Category: New Zealand Associations and Organisaitons

Source: Family First

MEDIA RELEASE – 5 May 2025

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!”

READ THE FULL POLL RESULT

Source: Family First

MEDIA RELEASE
2 May 2025

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has released a report urging exploratory therapy for youth with gender dysphoria rather than the chemicalisation and surgical intervention approach.

This is yet another nail in the coffin of radical gender ideology and the medical experiments being foisted on our vulnerable young people.

The report says that many of these children and adolescents have co-occurring psychiatric or neurodevelopmental conditions, rendering them especially vulnerable, and is published against the backdrop of growing international concern about pediatric medical transition. They say:

Health authorities have also recognized the exceptional nature of this area of medicine. That exceptionalism is due to a convergence of factors. One is that the diagnosis of gender dysphoria is based entirely on subjective self-reports and behavioral observations, without any objective physical, imaging, or laboratory markers. The diagnosis centers on attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that are known to fluctuate during adolescence. Medical professionals have no way to know which patients may continue to experience gender dysphoria and which will come to terms with their bodies.

The report clearly outlines the risks of significant harm:

Nevertheless, the “gender-affirming” model of care includes irreversible endocrine and surgical interventions on minors with no physical pathology. These interventions carry risk of significant harms including infertility/sterility, sexual dysfunction, impaired bone density accrual, adverse cognitive impacts, cardiovascular disease and metabolic disorders, psychiatric disorders, surgical complications, and regret. Meanwhile, systematic reviews of the evidence have revealed deep uncertainty about the purported benefits of these interventions.

The report also says:

The “gender-affirming” model of care, as practiced in U.S. clinics, is characterized by a child-led process in which comprehensive mental health assessments are often minimized or omitted, and the patient’s “embodiment goals” serve as the primary guide for treatment decisions. In some of the nation’s 15 leading pediatric gender clinics, assessments are conducted in a single session lasting two hours.

The report rightly criticises the “gender-affirming” model of care recommended by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) – which is also the basis of NZ’s model via the activist group PATHA (Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa), saying:

This model emphasizes the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, as well as surgeries, and casts suspicion on psychotherapeutic approaches for management of gender dysphoria… In the U.S., the most influential clinical guidelines for the treatment of pediatric gender dysphoria are published by WPATH and the Endocrine Society. A recent systematic review of international guideline quality did not recommend either guideline for clinical use after determining they “lack developmental rigour and transparency.”

Finally the report also calls out the harmful resistance to psychotherapy, including the mischaracterisation of such approaches as “conversion therapy” which actually affirms children in their biological body.

The rise in youth gender dysphoria and the corresponding demand for medical interventions have occurred against the backdrop of a broader mental health crisis affecting adolescents… There is a dearth of research on psychotherapeutic approaches to managing gender dysphoria in children and adolescents. This is due in part to the mischaracterization of such approaches as “conversion therapy.” A more robust evidence base supports psychotherapeutic approaches to managing common comorbid mental health conditions. Psychotherapy is a noninvasive alternative to endocrine and surgical interventions for the treatment of pediatric gender dysphoria. Systematic reviews of evidence have found no evidence of adverse effects of psychotherapy in this context.

Family First has written to the Director-General of Health Dr Diana Sarfati requiring the Ministry of Health to remove the reference to the PATHA Guidelines in the Position Statement on the Use of Puberty Blockers in Gender-Affirming Care issued by the Ministry on 21 November 2024.

The Guidelines for Gender Affirming Health care for Gender Diverse and Transgender Adults in Aotearoa New Zealand written by activists from PATHA makes statements on puberty blockers which are not supported by the findings from the Ministry’s own evidence brief, as summarised in the Position Statement on the Use of Puberty Blockers in Gender-Affirming Care, nor by other probative evidence.

Family First believes it is critical that the Ministry act immediately and make regulations under the Medicines Act to stop the prescribing of puberty blockers for delaying puberty in gender incongruent or gender dysphoric young people because there is insufficient quality evidence that puberty blockers are both safe and reversible and efficacious in the treatment of gender dysphoria.

Source: Family First

MEDIA RELEASE
22 April 2025

Family First NZ is calling on both the National Party and the ACT Party to fast-track NZ First’s Member’s Bill that would ensure the biological definition of a woman and man are defined in law, and adopt it as a Government bill.

The What is a woman? campaign last year called for ‘woman’ to be defined as ‘an adult human female’ in all our laws, public policies and regulations and was signed by more than 23,500 people and presented to Parliament last August. We are still awaiting a response from the Select Committee.

An appropriate bill would state that:
● an individual’s “sex” means an individual’s sex at birth, either male or female;
● a “female” means an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova; who has, had, will have or would have, but for a developmental or genetic anomaly or historical accident, the reproductive system that at some point produces, transports, and utilizes eggs for fertilization.
● a “male” means an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to fertilise the ova of a female who has, had, will have or would have, but for a developmental or genetic anomaly or historical accident, the reproductive system that at some point produces, transports, and utilizes sperm for fertilization.;
● “woman” and “girl” refer to human females, and “man” and “boy” refer to human males;
● “mother” means a parent of the female sex, and “father” means a parent of the male sex; and
● with respect to biological sex, separate accommodations are not inherently unequal.

The bill would require and state that distinctions between the sexes be considered substantially related to the important governmental objectives of protecting the health, safety, and privacy of individuals, with respect to the following areas:
● schools;
● sports;
● prisons or other detention facilities;
● domestic violence centers;
● rape crisis centers;
● changing rooms;
● toilets; and
● other areas where biology, safety, or privacy are implicated that result in separate accommodations.

Individuals born with a medically verifiable diagnosis of disorder/differences in sex development should be provided appropriate legal protections.

How do we target specific women’s health issues or target the gender pay gap, or violence against women, or support the Women’s Refuge, or uphold our nation’s history of fighting for women’s rights if we can’t define the target audience in the first place?

A ’woman’ always has been, always will be, our beloved mothers, grandmothers, wives, daughters, sisters, aunts – an adult human female.

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.

Source: Family First

Media Release – 12 March 2025

Family First NZ is welcoming moves by the Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters to ‘weed out the wokeness’ from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade as a result of an exposé by Family First on some of the content on the MFAT website and also its actions around the Pacific Islands.

In a Substack by CEO Bob McCoskrie by CEO Bob McCoskrie, the government body that should represent New Zealand to other governments, ensure security in the region, and negotiate trade agreements has become fully captive to DEI (diversity, equity & inclusion) & wokeness.

Their website zeroes in on sexual orientation and gender identity, intersectionality, “inclusion of our rainbow communities”, and they have even produced a glossary of reo Māori terminology for people of diverse SOGIESC – compliments of the taxpayer.

MFAT says: “In this way, we celebrate the place of rainbow communities in Aotearoa New Zealand as part of the diversity of the peoples of Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa.”

The MFAT website says:

“Indigenous Takatapui LGBTQIA+ terminology are crucial for people-centred development in the Pacific as they honour and recognise the diverse cultural expressions and experiences of Indigenous peoples of Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa…. It fosters cultural pride, self-determination, and social cohesion, promoting inclusive and sustainable development in the region.”

The then-Labour government also appointed an “Ambassador for Gender Equality (Pacific) / Tuia Tangata” in 2022 who travelled around Pacific countries pushing wokeness.

According to a report on the Newsroom website in 2022;

“Foreign Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta announced Louisa Wall’s appointment as a new ambassador for gender equality in the Pacific – less than a fortnight after Wall announced the end of her 14-year career in Parliament. The timing of Wall’s appointment, coupled with the well-established tensions between the outspoken MP and some within Labour, led to speculation that the role – to which she was appointed directly, without advertisement – had been created to move her on from Parliament.”

In response to the expose, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters released a statement this morning, saying:

“Since returning to the Foreign Affairs portfolio in November 2023, the Minister has been concerned about the impact that the woke agenda of his predecessor and the Ardern/Hipkins Government had on New Zealand’s diplomacy and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Over the past 16 months, the Minister has made clear to successive Secretaries of Foreign Affairs and Trade that he expects MFAT and New Zealand’s diplomats to reflect the agenda of the current New Zealand Government. This has included a determination to remove references to the previous government’s policy priorities from the Ministry’s online publications.

While the Minister continues to hold New Zealand’s diplomats in the highest esteem, he is disappointed that there continue to be outdated references to discretionary legacy initiatives of the previous Labour Government on the MFAT website. He has instructed Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade Bede Corry to review the Ministry’s website and ensure its alignment with the Coalition Government’s agenda.

He looks forward to that review being conducted with a sense of urgency.”

It’s time that MFAT got back to their core activity – foreign affairs and trade, security in the region (including especially the Cook Islands), free trade deals – rather than ramming down DEI and Wokeism 101 down the throat of every other country.

This appears to be the target of the NZ First bill released last week, and should be supported by the coalition partners National and ACT.

Source: Family First

MEDIA RELEASE

30 January 2025

Family First is calling for an immediate end to new prescribing of puberty blockers due to the clear lack of quality probative evidence of efficacy and safety.

It comes at the same time as more than 100 doctors, academics, lawyers, politicians and “detransitioners” are calling for the Albanese government in Australia to launch an immediate inquiry into youth gender medicine and to pause the use of puberty blockers and hormone therapies for children in Australia.

Family First and its legal representatives met with the Puberty Blocker Consultation Team from the Ministry of Health in January.

Family First has subsequently written to both the PBC Team and Health NZ to reiterate the following points regarding the safety and efficacy requirements under the Medicines Act 1981 (the Medicines Act) and Family First’s concerns about inconsistent standards, stating the following:

“We are aware that these provisions do not apply directly to off-label use of puberty blockers under section 25 of the Medicines Act, but we have been advised that the Medicines Act generally requires proof of safety and efficacy before allowing the sale and supply of new medications for specific indications in New Zealand.

“Throughout the Medicines Act, there are strict conditions relating to safety and efficacy both for a medicine to first obtain consent to be used in New Zealand and secondly for it to be removed from the market if concerns arise about its safety and efficacy, including the following:

1. Applications for the Minister’s consent under section 20 of the Medicines Act require evidence to be provided, under section 21(2), of both the safety and efficacy of the medicine.
2. Section 35 enables the Minister to revoke or suspend a consent under sections 20 or 23 if he is of the opinion that either the medicine can no longer be administered or used safely or that the efficacy of the medicine can no longer be regarded as satisfactory.
3. Section 36 enables the Director-General to give notice and require an importer or manufacturer to satisfy him of the “safety or efficacy of that medicine” if he “has reason to believe that any medicine, not being a new medicine, may be unsafe or ineffective for the therapeutic purpose for which is it sold”. This process can also then lead to a notice from the Minister prohibiting the sale or supply of the medicine under section 36(3)(a).
4. Even a change in an existing approved medicine can be referred to the Minister for consideration, under section 24(5), if the Director-General considers that despite the evidence supplied he is insufficiently informed of the safety or efficacy of the medicine after that change.

“As discussed, we are concerned about the ability of patients to give their informed consent for puberty blockers for Gender Dysmorphia prescribed under section 25 when they have not been proven to be safe, efficacious or reversible for the purposes they are currently being prescribed and used for in New Zealand.

“This is based on the Ministry of Health’s own Position Statement on the Use of Puberty Blockers in Gender-Affirming Care dated 21 November, 2024, following the release of an evidence brief which examined the safety and long-term impacts of puberty blockers when used in the context of gender-affirming care. [View the Impact of Puberty Blockers in Gender-Dysphoric Adolescents: An evidence brief.]

Family First’s position remains that there should be an immediate end to new prescribing of puberty blockers due to the clear lack of quality probative evidence of efficacy and safety. Existing users need to be transitioned from Puberty Blockers in a medically appropriate way or at the very least, have the lack of quality evidence on safety, efficacy and reversibility explained to them with a view to confirming they and their parents or guardians do provide informed consent.  This in turn also means the Ministry’s Position Statement must be updated immediately to remove the factually incorrect statements regarding efficacy, safety, and future risks, including any references to the PATHA Guidelines.”