Rally to protest ‘preposterous' Bill
Organisations around Dunedin are joining forces to stand with the city's transgender community against a proposed Bill they call "preposterous".
A rally organised by the Dunedin branch of the International Socialist Organisation Aotearoa in collaboration with Dunedin Pride, UniQ Otago, the Rainbow Otago Medical Students' Association and Pride in Law Otago is scheduled to take place in the Octagon this Saturday.
Dunedin branch committee member and protest co-organiser Oscar Bartle said the "main reason" the rally was organised was in response to New Zealand First's introduction of a member's Bill to define the terms "woman" and "man" in law.
The Bill was "preposterous", Mr Bartle said.
"It's just incoherent garbage, really.
"You can't claim to be protecting women while writing trans women out of law."
The Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill announced last week proposed to define "woman" as "an adult human biological female" and "man" as "an adult human biological male", in the Legislation Act 2019.
Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters said in a statement the Bill was "not about being anti-anyone or anti-anything".
"This is about ensuring we as a country focus on the facts of biology and protect the term 'woman' in law".
Member's Bills are usually only debated in the House if selected at random from the ballot, and Parliament's website states "very few member's Bills become law, most not passing the first reading stage".
Mr Bartle said the wording of the Bill "essentially erases trans people from the legal system" and he believed it could inevitably result in transgender women or men being sent to the wrong prisons.
NZ First was "stoking up hatred and bigotry and division" and the Bill was an "attack" on transgender people, he said.
"It's just rhetoric to rile people up and get people focused on things that aren't the anti-worker, anti-environment stuff that they've been pushing through."
It came amidst a "global upsurge in far-right and transphobic rhetoric", and after last month's unanimous decision by the UK Supreme Court that the terms "woman" and "sex" referred to a biological woman and biological sex, under equality laws.
Mr Bartle said there was a "great level of concern" among Dunedin's transgender community.
Music, stalls and speeches had been arranged.
It had received "quite a bit of attention" on social media and he would be surprised if fewer than 200 people attended, he said.
NZ First did not respond to a request for comment by deadline.
tim.scott@odt.co.nz
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
10 hours ago
- RNZ News
Bill to ban protesting outside private homes passes first reading
Standing in for Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, James Meager said the bill would be a welcome relief to many MPs, officials, and other individuals who had been targeted. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Legislation to make protesting outside someone's home an offence has passed its first reading at Parliament. The bill would apply to demonstrations directed at a specific person outside their private residence, considering factors like how 'unreasonable' the protest is. Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori opposed the bill, expressing concerns it could override the right to freedom of protest, and there were existing tools police could use. Standing in for Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, James Meager said the bill would be a welcome relief to many MPs, officials, and other individuals who had been targeted. He said the bill was a balance of rights and freedoms. "The protection of New Zealanders' privacy is fundamentally important in our society, as is the ability to protest. The government upholds both of these values," he said. Meager said the public's right to protest was protected by the Bill of Rights Act, but demonstrations outside homes could impede on someone's right to privacy. "Unreasonable, disruptive intrusions into people's private spaces are simply unacceptable," Meager said. The government believed existing legislation did not clearly reflect the importance of privacy in the context of demonstrations, meaning police had difficulty in applying offences like disorderly behaviour. The offence would only apply if the protest was targeted at a specific person outside their private residence, meaning marches that passed by someone's house would not be covered. Time of day, duration, the demonstrators' actions, noise levels, and distance to the premises would also be factors in determining the offence. Despite Labour leader Chris Hipkins earlier expressing his concerns that protest had become personalised, Labour did not support the bill. Labour's Duncan Webb. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Its justice spokesperson Duncan Webb said the bill "chips away" at free speech rights, and New Zealand could not call itself a liberal democracy while passing legislation that prohibited demonstration. "The point of political action is to disrupt. It is not to be nice, it's not to be convenient. Protest is disruptive, that's what a protest is." Webb acknowledged other MPs have experienced people acting inappropriately outside their residences, but the legislation was targeted to suppress political action. "If that's your problem, the easy fix is actually to fix the offence of disorderly behaviour, and make it clear that disorder that flows into a private premise can in fact still amount to that offence." The Green Party also opposed the bill. MP Celia Wade-Brown said threats to people's safety or their families' safety were unacceptable, but the new offence had a disproportionate punishment. "Three months in prison, $2000 fine, this is not a parking ticket." Te Pāti Māori MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Te Pāti Māori MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi said if police felt they could not apply existing legislation to remove someone behaving unreasonably outside another's home, then police should "check their practice." Speaking in support of the bill, ACT's Todd Stephenson accepted there were two competing rights in the legislation, but the Select Committee phase would be a chance for a discussion about how the balance could be struck. "It's worthwhile at least going through the Select Committee process and uncovering what powers the police do or don't have currently, but they're saying they don't have sufficient powers." Casey Costello from New Zealand First said it was a "sad, sad indictment on our democracy" that the legislation was even needed. "We know we have politically motivated groups who will purposely release private residential addresses of elected officials, of businesspeople, in order to invoke an intimidatory approach to dealing with decisions." Costello disagreed it was a limitation on protesting, but a protection for people's privacy. "It is absolutely reasonable to say that we will ensure that voices can be heard, but my children, my mother, my family will not have to bear the price of the decisions or the public position that I hold," she said. The Justice Committee will now consider the bill, and will report back within four months.
1News
13 hours ago
- 1News
Ports of Auckland expansion first to get consent under new fast-track rules
An expansion at the Ports of Auckland is the first project to be granted consent under the new fast-track regime. The Fast-track Approvals Act, which was part of the coalition agreement between National and NZ First, was aimed at accelerating approvals for projects deemed to have regional or national significance. The approved works at the Port of Auckland included a new reinforced concrete-pillared wharf at the Bledisloe Terminal, an extension to the Fergusson North Berth, a cruise passenger terminal, and other upgrades. It would allow larger cruise ships to berth in Auckland and increase New Zealand's import and export capacity, Minister for Infrastructure Chris Bishop said. 'The project will deliver lasting economic benefits by boosting the efficiency of a critical part of Auckland's economy and supporting long-term growth." ADVERTISEMENT Construction was expected to begin next month. The project's application was assessed and approved with conditions by an independent expert panel. The consent was granted 66 working days after the panel was convened to consider the application. A total of 149 projects were on the fast-track list and were eligible to apply to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for consideration by an expert panel. The panel considers each application and decides whether to approve it, with any conditions attached to those approvals. Regional Development Minister Shane Jones said he was looking forward to more projects reaching the approval stage - 10 were currently being considered by expert panels and a further three were in the pipeline. The Act has also faced criticism, with opponents being against some of the 149 projects, as well as the potential to override environmental protections and Te Tiriti. When the bill was passed in December, Labour said it was the most "radical and unbalanced" consenting regime in recent memory. ADVERTISEMENT Expert panels are currently considering: Delmore (residential) Maitahi Village (residential) Milldale (residential development) Tekapo Power Scheme (power scheme consent renewal) Waihi North (mining extension) Drury Metropolitan centre ADVERTISEMENT Sunfield (residential development) Rangitoopuni (residential and retirement units) Ryans Road (industrial subdivision). Drury Quarry Expert panels have been appointed for, and will shortly begin considering: Stella Passage (wharf extension and related work) Taranaki VTM (seabed mining) ADVERTISEMENT King's Quarry extension
RNZ News
19 hours ago
- RNZ News
Two Labour bills pass into law
Labour MP Camilla Belich gives evidence to the Education and Workforce Select Committee about her own member's bill. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith A generous 'member's day' in Parliament has seen two Labour Party bills pass with full or part-government support, including a bill that looks to stop employers enforcing gag orders on workers talking about their salaries. New Zealand First, which opposed the Labour bill, took a swipe at its coalition partner for supporting legislation it said "torches contract law". NZ First MP Mark Patterson asked a National MP if he'd been "napping" when it was considered by the party. Every other Wednesday, Parliament debates bills put forward by backbench MPs from any party that are drawn from the members bill ballot. Camilla Belich's Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill would make pay gag clauses unenforceable , meaning employers could not take legal action if an employee does talk about pay. This legislation passed with support from opposition parties and National, while ACT and New Zealand First voted against it. Belich spoke first, indicating she had felt apprehensive because nothing was guaranteed in terms of support from other parties. But she said it was a "good day" when MPs could come together to support legislation even when they had different politics and a different vision for New Zealand. She referenced a study by the Human Rights Commission into the Pacific Pay Gap which she said had found pay secrecy was "really hampering the progress" of New Zealand workplaces, an idea she then became interested in leading to her members bill. "We cannot keep taking steps backward when it comes to equality and fairness. These are things that should be bipartisan." She said the bill implemented a small change, but said it was a small step forward for New Zealand, saying it would make workplaces fairer and more open. Speaking first on behalf of the National Party, Vanessa Weenink said she rose in "very strong support" of the bill, to a round of applause. She also acknowledged it was a small change, but called it a "fundamental change". "It will actually enable all employees to confidently discuss their pay and terms and conditions with anyone that they choose to, without fear that doing so may cause some encumbrance in their employment, that they might have some negative impact or repercussions as a result of doing that." She said that fear could lead to unease and mistrust, and could perpetuate inequality. Her National Party colleague Hamish Campbell emphasised the legislation did not force anyone to disclose anything. ACT MP Parmjeet Parmar. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith ACT opposed the bill, with MP Parmjeet Parmar saying the legislation fell short of what Belich and others hoped it would do. She claimed the supporters believed it would fix pay discrimination and the gender pay gap, but Parmar said it would not "do anything of that sort". "This bill has no substance in it to make meaningful progress in that regard, and that is why the ACT party is not supporting this bill." She said any discussions about the gender pay gap and pay discrimination were "undeniably" important, adding "if this bill was doing anything in that regard we would have thrown full support behind this bill". Parmar said it was going to create problems at workplaces, rather than solve them. New Zealand First MP MP Mark Patterson. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone New Zealand First strongly opposed the bill, with MP Mark Patterson calling it an "abomination". He said it "torches contract law" and the party "will not put our name next to it". Patterson also questioned National's support for the issue. "We are surprised that National had, but they've obviously gone along with that on this occasion - hopefully this is not a trend in terms of flouting contract law." He asked whether there were no lawyers left in the National Party, asking James Meager directly if he'd been "napping" when it went through caucus. Patterson pointed to "unintended consequences" of the bill and people sharing their pay "willy nilly". He suggested there may be warranted reasons pay differentiation between employees, such as "performance, merit, experience". "It's not gender, necessarily, hopefully it should never be gender." Tracey McLellan's Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill , which would extend the range of possible protections for those giving evidence of sexual assaults or family harm in the Family Court, also passed but with support from all parties. It would allow for those giving evidence to do so in alternative ways, rather than being required to in the same room as the alleged abuser for example. Many MPs highlighted the moment of unity, saying it was the best of parliament when it came together to make change for the better. McLellan spoke first and said the bill was about "safety, it's about dignity, and it's about justice". "It is about recognising that victims fo family violence should not be retraumatised by the very institution charged with protecting them." She said too many people, "most often women", had walked into the family court and found it to be a place of fear rather than refuge. "This bill takes an important step to change that." Tom Rutherford. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Tom Rutherford spoke on behalf of National, echoing McLellan's sentiments. He also spoke about the debate representing the "collegiality of parliament". "Everybody in this place wants to make New Zealand a better place, sometimes we disagree about how we get there, but sometimes we actually come together for the good of New Zealand." He said this bill reflected that parties could put political differences aside, recognise an issue and fix it. McLellan later told RNZ MPs were there to improve the lives of people. She acknowledged there wasn't always agreement on how that should be done, but "when you can provide the other parties that you're working with a good, sensible bill, it makes it pretty hard for them not to see the light and not to support it". Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
