's right - similar legislation has been introduced to the House three times, and failed to become law three times. Previous tries saw the 2006 Regulatory Responsibility Bill Member's Bill by former ACT leader Rodney Hide; the Regulatory Standards Bill in 2011 also introduced by Hyde and produced by the Regulatory Responsibility Taskforce; and a 2021 Member's Bill by Seymour. Unlike previous versions of the bill, the 2025 iteration adds a regulatory standards board to consider issues, removing courts from the equation "in relation to a recourse mechanism for legislation inconsistent with the principles". The bill has been somewhat softened in this incarnation, Edgeler said. "This is the weakest form of the regulatory standards proposal that there has been." He also noted that future governments could repeal or amend the bill as well. And as the Ministry for Regulation says, "any recommendations made by the Regulatory Standards Board would be non-binding". "It won't stop any future government doing something it actually wants to do," Edgeler said. The full Regulatory Standards Bill is available online. Photo: Screenshot / Parliament The bill has drawn considerable feedback, with earlier public submissions strongly negative. After the discussion document was launched on the bill in November, the Ministry of Regulation received about 23,000 submissions . Of those, 88 percent opposed the bill, 0.33 percent - or 76 submissions - supported or partially supported it, and about 12 percent did not have a clear position, the ministry reported. Seymour has since dismissed the negative submissions and alleged some of them were made by 'bots' . Among the top concerns the ministry's analysis of the feedback found were that the bill would "attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist"; "result in duplication and increase complexity in lawmaking" and "undermine future Parliaments and democracy". Bill opponent University of Auckland Emeritus Professor Jane Kelsey has said the bill is too in line with minority party ACT's ideology and will "bind governments forever to the neoliberal logic of economic freedom". Other government agencies have also weighed in. In a report on the bill after launching an urgent inquiry, the Waitangi Tribunal found that "if the Regulatory Standards Act were enacted without meaningful consultation with Māori, it would constitute a breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, specifically the principles of partnership and active protection". It called for an immediate halt to the bill's advancement to allow more engagement with Māori. In a submission received by Newsroom under the Official Information Act , the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee said it had "misgivings about the capacity of this bill to offer improvement" and it might have "significant unintended consequences". In terms of the financial impact, a regulatory impact statement by the Ministry for Regulation estimated the bill would cost a minimum of $18 million a year across the public service under the minister's preferred approach. Seymour said the cost of policy work across the government was $870m a year, and the bill was about 2 percent of that. And in an interim regulatory impact statement , the Ministry of Regulation itself expressed some ambivalence about the bill. The ministry said its preferred approach was to "build on the disclosure statement regime ... and create new legislative provisions". It said it supported the overall objectives of the bill but "that an enhanced disclosure statement regime with enhanced obligations, will achieve many of the same benefits" and also impose fewer costs. Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii It does not say that, but the bill's silence on Māori representation in government has troubled opponents. "On the consultation point, Māori clearly weren't adequately engaged with before the RSB was created and introduced into the House," Geddis said. "The Waitangi Tribunal's report on the RSB is unequivocal on this issue." Geddis said in contrast, that LDAC guidelines contain an entire chapter of guidance on how Te Tiriti should be considered. "That very silence creates uncertainty as to how the principles in the RSB are meant to interact with these principles of the Treaty." Under principles of responsible legislation outlined at the start the bill, there is a statement that "every person is equal before the law," which some have said dismisses Māori concerns. Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer at the bill's first reading last month attacked the bill. "If you look through the whole 37 pages, which I encourage that you don't, the silence on the impact for Te Tiriti is on purpose. The bill promotes equal treatment before the law but it opens the door [for] government to attack every Māori equity initiative." Seymour has insisted Māori voices were heard through public consultation. "We had 144 Iwi-based groups who submitted... If that's not enough, then I don't know what is," he told RNZ's Guyon Espiner . A section that has drawn attention says "legislation should not take or impair, or authorise the taking or impairment of, property without the consent of the owner unless there is a good justification for the taking or impairment; and fair compensation for the taking or impairment is provided to the owner; and the compensation is provided, to the extent practicable, by or on behalf of the persons who obtain the benefit of the taking or impairment". The question many opponents have raised is what "compensation" might mean and who might seek it. "Applied to the real world, this means that anything the government does that decreases corporate profits opens it up to possible legal action," bill opponent Ryan Ward wrote for E-Tangata. Bryce Wilkinson. Photo: RNZ / Kate Gudsell Writing for the New Zealand Institute , Bryce Wilkinson said criticisms of the bill as "a 'dangerous ideological' drive towards limited government are arrant nonsense". "The bill itself is a mild transparency measure," Wilkinson has also written . "The Regulatory Standards Bill's modest aim is to make wilful lack of disclosure harder." "At the end of the day we are putting critical principles into lawmaking," Seymour told Newsroom . "We know bureaucrats don't like this law. For New Zealanders that's a good thing." Now is the time to do it. Public submissions to the Finance and Expenditure Committee will be accepted until 1pm Monday 23 June. Submissions are publicly released and will be published to the Parliament website. Winston Peters and New Zealand First may hold the fate to the bill's passage. Photo: Facebook / Winston Peters Here's what happens next . The select committee is due to report back on submissions by 22 November, although Seymour has asked that to be moved up to 23 September , Newsroom reported. After the select committee, the bill would proceed to a second reading, then a committee of the Whole House, and a final vote in the third reading, which would need support from more than half of Parliament to pass. If the bill passes, it would likely come into effect on 1 January 2026. While the Treaty Principles Bill , also championed by ACT, failed in Parliament in April and was voted down by every party but ACT, Edgeler said the path for this one was less shaky. "This one, of course, is more likely to pass because the promise in the coalition agreement is to pass it," Edgeler said. That agreement requires National to support the bill all the way through, which is different to the agreement's clause on the Treaty Principles Bill. By extension it also requires New Zealand First to support it all the way through because their agreement requires them to support the agreement with ACT. "Whether it passes in the exact form, who knows, whether New Zealand First continues its support or insists on changes which might drastically alter it, or even water it down further, is a different question." NZ First leader Winston Peters has described the bill as a "work in progress" and Geddis said: "It is possible that the changes NZ First want so alter the RSB's content that it ceases to deliver what ACT wants it to, creating a stand-off between the two coalition partners." Geddis agreed the coalition agreement makes it difficult for National to not support the bill. "Given that these agreements are treated as being something close to holy writ, and given how much political capital David Seymour is investing in this bill, it seems unlikely that National will feel able to withhold its support. That then leaves NZ First as being, in effect, the decider." From the bill itself, in summary, the principles are: - the benefits that the payers are likely to derive or the risks attributable to them; and - the costs of efficiently achieving the objective or providing the function; and - the issue concerned; and - the effectiveness of any relevant existing law; and - the public interest; and - any reasonably available options (including non-legislative options); and Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
