Majority Support For Bill Defining ‘Woman' & ‘Man'
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
Otago Daily Times
12 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Peters challenged on tobacco links
Public health researchers at the University of Otago have called on the prime minister to show some leadership and remove the tobacco and vaping portfolio from New Zealand First, following allegations the party has been colluding with tobacco giant Philip Morris. Documents from a Radio NZ investigation show Philip Morris provided NZ First with a draft piece of regulation which the deputy prime minister at the time, Winston Peters, supported. They show NZ First assured Philip Morris they would "put that draft into the policy mix". Mr Peters said the documents referenced were more than six years old, and the attempt to attack NZ First was "old, stale, repetitive, and utterly baseless". The allegation comes after NZ First list MP and Associate Health Minister Casey Costello led the repeal of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Act 2022. It effectively scrapped laws aimed at slashing tobacco retailers, removing 95% of the nicotine from cigarettes, and creating a smokefree generation by banning sales to those born after 2009. University of Otago Aspire Aotearoa Research Centre co-director and public health researcher Prof Janet Hoek said the fact the documents were six years old was "neither here nor there", because NZ First had repeatedly denied having any connections with the tobacco industry. The revelation raised questions about how easily companies were able to access politicians, and the kind of lobbying that went on behind closed doors. "The challenge that he [Mr Peters] has to address is that there have been allegations that he's been dealing with tobacco companies and using their documents to inform policy. "None of his statements, none of his rebuttals, address that concern. "What we need is some transparency — some actual evidence showing that these allegations that have been put forth in the documents don't stand, and that's not what he's been able to provide. "I think he really needs to be held to account here." She said Mr Peters' instinctive response was "attack is the best defence". "I think there's actually a real question about integrity of the political process here, and what people want to feel is that politicians are acting in the best interest of the country, not the best interest of the tobacco company." Prof Hoek said the "discrepancy" was further decreasing trust in the government, and called on Prime Minister Christopher Luxon to assert some leadership and removed the tobacco and vaping portfolio from NZ First, and entrust it to a politician without alleged links to tobacco giants. "We know that tobacco companies operate in the shadows by lobbying politicians. "What these documents reveal are claims that tobacco companies are not just lobbying, they are writing policy. "The New Zealand public will be disgusted to learn that is how the party that should be promoting public health is allegedly behaving." Fellow Aspire co-director Prof Richard Edwards said the repeal of New Zealand's world-leading smokefree legislation prompted a huge outcry from communities affected by smoking, health organisations, health professionals and public health experts. "The repeal raised questions about influence of the tobacco industry. "Subsequent industry-friendly policies like tax cuts for heated tobacco products only increased those concerns, and the recent revelations of close links between NZ First and Philip Morris suggest these concerns were well-founded." He called for the urgent reintroduction of the repealed measures, which were very likely to rapidly reduce the enormous harm from smoking, and protect future generations from smoking. Asked to respond to the accusations, a spokesman for Mr Peters pointed to a social media post online. In it, Mr Peters said the documents referenced were more than six years old, and the "attempt to attack NZ First is old, stale, repetitive, and utterly baseless". He said multiple government departments had themselves proactively reached out to "big tobacco" for direct feedback and advice on tobacco legislation. He accused Radio NZ of being "clearly lefty biased", and their "bottom-of-the-barrel attack reporting" had caused New Zealanders to lose trust in them and switch to other stations. "The smokefree legislation that we implemented is working," he said. "New Zealand First is proud of the smokefree legislation, which is backed by Action for Smokefree 2025 (ASH), that we have implemented and that we are still implementing."
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
PM Must Act To End Tobacco Industry Interference In His Government
Health Coalition Aotearoa is calling on Prime Minister Christopher Luxon to show leadership and strip NZ First of the tobacco and vaping portfolio, following damning revelations of collusion between NZ First and tobacco giant Philip Morris. A detailed RNZ investigation uncovered documents showing Philip Morris provided NZ First with a draft piece of regulation which the Deputy Prime Minister at the time Winston Peters supported. Winston Peters was described by JUUL representatives as "industry friendly and highly geared towards commercial interests." NZ First reportedly assured Philip Morris they would "put that draft into the policy mix." The World Health Organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which New Zealand signed in 2005, explicitly warns of the "irreconcilable conflict" between the goals of public health and the interests of the tobacco industry. Under this treaty, governments must protect health policy from tobacco industry interference. "By allowing tobacco industry influence, this Government is breaching its obligations under the World Health Organization convention, says Professor Chris Bullen, Health Coalition Aotearoa tobacco spokesperson and University of Auckland professor. "These documents confirm what many have long feared: tobacco companies are influencing health policy in Aotearoa. The Prime Minister must demonstrate he expects the highest standards of integrity from his Ministers and reallocate the tobacco and vaping portfolio," says Professor Bullen. Tobacco companies' intensive and covert lobbying comes as no surprise. However, evidence NZ First MPs have been complicit in these arrangements will shock the public, who expect higher standards from politicians. The evidence in the media today gives an explicit example of how officials are exposed to communications, meetings and relationships with a powerful industry on policy that is supposed to be protecting public health. And yet another example of this Government favouring commercial interests over people's lives and health. Winston Peters told reporters yesterday "I've always been industry friendly". Matching rhetoric of NZ First Minister Shane Jones last year confirmed Philip Morris External Relations Manager Api Dawson was involved in 'soundings' about the party's tobacco policy. Professor Bullen says the revelations offer Luxon a clear opportunity to put New Zealanders' health ahead of dirty politics. "This is a test of leadership. He must reassign the tobacco and vaping portfolio to someone with no ties to the industry. New Zealanders expect transparency and a Government that acts with integrity. "The Government has already damaged Aotearoa New Zealand's international standing by repealing popular, widely acclaimed smokefree measures - a move that has seen a stall in the decline of smoking prevalence, while inequities persist. "The RNZ revelations show serious lack of judgement by this Government. It must end now. We are spending billions treating preventable diseases caused by smoking, while politicians allow the industry to keep selling the products that cause these harms. It's reckless and it's wrong," says Professor Bullen. Health Coalition Aotearoa is calling for: Immediate reassignment of the tobacco and vaping portfolio from NZ First to a politician free of any ties to the industry, and who will prioritise New Zealanders' health over corporate profits. The Ministry of Health to exclude the nicotine industry from policy processes, interact only when necessary, and document all interactions in alignment with the World Health Organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, to which Aotearoa is a Party. Stronger rules on lobbying and conflicts of interest across government. Health Coalition Aotearoa is running a campaign to mitigate the harmful impact of industry involvement in public health policy. The Government to prioritise the advice and expertise of those working to reduce tobacco and nicotine harm when changing tobacco policies. "All the current Government's coalition parties have links to the tobacco industry. That must end," said Professor Bullen. "The Prime Minister has a choice: run a government based on integrity or stoop to a new level of dirty politics. He must act now."
RNZ News
a day ago
- RNZ News
Submissions for bill criminalising migrant exploitation set to close
Several high-profile cases of migrant exploitation have been uncovered in Auckland in recent years. Photo: RNZ / Blessen Tom Public submissions for a bill that seeks to criminalise migrant exploitation close on Monday. Immigration Minister Erica Stanford introduced the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill on 7 April, proposing several amendments relating to offences, penalties and proceedings, among others. The bill passed its first reading on 24 June and was referred to the Education and Workforce Select Committee. Introducing the bill in Parliament, Stanford outlined 10 amendments the bill sought to make in the Immigration Act 2009, noting its focus on tackling migrant exploitation. "The bill addresses a gap in New Zealand's migrant exploitation settings by creating a new offence, which is to knowingly seek or receive a monetary premium for an offer of employment," Stanford said. "Charging premiums for employment is an increasing form of migrant exploitation and it causes real harm. Often premiums are in the realm of tens of thousands of dollars," she said. "Currently, the legislation does not cover premiums that are paid before the employment commences, premiums that are made offshore, or situations where a premium is sought or received by someone other than the employer," she said. "This change makes it even clearer that this behaviour is not tolerated in New Zealand. It will enable us to prosecute more instances of migrant exploitation and hold exploitative behaviour to account." The bill proposes inserting a new section in the Immigration Act 2009 that creates a new offence. "It will be an offence for an employment-related person to knowingly seek or receive a premium in respect of the employment or potential employment in New Zealand of a victim," the draft bill reads. "New section 351A(1) applies before the victim starts work in New Zealand and whether or not they actually start work in New Zealand." Under the proposed section, a person is defined as a victim if they are domiciled in New Zealand or based overseas and fall within the category of an unlawful worker, a temporary entry class visa holder, a potential temporary entry class visa holder or a potential residence class visa holder. If approved, section 351A would make it an offence to charge premiums for employment, irrespective of whether a worker has started employment. At present, the offence only captures situations in which people are actively working in New Zealand and where the employer is the one charging the premium. The proposed bill widens the scope to include a potential employer, agent or any person involved in the recruitment of a victim. The penalty for the new offence will be imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, a fine not exceeding $100,000 or both. Arunjeev Singh, general secretary of the New Zealand Forum for Immigration Professionals, criticised some of the bill's content, arguing it gave "unfettered power" to immigration officers and went beyond the relationship of an employer and employee. Other immigration advisors told RNZ they questioned whether such legislation could be enforced in another jurisdiction if passed into law.
