Wellington May 5th 2023 Speak Up for Women (SUFW) strongly object to the use of photographs of our Turn Up for Women event used alongside an article about alleged white supremacist or neo Nazi activity in New Zealand. This deliberate attempt to paint attendees as dangerous far right radicals is flirting with defamation and very offensive to all SUFW members - some of whom are Jewish and many of whom are lesbian. As noted in an article by Democracy Project 12 April 2023, The Disinformation Project gains media coverage "largely because they make quite extraordinary and colourful statements about what is going on online and it makes for good stories". At risk of being pulled into the latest Kafka Trap, where denials are treated as evidence of guilt, we repeat, we are a group of ordinary women from across the mainstream political spectrum and we do not have any associations with far right groups. Kellie-Jay Keen has also denied links to Nazis. We note too that The New Zealand Jewish Council stated the word Nazi is too freely used and that Kellie-Jay Keen is not a Nazi. The Australian Jewish Council also noted the far right contingent at the rally in Melbourne were gate crashers. If Stuff or the Disinformation Project has evidence of violence planned we strongly advise them to go to the Police. However it appears they have no evidence and instead are politically motivated to use guilt by association distraction techniques to shut down conversation and debate around gender ideology and sex based rights for women. We note too a worrying authoritarian bent to the Disinformation Project utterances, for example an apparent regret that there is less "policing" lately on mainstream media platforms. Concerning also is the infantilisation of the wider public indulged in by the Disinformation Project and the media, for example saying people are being "suckered and manipulated" (Stuff). We contend that concern about the radical sex-denialist aspects of gender ideology warrants legitimate public debate and it is entirely scurrilous to attempt to paint ordinary, peaceful protest and discussion as harmful and dangerous. The latest outburst from The Disinformation Project and the uncritical reporting by Stuff and other outlets, reeks of desperation, ramping up the histrionics because more people both here and overseas are raising objections to radical sex-denialist demands and policies. These demands and policies have resulted in medical interventions on children, men placed in women's prisons and refuges, males being awarded prizes and opportunities meant for females, and demands for restrictions on speech and freedom of association. Finally, The Disinformation Project seems to ignore the vitriol shown towards women who want to discuss issues around single-sex spaces and services. If the Disinformation Project is successful in its attempts to defame ordinary mainstream people as neo Nazis and or far right adjacent, there is real risk the fear mongering and hyperbole will place organisations such as SUFW at risk of real harm for expressing their gender critical views. As seen in Albert Park on March 25th, the two people arrested and charged with assault were not women trying to speak up, they were transgender rights activists trying to silence women.

Wellington, May 7th 2023 On May 5th 2023 we were asked by Stuff to respond to some general questions about our organisation and our views. Rather than give Stuff the information exclusively, with it destined to never see the light of day, we thought we would answer the questions but share them with all media and the general public. Their questions and our responses are below. What is your reaction to The Disinformation Project's report? Please refer to our media release here. We think the Disinformation Project spreads disinformation. They are opportunistic fear mongers in search of relevance and funding. We agree with this article by the Democracy Project https://democracyproject.nz/2023/04/12/bryce-edwards-the-need-to-take-disinformation-seriously/ The Disinformation Project is a highly politicised, anti-free speech organisation masquerading as neutral and scientific. We have heard that The Disinformation Project refused to meet with the Free Speech Union, and made the cliché excuse that it would be "unsafe". This rhetorical fad claims that to hear opposing views is so challenging it causes actual harm; and that people need to be protected from uncomfortable discussions. We do not think the functional democracy The Disinformation Project claims to support can exist without robust debate and free speech. What are your views/opinions on transgender people? In the same way we have no particular view or opinion on other demographic groups as a whole, we have no particular view on people who identify as transgender. Additionally we note that ‘transgender’ has become a very wide umbrella term that rests on self-identification. We support equal human rights for all people, including the right to live free from violence and harassment; the right to freedom of speech and association; the right to access employment, education, housing, and healthcare without discrimination based on demographic or identity group. We note that many if not most people are arguably in some respects, gender non-conforming regardless of whether they assert a transgender identity or not. We support the rights of all people to adopt whatever personal or social presentation is comfortable for them and either adhere to or reject sex stereotypes in accordance with their personal preferences. Many of our members are lesbians or gender non-conforming. Where we draw the line is the demand that a person's subjective “gender” self-identification should be affirmed in all situations in society, law and policy with no exceptions. With regard to males who say they are, or would like to be women (i.e. trans-identifying males or “transwomen”), we draw the line at services and facilities and opportunities that are single sex, that is, for females. In most day-to-day situations, a person's sex is not relevant. However in situations where sex is relevant we believe that sex should be the primary consideration, not a person's asserted “gender” identity. This means retaining services and facilities and opportunities for females and excluding all males - including men who want to be or claim to be women or non-binary. Do you believe they pose a threat and if so, what and to whom? What are your concerns? We do not believe that transgender people pose a threat by virtue of being transgender. However, we note that men are on average physically stronger than women, and have a far higher propensity to use violence, including sexual violence. We also note that this size and strength disparity, and pattern of male behaviour, doesn’t change when a male identifies as a woman. Hence with respect to single sex services, facilities and opportunities, we believe that these should be reserved for females only. To be clear, under the circumstances where sex matters, our view is that trans-identifying males should continue to be treated as males. We do not believe that trans-identifying males pose more of a threat than other males, or that most males pose a threat, just that exclusion from single sex services for females applies to all males. We understand that many people have a trans-identifying male friend or relative who is lovely and kind, and they don't want their friend or family member excluded from female-only spaces or services. However this same argument applies to all males - many women have a brother, father, husband or friend who is lovely and kind and who poses no threat to women. But this is not how safeguarding works. The boundaries in place apply to all males, simply because they are male. We accept that some women may wish to vouch for men (including trans-identifying males) as safe; however, we do not believe anyone should have the right to give away female-only spaces and services on behalf of all women. A proper public debate is needed about the clash of rights between women and trans-identifying males. We do not believe that all people have a subjective, inner “gender identity”. Many of our members and supporters have no such feelings or identity. We regard “gender identity” as an unfalsifiable belief akin to a sexed soul and as such, it should be treated more in line with a religious or philosophical belief. That is, no one should be disadvantaged for asserting a “gender identity” but no other person should be forced to go along with the belief – even if this is upsetting to people who identify as being transgender. It is no different in our view to a Christian being upset by hearing atheist views. With regard to trans-identifying females, we note that they do not pose a potential physical threat to males in the same way trans-identifying males pose a potential threat to women (although some men may object to having females in spaces where men are undressing etc., on the grounds of dignity or reputational risk). In any case as trans-identifying females are still females, we have no concern about them posing a potential threat to other females. In short, our concern is male behaviour, not transgender people or trans-identifying males per se. For the purposes of the discussion on sex-based rights we contend that the potential risk from a male is the same regardless of how he identifies or presents. While some may worry that trans-identifying males are at risk from other males, we do not think this warrants opening female-only spaces to them, instead this requires males to change their behaviour toward gender non-conforming males and to accept more diversity within their own sex. Our members have a range of views but generally we support third spaces, such as self-contained bathroom units provided these are safe to access (no dark corridors, etc.) and we welcome any other efforts to resolve this conflict of rights. What do you think disinformation is? The deliberate spread of incorrect information in order to further a political purpose, for example associating one’s political opponents with Nazis in an attempt to discredit or distract from their message or cause. Do you support statements such as transgender people are grooming young children, sexualising them, and are dangerous to other women? In terms of the potential danger they might present, we do not classify trans-identifying males as “other women”. They are males and we exclude them from female-only spaces, services and facilities for that reason alone. With regard to teaching children about sexualities and “gender”, we support age appropriate sex education including children learning that there are different sexual orientations. We support children being taught that it is OK to reject sex stereotypes. We do not support children being taught sex denialism. Rather, we support children being taught that while there are only two sexes, this should have no bearing on their hobbies, personal styling or life choices. We commend the "girls can do anything" messaging as opposed to telling girls "If you like “boys’ things" you might be a boy". We think this is regressive and we are concerned to read media articles and social media posts about trans-identifying children that focus on trivia such as hair styles and choice of toys and play. We believe encouraging children to ruminate on whether their personality and preferences are masculine or feminine is regressive, confusing and dangerous for children. The term "biological essentialism" is sometimes misused in this debate. We do not support children being taught that their biology is their destiny in terms of life path. For example we do not support telling girls that they must act feminine or that they have to become mothers. However we do not support girls being taught that they can become boys, or that if they like "boys’ things" they might be boys. This is regressive. With regard to Drag Queen story hour we are not concerned with drag per se, rather we deem it to be an adult form of entertainment and as such it should remain in night clubs, not public libraries. Additionally we note the connection made with cross dressing roles in theatre and movies is not a good analogy as these are not generally a risque performance akin to "drag". We think that storytime for children in libraries is a good idea but children would ideally be exposed to a variety of humanity and non-conforming people, not "drag". We question why drag, why now, and why children? What do you see as your role as Speak Up For Women? Defence of women’s single sex services and provisions, and preventing sex-denialist beliefs from being taught as fact to children and young people. Where sex matters (for safety, dignity, privacy) we believe that sex must continue to be given priority in legislation and policy, not replaced with subjective gender identity. We would like gender identity treated more on par with religion or philosophical belief. Have you noticed a rise in far-right, neo-Nazi groups? Noting we can only comment on our local communities and the media sources we use, where we have the opportunity to observe, we have not. Have you been contacted by many? We are not aware of any contact from far-right or neo-Nazi groups. Do you agree with their views in relation to transgender people? As far as we understand and are aware of the views of the far-right and neo-Nazis, we do not agree with their views on anything. We note that the term "far-right" and "neo-Nazi" are now being widely used by some individuals and organisations to defame and discredit their political opponents. We do not support the use of violence, threats, or “othering” rhetoric. We support equality and human rights for all people. We support the rights of gay, lesbian and bisexual people; and we believe that gender non-conforming people should not face discrimination. Further comment about the use of sex-realist language We would like to make a comment on the assertion that is being made, that some people do not want trans-identifying people to "exist" (or want trans-identifying people "erased"). We observe that for some trans-identifying people, their sense of self (sometimes referred to as being "valid") rests on their “gender identity” or cross-sex identity being affirmed by all around them and the culture. Hence, they experience actions such as being "mis gendered" (e.g. a trans-identifying male being referred to as male or by he/him pronouns) as an attack on their existence. It is highly irresponsible for The Disinformation Project and the media to repeat and legitimise claims that sex-realist language is the same as wanting trans identifying people to “not exist”. We understand that for some trans identifying people, incidents such as "mis-gendering" are hurtful and upsetting - however it is hyperbole to call this "violence". We also note that the repeated comparison of mis-gendering and other sex-realist language with violence, and sex-realist views with hate, is suggest-selling to trans identifying people that there are "genocidal" intentions in the wider community. This is untrue and likely very bad for the mental health and resilience of some trans-identifying people, in particular young people. Our view is that most Kiwis are highly tolerant and support an approach that is "live and let live", however they do not support sex being overwritten in law, policy and social custom with "gender identity". SUFW seeks to raise awareness of the real world consequences of radical sex denialism. This includes: men being granted access to women's single sex facilities and services and opportunities such as women's prisons, women's bathrooms and changing rooms, and women's sport; Women (particularly elderly or disabled) being denied the right to a female carer, women being denied the right to a female counsellor, lesbians being unable to exclude males from dating apps and support groups. We are greatly concerned with children being told they can change sex, and being offered or given medical interventions before they are old enough to understand the long-term consequences, including the side effects, and the considerable limitations of "sex change" medicine. We support adults’ freedom of choice and bodily autonomy in these matters including the decision to medicalise and/or have cosmetic surgery. We support adults’ freedom to adopt whatever "gender" presentation they feel comfortable with. However, we do not agree that people can change sex (or choose their sex) or that self-reported “gender identity” trumps sex with regard to single sex services, facilities and opportunities. Further comment about the “Rainbow” community We note that homosexuality was decriminalised in Aotearoa New Zealand in 1986 and that same-sex marriage legislation was passed in 2013. We contend that while homophobia and sexism (including harassment of gender non-conforming people) still exists in Aotearoa New Zealand the fight for civil rights for lesbian, gay and bisexual people (people who experience homosexual attraction) is largely settled. We note that in recent years a political movement has emerged that expanded the original “gay rights” movement to include a “Queer” or “Rainbow” or “gender diverse” so-called community. This conception includes people who are not homosexual and who have - or identify as having - an array of characteristics that are unrelated to homosexuality (and to each other). Hence, activists and organisations advocating for what in the minds of the wider public appears to be a new iteration of “gay rights”, have goals that are unrelated to the original gay rights movement. We believe this has caused confusion in the minds of the wider public over the nature of the debate about “trans” rights. We are perturbed by the enthusiastic taking up of the new “Rainbow” cause by activists, NGOs, corporations, government entities and the media; and the plethora of rainbow livery, commemorative days and months; corporate training and in particular legislative attempts to embed this new “community” and worldview in the wider culture. It is vapid, 40 years too late to the (gay rights) party, intellectually incoherent and dangerous.

Turn Up for Women Event - Parliament May 3rd 2023 Speak Up for Women (SUFW), in conjunction with Women Act Up are hosting an event on Parliament Grounds this coming Wednesday May 3rd at 12:30pm. The message of this event (as made clear in the image) is that while we can’t always speak up and we can’t always act up, we can always turn up. Since the events of March 25th at Albert Park, where women and their supporters were denied the right to freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly, our groups have been contacted by hundreds of men and women wishing to express support for our movement and the concept that Sex Matters. They were disturbed by the level of violence that was used to silence women and they were appalled at the way the Labour government, Green MPs and the media seemed to combine to whip the opponents of the event into a frenzy where they truly believed they could do whatever it took to remove Kellie-Jay Keen from the venue and cancel the Let Women Speak events. The police did not protect the women who attended this event from violence and intimidation. We are meeting on Wednesday to show that we will not be silenced, we will not be removed and we will not be denied our human rights. There are important conversations that need to be had and they needed to happen yesterday. There are conflicts between the sex-based rights of women and the rights demanded by some transgender people and activists. We believe that everyone should be able to live their lives with dignity, free from harassment; and every consenting adult should be able to love whoever will have them. However we don’t believe that having access to services and spaces that are designated for the opposite sex is a human right and we will fight to maintain the protection of women-only spaces. The group Pōneke Anti-Fascist Action are organising a protest about our event, calling us an “extremist group” and referring to our event as an “anti-trans hate event”. Neither of these things are correct. We are concerned that they are stirring up their supporters to oppose and disrupt our event. We call on the Labour government to support our right to freedom of expression, to assemble peacefully; and for the police and parliamentary security to do their job and protect us from counter protesters if necessary.

Why the Ministry of Health had to act on children and gender medicine. This is the full text with references of the material sent to the New Zealand Herald which became the 24 April article titled “Questions mount around the use of puberty blockers for children“. I’ve expanded the words puberty blockers (instead of PB) for easier reading. A few footnotes explain how to find the specific text (in some very large documents). You can also download the PDF version Having last year removed advice that puberty blockers are a safe and reversible medicine, the Ministry of Health has said it will publish an evidence brief on the medicine in May. A number of overseas reviews are likely to influence this decision. Those in the UK by NICE and Oxford University, Ireland, Finland, Sweden, Norway and Australia, have shown the evidence for using puberty blockers is poor. The editor-in-chief of the British Medical Journal has written that much of the guidance from medical associations proposes treatments that are not supported by evidence and that the risk of overtreatment is real. Even the NZ Media Council recognises there is a legitimate debate but there has been little media coverage of the issue here. Other sources show why the “safe and reversible" claims have had to go. The Pharmac data sheet for the puberty blocker Goserelin says it must not be used in children. FDA advisory notifications advise of serious health risks. Analysis of academic research has found that, after two years , the drugs resulted in abnormally low bone density, in up to 1/3 of the children. Dr Marci Bowers, president of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), has said that any male child whose puberty is fully suppressed will never orgasm, an important part of human loving, and their penises will not grow to full size. There’s more. Children carefully selected by Dutch clinicians in the early 2000’s for treatment are doing poorly compared with their peers. It appears that social transition makes puberty blockers more likely but children’s mental health does not improve. Once a child is taking puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones follow but testosterone frequently causes pelvic pain encouraging hysterectomy and pain from chest binders lead to a greater likelihood of mastectomy. Clinicians and others tell parents their child will commit suicide without treatment. However this is not supported by research and evidence shows it is rare. New Zealand rates of puberty blockers use are much higher than the UK, Tavistock Clinic’s Gender Service (GIDS) being closed due to unsafe practices. In NZ Dr Sue Bagshaw reports that 65 % of her clinic’s 100 patients receive them. The Tavistock GIDS clinic prescribed blockers to about 6 per cent.*** The overall New Zealand rate is higher too. Pharmac data shows New Zealand has had 703 children on puberty blockers compared with about 1000 prescribed them in England over the same 10-year period. The NZ medical guidelines require no diagnosis. Rather, clinicians are advised they should “recognise that each individual is the expert of their own gender identity". That is, each child, regardless of their age, and any other mental health issues, is to be treated as the expert. Parents, including one speaking at the 2022 CATA conference, have confirmed this. Treatment is already highly devolved and work is underway to make puberty blockers available from more general practices. Moreover, the 2022 WPATH standard has removed surgery age limits and the Ministry references these as eligibility criteria. Some surgeries, such as a double mastectomies, have already been performed on NZ children at age sixteen. (Born in the Wrong Body The Listener Jun 26 2021) Meanwhile, the Ministry of Education Relationship, Sexuality and Education Guidelines present being transgender as an option to all Primary School children, who are encouraged to use their their preferred name and pronouns. Teachers ‘help’ confused or unhappy kids to decide they are transgender. Auckland University researchers **** asked thousands of 8-year-old children which gender they identified with promoting the fantasy sex change is possible. Schools turn to ‘rainbow’ advocacy groups who give extra attention and support to these children. Such interventions give the lie to the claim that no-one encourages children to be transgender. Given what the health system now knows about blockers, having teachers explain gender identities as if they are a neutral and cost-free option seems very unwise. Jan Rivers Jan is a former public servant and independent researcher on sex and gender and co-author of Sex Gender and Women’s Rights which was published in 2021 in Policy Quarterly. Notes *See page 46 of the Guideline. Left hand column paragraph 3. ***See page 8, paragraphs 29 and 31 has the data for 2018 Medicated – 161 and 2020 referred 2519 respectively. ****See page 51 paragraph 3.5.3.

The Labour Government is quietly progressing changes to require all school Boards of Trustees to consider the gender (gender identity), sexuality, and sex of children and communities when co-opting or appointing board members. Make your voice heard by making a submission to oppose this change. Submissions close 1 May. You can read the complete Speak Up for Women submission here. If you wish to support our submission then please do your own submission and simply state that you wish to support the submission presented by Speak Up for Women Summary The Education and Workforce Select Committee is currently considering the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No. 3) which proposes a range of changes to the current Education and Training Act 2020. One of the changes will require the Boards of Trustees of all state and state-integrated schools to ensure that when selecting co-opted and appointed board members that "as far as is reasonably practicable, the board reflects the genders, sexualities, and sexes of the student body of the school and within the community served by the school". Note that the word ‘gender’ is not being used as a synonym of biological sex. As with the Census 2023, the word ‘gender’ is being used to mean ‘gender identity’. This change has been kept very quiet by both the Minister of Education, Hon Jan Tinetti, and the Ministry of Education. Press releases and various communications about the Bill do not mention this change. In addition, the public consultation for the Bill is only open for four weeks, most of which is over the school holidays. This severely limits the opportunity for Boards and Board members to find out about the changes and make submissions on them. This requirement does not apply to elected board members. However, every election approximately 40% of schools do not receive enough nominations to require an election to be held. In 2019, 1118 schools (out of approximately 2,500) did not receive enough nominations to hold an election. As such, this change could impact a significant number of school boards. Speak Up for Women has a range of concerns about the Bill. These include: o The length and timing of the submission period, denying many Boards and Board members the ability to consider the changes and submit; o The continued creep of gender ideology into New Zealand law without adequate consideration; o Age appropriateness, especially for primary and intermediate schools (children aged 5-13) of making assumptions about children’s gender identities and sexualities; o Practicality – how are Boards intended to ascertain the genders and sexualities with their community without making harmful assumptions or asking people to disclose sensitive personal information; and o Privacy – including how Boards can be expected to collect and protect this sensitive information and for what purposes it can be accessed and used. We encourage everyone, especially parents and Board members, to make a submission to the Select Committee. Submissions close at 11.59pm, Monday, 1 May and can be made online. Further detail Currently the Education and Training Act 2020 requires that school boards should so far as is reasonably practical reflect (among other things), the fact that approximately half the population of New Zealand is male and half female and that boards when appointing or co-opting a board member should have regard to this. This is a statement of fact in relation to sex. Approximately half the population is male and half is female. Even the very small number of people born with differences of sexual development (DSDs – also known as intersex conditions) are all male or female. The Education and Training Amendment Bill (No.3) proposes to replace this clause with “the genders, sexualities, and sexes of the student body of the school and within the community served by the school.” There is almost no information as to why this change is recommended other than vague references to “modernising” language to “better reflect school communities.” Except the language change doesn’t do this. The current language reflects school communities (everyone is either male or female, whether they choose to identify that way or not) in addition, another existing clause provides for a board to consider “the character of the community (whether geographical or otherwise) served by the school or schools it administers”. These provisions already provide Boards with the ability to fully consider the diversity of their community. The presumption in law that all young children have gender identities and sexualities is also concerning and not age appropriate. Many people object to being told that they must adopt a gender identity, or that their children must do so, and the proposed amendment does not take this into account. Moreover, young children do not experience sexual attraction and thus do not yet have a sexual orientation Submission period and timing denies almost all Boards and Board members the opportunity to submit Select Committee submissions opened on Thursday, 30 March and close on Monday, 1 May. Most school boards only meet twice per term. In almost all instances submissions opened after the last Board meeting of Term One and close before the first meeting of Term Two. The proposed change was also not included in any communications released about the Bill by either Ministers or the Ministry of Education. It is hard not to draw the conclusion that the timing and length of the consultation period has been deliberately designed to deny Boards and Board members the ability to submit on the Bill. It is, on the face of it, a Clayton’s consultation with the Labour Government already having a predetermined outcome, in the same way that the submissions on the self-sex identification changes in 2021 were undertaken in haste and while most of the country was in a COVID-19 lockdown. However, this is an election year and if enough of us make ourselves heard they may reconsider. Practicality In discussion with some current and former Board of Trustees members, the overwhelming view is that the change is utterly impractical and reflects a Wellington “bubble” that is obsessed with identity politics and ignore the realities of governing a school. People shared significant concerns that the change would require boards to stereotype or stigmatise people or ask them for highly sensitive information that they may not feel comfortable sharing. For example: o Assuming that people in a heterosexual relationship are both straight, when one or both people may be bisexual; or o Assuming that someone who does not conform to sexist stereotypes are non-binary or transgender when they may simply be a woman with short hair or a man who likes pink; or o Assuming that a single parent is straight when they may be gay, lesbian, or bisexual or; o Causing significant anxiety or offence by asking people to answer questions about their gender identity or sexuality for the purpose of helping to inform a co-option or appointment process when that information was highly sensitive for that person; or o Having the only people putting themselves forward for co-option or appointment on the basis of their gender or sexuality not really being interested in governing the whole school for the good of all students, but only pursuing a particular agenda. They also feared they risked opening themselves up to accusations of discrimination if, for example, they approached someone to be co-opted or appointed thinking they were a member of the rainbow community and upon finding out that they were not did not proceed with the co-option or appointment. Privacy The Office of the Privacy Commissioner is the only government agency to write more than one sentence about this change. The Office has advised: This type of information about an individual can be highly sensitive. The Ministry will need to consider whether this change to more collection of sensitive, personal information and how any collection will comply with the Privacy Act – how this information can be kept safe and that the information is only retained for a reasonable period of time. We have not been able to find any advice or analysis by the Ministry of Education about how this information would, or should, be collected, managed, retained, and protected by school boards. Making a submission Making a submission to the Select Committee is easy and can be completed in 5-10 minutes. It can be as short as a paragraph or as long as you like. It needs to clearly state your position on the proposed change and rationale for that position. If you are a current or former board member it is important to say so, while noting this is a personal submission (unless your Board has agreed to make a submission as a Board). You can choose to make a written submission only or request to speak to the Committee about your submission. There is a guide to making a submission here. Submissions close at 11.59pm, Monday, 1 May and can be made online (click here) using the submission form. You can email ew@parliament.govt.nz if you have any questions about the process.

Last month, Manatū Hauora / Ministry of Health called for the public to make submissions on their new Women's Health Strategy. This will be the first Women’s Health Strategy for Aotearoa New Zealand. It will set the direction and priorities for improving women’s health and wellbeing. Women have rights to the highest attainable standard of health and to be free from discrimination. The Women’s Health Strategy will help to achieve that. SUFW is concerned that the Women's Health Strategy doesn't seem to be centered on the health of biological women. Below is the submission sent to Manatū Hauora / Ministry of Health. Speak Up for Women (SUFW) is a women’s rights group. We are run by a diverse leadership team that includes members of the Rainbow and the immigrant communities. Over 290 women participate in our discussion group, from different cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds. We advocate for the protection of women’s rights, spaces and language. We would like to share our views and make a submission on the development of the Women’s Health Strategy. We would also like to request our group to be included as a stakeholder for the Women’s Health Strategy. We welcome the opportunity to make a submission to the first Women’s Health Strategy of Aotearoa. Our vision for this strategy is that it will have biological women’s health at the centre of it. While we are supportive of the broad diversity of gender expression, we believe that healthcare needs to be based on science and human biology (see the Appendix), because each sex has different and specific healthcare needs. We support challenging gender stereotypes and believe that there is no right or wrong way to be a woman or a man. We also support freedom of belief, religion and respect for cultural diversity. It is important to us that the first Women’s Health Strategy focuses on women’s biology while being respectful of cultural differences as well as religious and non-religious belief diversity in our society. We believe that the Women’s Health Strategy needs to be crystal clear about the distinction between biological sex and gender identity. Biological sex has a direct effect on your physiology and consequent healthcare needs, whereas gender identity does not. Cross-sex hormones and transgender surgeries do have a significant impact on people’s physiology, but they do not change someone’s sex. If patients, doctors, or healthcare administrators misunderstand these facts, then it is almost certain that serious harms will result. We support and advocate for the inclusion of trans-identified females (i.e. trans men), as well as gender diverse, non-binary and intersex females as part of this strategy. We are, however, concerned that the language used in the strategy is not clear about the need to provide health services based on the biological sex of trans-identified and gender diverse individuals. We note that this strategy describes itself as being targeted towards “all those who identify as women”. We are concerned that this overly-broad targeting will take focus away from the healthcare of biological women. We would like to see the Women’s Health Strategy being focused on areas such as women’s reproductive health, gynaecological health, and pregnancy that affect only the female sex. We are concerned that targeting the strategy towards biological males will negatively impact the services available to biological women as well as the funding available for programs that are desperately needed, such as better service for endometriosis sufferers. Women are still having to wait for years to receive proper diagnosis and treatment for diseases such as endometriosis. Under Aotearoa New Zealand’s law (1), it is lawful to provide single-sex services and spaces. To include services for males in the Women’s Health Strategy will very likely result in unintended discrimination against biological women and fail to achieve equity in the healthcare outcomes for this population. We believe that for many women, access to healthcare is impaired by a multitude of factors, with the language used in the health system being one of them. In our observation, it is very common for women with English as a second language to feel bewildered and alienated by healthcare materials that avoid referring to biological sex. One of our members shares her experience: I am an immigrant, with a university degree. I studied English for 10 years, since I was 8 years old. I like to think that I am quite fluent in English, although it’s not my first language and my children enjoy correcting me when I make mistakes when I talk to them. A couple of years ago, I saw this article about gynaecological cancer awareness month, it was from a charity I was not familiar with. I remember thinking that I should read the article to see if I needed to enrol in some screening program because the system here is quite different from my home country. I remember reading the full article and, by the end of it, I remember having this feeling of being confused. I couldn’t tell why I was feeling confused so I decided to read the article again, in case I had missed something. By the time I had read the article four times, I realised that I was feeling confused because the article was about gynaecological cancer but it didn’t mention the word ‘woman’ at all. Not once! That’s when I realised that it was a language issue. In the end I didn’t feel the campaign was aimed at women like me, because if it was, it would have said ‘women’ at some point, so I just ignored it. We advocate for the use of sexed-language in healthcare, especially in services that relate to pregnancy, birth, lactation, breastfeeding and infant care, as well as gynaecological care. We appreciate and respect that not all women may feel comfortable with such language, and this factor also needs to be taken into account in this Women’s Health Strategy. However, language should not be done at the expense of creating confusion that could negatively impact health outcomes (including for gender diverse people). The Plain Language Bill (2) requires the public service to communicate with the public using language that is appropriate to the intended audience and in a clear, concise, and understandable way. The Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights (3) states in Right 1(3): Every consumer has the right to be provided with services that take into account the needs, values, and beliefs of different cultural, religious, social, and ethnic groups, including the needs, values, and beliefs of Māori. Right 5 states: Every consumer has the right to effective communication in a form, language, and manner that enables the consumer to understand the information provided. Where necessary and reasonably practicable, this includes the right to a competent interpreter. We want to acknowledge Manatū Hauora Ministry of Health's willingness and interest to listen to women’s voices in the development of this strategy and we look forward to having the opportunity to collaborate further to improve health outcomes for all women. (1) New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Section 19 (1). Part 2 of the Human Rights Act 1993, in particular subsections 46 and 73. Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 2021, clause 79(2) (2) Plain Language Act 2022, Part 1 sections 5 and 6 (3) Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights Appendix In this section we include links to articles to provide context and supporting evidence for our position: 1. The article Trans ideology is distorting the training of America’s doctors. Fear and ignorance are infecting medical education published by The Economist last year discuss the influence of gender identity theory in medical training and the negative consequences for transgender patients: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2022/01/08/trans-ideology-is-distorting-the-training-of-americas-doctors 2. The BBC article Why transgender people are ignored by modern medicine explains the need for biological sex to be recorded in the health system in order to provide adequate care for trans-identified individuals. Significant issues have been caused by including people in screening programs based on their registered gender (a term traditionally used as synonym of biological sex that has changed its meaning in recent years to gender identity): “The gender you’re registered as also dictates which screening tests you are invited to, meaning that thousands of transgender men could be missing out on potentially life-saving cervical (Pap) smears and breast exams, while transgender women could be missing out on abdominal aortic aneurism check-ups (or prostate cancer screenings, if they live in the US).” https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200814-why-our-medical-systems-are-ignoring-transgender-people 3. The article It’s time to expand the definition of ‘women’s health’ (Nature.com) raises the need for disease in research to study differences between men and women “with the recognition that diagnosis, prognosis and treatment might need to be different between the sexes” https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02085-6

Suzanne Levy of Speak Up For Women responds to a piece by former ACT MP Deborah Coddington writing for Stuff that argued against Pose Parker being allowed entry to New Zealand. Coddington oddly evoked Alan Turning – the code cracker of WW2 who was rewarded for his efforts with an indecency conviction due to his homosexuality. This piece first appeared on Plain Sight and is republished with permission. Deborah Coddington and I agree on one thing. That the treatment of British war hero Alan Turing was appalling and disgraceful. And I have no doubt that almost everyone who read her article was horrified when she wrote of having to choose between chemical castration or prison for being homosexual. What Coddington neglects to mention is that the drugs used to chemically castrate Alan Turing are now called ‘puberty blockers’. The same drugs that Alan Turing chose to take to avoid prison for being homosexual, are being used in 2023 off-licence to chemically castrate, or as activists prefer to say, “block the puberty” of gender non-conforming or vulnerable and distressed children. A disproportionate number of these gender non-conforming children will grow up to be same-sex attracted. I should be able to end my response there. Because there are very few people who would not be horrified that drugs previously used to chemically castrate gay men or sex offenders, and are now currently used to treat prostate cancer, are being used on healthy children. Off-licence. That means not approved by any regulatory or medicines authority for that purpose. Let’s add to that that every other country with a health system like New Zealand’s, the UK, Norway, Sweden, Finland, France that have done recent independent and robust reviews of the use of these drugs on children have deemed them experimental and taken immediate steps to decrease or limit their use. This is one of the many things that Kellie-Jay Keen would have talked about if a rainbow-clad mob hadn’t stampeded barricades and forced her security to form a human shield around her at Albert Park on Saturday. Coddington says “I don’t believe we should allow individuals into Aotearoa who pre-announce they intend to force harm on the country and its people”. Yet like almost every single other person who has opined on this topic in the last week she doesn’t name a single “harm” that Kellie-Jay Keen would have forced on New Zealand. Deborah proclaims her virtue-signalling ally-ship by saying that Kellie-Jay Keen and those of us who supported her visit “pick on” the LGBT community. Well I happen to be the L in that community and Deborah does not speak for me, or many other gay and lesbian people I know. I am old enough to remember what real harm was like. When same-sex couples were illegal, when I couldn’t get married, when gay and lesbian people were shunned and kicked out of their families. When gay men were regularly assaulted, beaten, and sometimes killed for the crime of being a word I won’t write. The idea that someone saying “A lesbian doesn’t have a penis” is now so “harmful” that Deborah and her ilk think that someone should be banned from the country is an affront to the brave men and women who fought for actual gay rights. Who endured not words they didn’t like, but fists and ostracisation. In New Zealand, there is not a single right denied to people because they identify as gender diverse. The demand for males to be able to self-identify into women’s sport, to access women’s changing rooms, and for the sex on their birth certificate to be altered to state something that isn’t true is not a demand for rights. It is a demand for special treatment for a particular subset of people that requires women to put their dignity, privacy, and safety second. As for all those women saying “you don’t speak for me”. Remember how outraged you were when a group of women in the US gave away the reproductive rights of all women? Remember your anger, your marches, and your tears. Well you’re now them. You don’t get to give up other women’s sex specific spaces, services, and sports. You don’t get to say that a survivor of rape is not entitled to a female only space. You don’t get to say that a Muslim woman is not entitled to a female only swim session. And you do not get to give away the words that have described us for millennia. Woman. Mother. Daughter. Sister. If you want to be a menstruator, vagina-haver, or pregnant person then go for it. If you want to share your changing room, public toilet, or sports team with a male who identifies as a woman then go for it. But you don’t speak for me.

April 13, 2023 In May 2021 Speak Up for Women's request to use Tūranga library was declined by Christchurch City Council. In May 2022 Speak Up for Women and Daphna Whitmore filed a claim against Christchurch City Council in the Human Rights Tribunal, alleging that the declining of the library booking was unlawful discrimination on the basis of political opinion. That claim has now been settled and the parties have agreed to the following joint press release. Speak Up for Women is pleased to note that they are welcome at Christchurch City Council facilities. April 12, 2023 The Council and SUFW have agreed to resolve a dispute regarding Council’s decision in May 2021 to decline SUFW’s request to use Auahu Hīhī /Spark Place at the Tūranga Library for a public meeting to discuss proposed amendments to the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act. When Council declined the meeting request in May 2021, it stated that SUFW’s planned event may conflict with Councils’ Customer Code of Conduct, “particularly… our expectation that all customers must respect the rights of others [and] treat other library users with courtesy” and that hosting the public event at Tūranga Library may send a message that Christchurch City Libraries are no longer safe and welcoming spaces for the whole community, and that Council was concerned about the potential risk of disruption at Turanga due to protests by members of the public. At the time SUFW made its request, Council staff had been dealing with a series of serious incidents at Tūranga including threats of serious physical violence, incidents causing damage to Tūranga, and incidents requiring Police involvement. The incidents were unrelated and unknown to SUFW and its supporters. Due to these incidents, Council stands by its decision to decline the request. Council’s statement was not intended to convey a message that SUFW, or its supporters, were unwelcome at Council facilities or that Council agreed with any of the characterisations of SUFW which had been received via internal or external complaints, or those posted online. By resolving this dispute, Council wants to make clear that SUFW, its volunteers, and its supporters have been and remain welcome at Council’s facilities. Council has made a contribution towards costs incurred by SUFW in moving the meeting that was advertised at the Tūranga Library and towards SUFW’s legal costs to resolve this dispute. The Christchurch City Council release can be found here.

Wellington March 25th 2023 Today in Albert Park as women were punched, kicked, spat at, trampled, and overrun by a violent mob, New Zealanders have seen the true colours of some of those who, ordinarily, cloak themselves in claims of diversity, tolerance, and inclusion. In the same week that World Athletics has stated what all reasonable New Zealanders know to be true – that fairness, safety and opportunities for women in sport require the exclusion of males, no matter how they choose to identify – New Zealand activists have shown that they believe women should not be able to have anything for themselves. Not even a small band rotunda in an Auckland park. So let us clearly say the things that Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull was not able to say today. Lesbians cannot have penises. Men have no place in women’s single sex facilities, services, or sports, regardless of what they proclaim their inner gender identity to be. Puberty blockers, created to castrate male sex offenders and treat prostate cancer, are experimental and harm vulnerable children. And people cannot change biological sex no matter how much they may want to or how many documents they may possess saying otherwise. Saying that does not deny the existence of people who identify as gender diverse, or instigate harm or violence against them, or make them unsafe, it simply states the truth. Biological sex is real and it matters. Storming barricades and assaulting women is not “free speech”. It is violent sexism and misogyny. Drowning out the speech of people you don’t like is the cowardly approach of people unwilling to debate contesting views. A 5’1” woman needing four security guards to form a human shield around her to protect her from a screaming, spitting mob is not a New Zealand we know. But it is a true representation of a movement that has become increasingly determined to shut down and destroy anyone with views about sex and gender that they don’t like. We see those of you in the media who are already trying to downplay the results of the frenzy you were busy whipping up all week. There was not a “scuffle” between supporters and Mrs Keen-Minshull did not leave because she got some paint thrown at her. A small group of courageous women were stampeded by an activist mob and a number were assaulted and physically harmed. Fortunately, in the age of technology New Zealanders can see for themselves what happened. In the country that was the first in the world to give women the vote, tomorrow’s Let Women Speak gathering in Wellington has been cancelled. Mrs Keen-Minshull’s security team have advised her that they cannot keep her safe from mob violence and the police have declined to do so. Activists spent the week being courted by a complicit media platforming their claims of being scared, fearing for their safety, deliberately lying to propagate their claims of New Zealand being full of “queer hatred”, and claiming that words they don’t like are harmful and make them feel unsafe. In reality it is clear who really was unsafe today. It is clear who was actually harmed. And it was not the activists taking gloating selfies from a band rotunda. Speak Up for Women thanks Mrs Keen-Minshull for having the courage to come to New Zealand and showing up in Albert Park today, despite receiving multiple death threats and threats of violence in the last week. In the coming weeks Speak Up for Women will be gathering witness statements and laying a formal complaint with the Independent Police Conduct Authority about the lack of police action to prevent violence in what was clearly an increasingly volatile situation. We call on all political leaders to roundly condemn the violence that transgender activists perpetuated this morning. We speak directly to the Greens, who actively courted and promoted the violence that occurred today, including just this morning posting on social media that they were ready to “fight the Nazis”. And by Nazis they meant the 70 year-old woman who was punched in the head by the mob they instigated. The Green Party was founded by people who fought for free speech, including speech they found abhorrent, you should be ashamed of what you have turned the party into.

Speak Up for Women Statement Regarding Kellie-Jay Keen’s New Zealand Events Wellington March 21st 2023 The Let Women Speak events led by Kellie-Jay Keen are not Speak Up For Women managed events, but we know that many of our supporters will attend them. We encourage everyone who is concerned with the rights of women and girls to attend these public events. The protesters who gate-crashed the event in Melbourne have unfortunately been allowed to completely hijack the purpose of the event and sideline the women who spoke. These women speakers are mothers and grandmothers, aunties, daughters and sisters. They are non-violent and only wish to gather and voice their concerns, to speak about how their rights are being impacted with the introduction of gender identity in legislation, and to share their own experiences. We all have and deserve human rights and transgender people are no exception. However, accessing sex segregated or same-sex spaces and services, designated for people of the opposite sex, is not a human right. As women’s rights campaigners we are extremely concerned about this conflict of rights. We are concerned that the Mayor of Wellington, Tory Whanau, is encouraging protesters to silence women, many of whom are part of the rainbow community that she claims to be protecting, when she should be supporting women’s freedom of speech. We are concerned that some MPs of the Green Party of New Zealand are discouraging open debate around a topic that concerns all New Zealanders. In a healthy democracy all views should be heard, even the ones we don’t agree with. We support Kellie-Jay Keen’s right to enter New Zealand to advocate for women’s rights and denounce the attempts by some individuals and groups to have her visa revoked.

If you're here then you have probably reached the point where you have decided that your position on gender identity is incompatible with completing the 2023 Census. We can’t offer legal advice and we can’t incite you to break the law, but we can help you make a stand. You can take this as far as you wish - and please tell us how you get on! What we can tell you is that while it an offence to not complete the census, it is also an offence to supply false or incomplete information. So what’s it going to be? Stats can't have it both ways. Your position is that you don’t have a gender and you don’t believe in gender identity. You have a sex and that’s it, so what can you do? A powerful response is to put it back onto the Census team, make the false information offence their problem. Be polite and respectful to the people you deal with (they will just be messengers and the first line will have no idea what you're talking about), but make it clear that you can’t fill it in because it is an offence to provide false information. Explain that online you can’t progress past the Gender question as none of the answers offered apply to you. Explain that ticking the “another gender” box is not an alternative, another gender is quite different no gender (use the religion question as a nice comparison). Explain that with the paper forms you don’t want to leave it blank because you know that the result of that will be an alternatively sourced answer that will be incorrect, and you don’t want false information on your record. Explain that you are happy to have your sex recorded but definitely nothing for Gender. The result we are after is that Stats NZ recognise that there needs to be a ‘no gender’ or opt out option for the Gender question if they are going to ask it, or they create their very own Catch-22 situation. This may get them to rethink the ‘Gender by Default’ approach for subsequent censuses. Here's what the law says (follow this link for more info) Do I have to complete the census? The Data and Statistics Act 2022 requires that everyone in New Zealand on census day must fill out a census form. If you don’t participate or if you provide false or incomplete information an individual person can be fined $2,000 and organisations and agencies $12,000 for agencies. For more information on penalties and fines, please review sections 76 and 77 of the Data and Statistics Act 2022. Because participation in the census is required under the Statistics Act, this overrides the general requirements of the Privacy Act. If you have questions about the census or your obligations on census day, you should get in touch with Statistics New Zealand, as it is the agency responsible for carrying out the census.

Suzanne Levy, February 2023 In the 2023 census, Stats NZ will be collecting data on Gender. This is part of their new “Gender by Default” reporting standard. This new Gender category will be used as the default category for sorting most of the other data - so despite also collecting data on Sex, they are absolutely desperate to know your Gender. So desperate in fact that if you don’t answer or don’t know, they will answer the question for you. Stats NZ themselves define Gender as a person's social and personal identity. When they are asking you for your Gender, they actually mean your Gender Identity. They are asking you to answer an ideological question under the guise of a factual and definable concept. Your Gender Identity is so important to them that they ask for it in two places - it's on both the Dwelling form and the Personal form. The person who fills in the Dwelling form for your household might have totally different ideas on Gender Identity than you. We asked Stats what happens if the answer on the two forms is different. They said that the Personal form takes priority - but they have also said that the gender answer on the Dwelling form can be used as an "alternative source" if the Gender answer on the Personal form is left blank. How is any different to asking the person who fills in your Dwelling form to provide your religion? Gender is not the same as biological sex, but for a long while the two terms have been virtually interchangeable, and Stats NZ know this. They know that if they put the Gender question BEFORE the Sex question that most people will think they mean sex, not realising that the next question covers that. They also use biological sex terms ( female, male) to categorise Gender, creating even more confusion between Sex and Gender. So why create all this confusion? Here is an insight into Stats NZ approach - it is nothing less than stealth. From 2023 Census: Methodology for filling gaps for gender and sex concepts Consultation technical paper: December 2022 "We will produce a complete time series for gender. The gender variable must be complete for all people. Where the response is not complete, we must fill in or impute that variable in some way. Gender is a priority one topic. Priority one topics, explained in the 2023 Census: Final content report, are those that make up the core reason for conducting a census and have the highest output quality need. Where gender cannot be obtained from the 2023 Census individual form, gender will be obtained from the paper dwelling form or online household summary form. If gender is not available from either of those sources, we will use a combination of the 2023 Census sex at birth response, historic census responses or admin data to source gender information." Why is this such a problem? It's a problem because Sex Matters. Women need to be counted and this data collection method is prioritising the needs of one group over the needs of another. The new data standard is advertised as being necessary for the rainbow community to be visible - but how does it create visibility for women? We are a distinct sex class, not a "social or personal identity". Over the past few months supporters of Speak Up for Women have been busy emailing Stats NZ seeking clarification on the Gender question and the way that various responses will be recorded. We are concerned because we don’t believe in gender, it’s not that we have no gender, it’s not that we would rather not say, it’s that we don’t believe that anyone has a gender and we object to the question. It’s like being asked whether we prefer blue or pink unicorns and being unable to answer that we don’t believe in unicorns. We are concerned because Sex Matters. We want to be counted as a sex class. The issues that impact the day to day lives of women - health, safety, working conditions and pay rates etc are because we are women, not because we identify as women. How will we assess the pay gap between men and women if some of the "women" are men? How will we target funding for women's health if some of the "women" require prostate checks? We have needs that are nothing to do with how we identify. We have needs that are tied to the reality of our sex. Background Every piece of data collected by Stats has a gender standard, researched and established by statisticians and other clever people. The concept of Gender is described as follows - they are describing Gender Identity. Gender Gender refers to a person’s social and personal identity as male, female, or another gender or genders that may be non-binary. Gender may include gender identity and/or gender expression. A person’s current gender may differ from the sex recorded at their birth and may differ from what is indicated on their current legal documents. A person’s gender may change over time. Some people may not identify with any gender. The interesting thing about the data standard for gender is that it includes some options that are not shown on the census form. The actual data standard looks like this: The actual census question looks like this: There is an important option missing and for those of us who don't believe in gender and it is the difference between being able to complete the 2023 Census accurately and honestly or not. Stats NZ refer to these additional options in the data standard as Residual Categories, we still don't understand why they collect data differently across different questions. A good comparison is the religion data standard and census question. The data standard for religion looks like this - note the residual categories: The actual census question looks like this - note the option to object. So where are we at? After much correspondence with Stats NZ we have the following answers to three scenarios that we decided were the most likely. Scenario One: I answer the Sex question but I don't answer the Gender question at all. The value will be “alternatively sourced”. The most likely source will be your answer to the Sex question, though all Stats NZ will confirm is that your answer to the Sex question is one of the alternative sources able to be used. This means they are answering the question for you! Scenario Two: I answer the Sex question and I select “Another Gender” then type “None” or "no gender" as my answer to the Gender question. This is recorded as "Another Gender" There is a list of synonyms that can be coded - these are basically “other genders” that have made the list (and what a list it is!). There are 47 of them and if your answer matches one of them it will be recorded as "Another gender" If you have no gender it is impossible to have this recorded, it will be recorded as "Another Gender". So they are changing what you write! If you answer with something that doesn’t match one of the 47 options then Scenario One applies and the value will be alternatively sourced. Scenario Three: I don't answer the Sex question and I don't answer the Gender question. The values for Sex and gender will be alternatively sourced. This means they are answering BOTH questions for you! How can I help? When it comes to answering the Census (or not) we can't tell you what to do, ultimately that is up to you - but there is one thing we want all of you to do. Contact Stats NZ!!! https://www.census.govt.nz/contact-us/ There are several ways to contact them - use as many as possible and ask them the same thing each time: "I object to the Gender question, what happens if I don't answer it?" Obviously we know the answer to this question - but it is important that they are forced to say, again and again, that they will answer the question for you. Ideally ring them and email them using their online form. We want the people involved in running this census to have a sense that the question on Gender is confusing and unwanted by a reasonable section of the population. Because it is! If they don't answer the question then ask again! The next thing to do is to order paper forms. Whatever you decide to do - it's going to be easier on paper. You can write to your MP, the Minister for Stats, the Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition spokesperson for Stats - check out this post for writing tips. What are my options? Force Stats NZ to populate both the Sex and Gender answers. To do this, you must request the paper forms and simply leave the Sex and Gender answers completely blank on all forms (the gender question is on the Dwelling form too). If enough people do this it will be noted that it had to be sourced elsewhere and it is disruptive. Record yourself as "Another Gender". Request the paper forms and choose "Another Gender" and write or type "None". It's nonsense but it avoids having someone else answer the question for you. "None" is also a disruptive answer. If half the population have "Another Gender" then Stats NZ may find that the Gender by Default reporting method is unworkable and revert to Sex by Default. Refuse to complete the census on the basis that you are unable to do so truthfully. Check out our article on this type of refusal here. It's a matter of passing the problem back to Stats NZ and you can take it as far as you like. The simple addition of an objection option would bring the question in line with other ideological questions such as religion.