NZ First's proposed "Fair Access to Bathrooms" Bill

Darren Bird - 27 May 2024

On May 10th, New Zealand First MP Tanya Unkovich lodged a proposal for the Fair Access to Bathrooms Bill (https://bills.parliament.nz/v/1/667c1a87-e8f8-4ea7-8ab9-08dc70a23431). This is similar to recent laws put forward both in the UK and across the US, in that it would require separate single sex male only, female only, and unisex toilets in new buildings.

The Proposed bill has three parts. Parts one and three deal with changes to the Building Act 2004 and Building Regulations 1992. They set out, when it comes into force, what building works are affected, what buildings are included, and exactly what they mean by “unisex” and “single sex” toilets.

The second part, and this is where this bill differs from most of the others, makes it a crime to use a single-sex toilet as a “person not of the designated sex,” by amending the Summary Offences Act 1981. Being found guilty would make you liable for a fine of up to $2,000, however it also says having “reasonable grounds” for using that toilet is an acceptable defence.

The Summary Offences Act 1981 Act covers offences against people, property, public order, loitering, fraud, etc. and they want to insert it into the Act as “26a”, which places it in the middle of the Indecency section, right in between Soliciting [Repealed] and Indecent Exposure. The crime here is using a toilet when someone, somewhere, decides you don’t look like you have the same genitals as the picture on the door, and who do they intend to target? I think I’ll let NZ First answer that with this quote from one of their policy announcements:

“New Zealand First policy is that the government has no business in the nation’s bedrooms. But for a government to allow biological men access to women and girl’s restrooms, changing rooms, and other safe places, goes against the commonsense and logic of the vast majority of kiwis.”

In other words, transwomen. You’ll notice that they appear to have not even considered transmen, who under this rule would be forced into women’s bathrooms, and, as often happens, intersex people have been totally erased. Intersex people make up about 2.3% of the population, compared to the 0.8% that are trans or non-binary. That’s almost three times as many people who, through no fault of their own, may be adversely affected by this law. Cis women will also likely become victims of harassment from self-appointed bathroom monitors, something that has already happened in the US. This article from 2016 shows several examples:

Labour MP Shanan Halbert has accused Winston Peters of using this Bill to distract attention away from other unpopular decisions the government has made, and attempting to make this issue into some kind of culture war. That may be so, but it doesn’t mean we can ignore it. Conservatism is based on a traditional, authoritarian viewpoint that goes against anyone with more progressive views, and often promotes intolerance towards others who are seen to live alternative lifestyles.

Tanya Unkovich, the MP in charge of this bill, is a published author with Deep River Books (part of the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association).

She is also a regular contributor on Radio Rhema (NZ’s Christian radio station). She was a co-host on New Zealand’s Hour of Power, even meeting with and being interviewed by US televangelist Robert Schuller. During the 2023 election it came out that she was a member of the Nuremberg Trials Telegram group, known for comparing the COVID19 vaccine to a Nazi war crime. There are some red flags here which remind me of Christian nationalism, a movement that seeks to make Christianity the basis of a society by passing laws based on their view of the bible. I don’t think anyone really wants that.

At this stage it is only a proposed member’s bill and would have to get through the ballot process before getting a first reading, where it probably wouldn’t get any further. It appears to be virtually unenforceable; do they really expect every toilet to have an attendant or security guard on the door to check the IDs of every person trying to go in? It doesn’t seem feasible. This is a mean-spirited bill that really isn’t in the best interest of the country.