Kia Ora and good evening.

It is an honour to have been invited to address you this evening as Labour’s Associate Spokesperson on Justice.  I hope that you will all regard me as a political friend and ally.  But I should begin by admitting that in my enthusiasm for inclusive politics, I haven’t always got it right.  When I was chairman of the New Zealand AIDS Foundation 15 years ago, the organisation moved from its premises in Grafton to the Auckland Chamber of Commerce Building in Mayoral Drive.  We held a function to mark the opening of the new premises.  There was a big, glamorous, Auckland crowd.  Right at the back there towered a statuesque figure.  She wore long eyelashes, massive amounts of eyeliner, big heels and even bigger hair.  In my opening greeting I remarked – and I meant it genuinely – how nice it was to have someone from the trans-community along at the event to wish the Foundation well in its new premises.  No sooner had the words left my lips when the looks of horror started forming on the faces of the glitterati.  Unbeknownst to me, I had re-gendered the gossip columnist Bridget Saunders who is, by all accounts, female by birth.

I acknowledge my parliamentary colleagues Sue Moroney, Tim Macindoe and Mayor Bob Simcock.

In preparing my remarks this evening I went back to the excellent 2008 report of the Human Rights Commission – “To be Who I Am”, and I want to address the report and its recommendations in my remarks tonight.  Labour believes in a society where everybody is equal before the law.  During our last term in Government, we made rapid progress in many areas toward this goal.  Some would say that our progress was too rapid: we were very successfully stereotyped with expressions like “nanny state”, “political correctness”, and “Aunty Helen knows best” for moves such as the decriminalisation of prostitution and the recognition of same-sex unions.  Many of you will remember that the National Party went so far as to appoint a spokesperson for the eradication of political correctness – not so many will realise that person is now the minister if defence. 

I was pleased to hear Tim Macindoe speak supportively earlier.  You heard from Tim that he is deputy chair of a parliamentary committee which I chair, and he rightly said that we have a respectful working relationship.  All I would say in addition at this juncture is that there is a world of difference between personal support and a willingness to take meaningful political action.  I hope that Tim’s personal support for the work you do will translate into a willingness to lobby Simon Power, National’s Minister for Justice, for equality for all New Zealanders, including trans-people. 

I said earlier that Labour suffered somewhat for the speed with which we sought to implement the equality agenda.  I think we learned some valuable lessons about advancing reform.  First, we need to make sure that there is full debate over controversial questions, and that we work with our civil society allies to educate as well as to legislate. Secondly, we need to be better than our political opponents at appropriating the language and framing the arguments.

On both fronts, “To be Who I Am” will be a real asset.  When the Human Rights Commission began the hearings that led to the report, it wanted to ensure that an evidence-based approach was taken to the questions it sought to address.  Who can argue that evidence-based legislating is the best approach – even in the days of the meaningless window dressing like the 3 strikes law?  The report carefully and patiently documents the discrimination still faced by many Kiwis, and sets out the solutions that need to be implemented.  I want to take this opportunity to commend the work of the Commission. Its consultation process involved over 200 individuals and groups – ranging from trans-people, to their partners, to their family members and employers.  The Commission also took care to ensure that it consulted across cultures.

The findings of the Commission are compelling. It concluded that marginalisation of trans-New Zealanders happens in three particularly prominent ways:

- though general societal discrimination
- through restriction in access to health
- through barriers to legal recognition of gender status

The first problem area is where, on the basis of gender identity, any New Zealander is denied their right to be free from discrimination and because of that is held back from achieving what they want to in life.  In day-to-day activities these Kiwis face constant discrimination and struggle for acceptance.  This is not right, and it is not fair.

Equally alarming is the fact that discrimination on the basis of gender-identity actually happens on the Government’s part.  Far too often, decisions directly affecting trans-people are made without any consultation with them.  This is patronising, and makes for bad – and potentially harmful – public policy.  We therefore take on board the Report’s recommendation to increase consultation with trans-New Zealanders over issues that particularly affect them.

There are other important recommendations to help combat discrimination.  These include clarifying that protection from discrimination on the basis of sex under the Human Rights Act 1993 includes discrimination on the basis of gender-identity, and acknowledging that such a conclusion rules out the bad consultation processes that I have just mentioned.  In this regard, we also need to look beyond the law, and promote the basic respect that New Zealanders profess for one another.  To this end we will also work to develop education programs to address the discrimination faced by trans-New Zealanders.

The second problem the report highlighted was the difficulty that trans-people have in accessing basic health services, and then being treated with respect and dignity while using them.  One example that particularly disturbed me was where a trans-person’s GP refused to provide them services, instead telling them to pray with them about “their condition”.  Gender identity is not a “condition”, nor is it a “lifestyle choice”.  It is a fundamental aspect of who somebody is and on that basis nobody should ever be denied such a basic right as healthcare because of who they are as a person.

Additionally, many of those consulted felt that they experienced significant mistreatment when pursuing gender reassignment surgery.  Because of these situations where a human being’s dignity is undermined, Labour is committed to following the Report’s recommendation to facilitate proper discussions between the trans-community, the Ministry of Health and medical practitioners to ensure dignity of treatment.

The third area where trans-people are significantly marginalised lies in New Zealand’s legal framework.  There are many accounts in the Report of people being subjected to discrimination and humiliation because of what appears on their official documents such as birth certificates and passports.  As well as undermining dignity these problems also force people to disclose information which they may not want to.

The problem lies in Section 28 of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Act 1995, which states that a person must cross the threshold of “physical conformity” to change their gender.  This is particularly hard for people in the early stages of transitioning, and ignore that trans-people express their gender identity in a number of ways which doesn’t always involve gender reassignment surgery.  Labour can see real merit in the Report’s recommendation to fix this problem in the law, by amending the requirement for one to have physically “conformed”, to one where they must have “taken decisive steps to live fully and permanently in the identity of the nominated sex”.

Labour commends the To Be Who I Am Report.  Our party always strives to build a more inclusive society, and in doing that seeks to include those involved in the policy process.  However, we recognise that achieving a cohesive society where everyone is accepted and afforded the same respect needs work.  It isn’t always easy. I know from campaigns since HLR in the 1985 through to Civil Unions in 2005 that some of the most important movements for equality are subject to some of the nastiest retorts from the fundamentalist right – apparently they have a special exemption from the golden rule when they choose to vilify us.

So when we come to implement the important recommendations of “To Be Who I Am”, I know that our work will be dismissed as “PC nonsense” by some.  But we know it’s a lot more important than that.  And frankly, if being “PC” means working to ensure that people can enjoy the most basic right to be who they are, then I for one am proud to be labelled “PC”

Thank you, and have an enjoyable and productive meeting. Kia kaha.