Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) Link to this
I want to recap that National supports the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. We think that the bill is a little bit overdue, like a lot of legislation that this Government brings to the House. The point was made—I think by more than two members opposite—that this bill was seen to be part of the process of satisfying New Zealand’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. National, of course, supports much of the work that was done in respect of that convention, despite what a colleague of mine has said.
I would like to think that we all agree that this legislation is important, regardless of New Zealand’s obligations under the convention. If we saw it as being important that women in the armed forces were not discriminated against in any way, then I would have thought that a little country like ours, which has a good, progressive record in the areas of women’s rights and advancing human rights, would support this bill, regardless.
The other issue is in respect of timing, and why it has taken so long for the bill to come before the House. For at least 7 years it has been the policy and strategy of the military to not have discrimination against women in the armed forces. So this bill should have come before the House long ago. But it is here now, and that is fine—National supports it.
I would have thought, though, that the Government might be more concerned about the low numbers of women in the military. Maybe that is where some emphasis now ought to be placed. It is one thing to be able to say that we support women doing everything and going everywhere through their activities in the military, but that should not take our focus away from the fact that the number of women in the military is, in my view, still quite low. Lianne Dalziel, the Minister of Women’s Affairs, commented in a speech the other day that the numbers were slowly rising. Well, she could not have described the situation in a more apt manner. In 2002 the overall percentage of female personnel in the New Zealand Defence Force was 14.9. The figure was 15.8 percent in 2003, 16.4 percent in 2004, 16.2 percent in 2005, and 16.5 percent in 2006. I would have thought that that was a low turn-out in New Zealand given that we have had women in quite high positions over the last 5 years, that women outnumber men, and that for a long time women have wanted to be considered on merit, no matter what the activity.
I would hope the military is developing some plans to be a little bit more progressive in order to lift those numbers. There is no doubt that women can do anything, and that women want to do everything—and, of course, they are doing that. But it would help if there were a bigger boost of numbers in any particular sector. In the ranks of women, both in the Navy and the Army—I do not have the figures for the Air Force—the numbers in terms of commissioned officers are very low. That is an area where Lianne Dalziel as the Minister of Women’s Affairs, and Phil Goff as the Minister of Defence, ought to put their focus. I look forward to that happening. The recruitment situation in the military has been tough over the last few years, and I am sure that greater numbers are still required. I think more effort ought to go into making sure that increased numbers of women come into the defence forces.
There is no doubt about the women who are in the armed forces now, and I want to congratulate them. I have met a few of them, and I know they are pulling their weight and doing great things for New Zealand. I mention Kelly Logue, who was the first trained female Skyhawk pilot—I think she came through back in about 1998 or 1999. I am not sure whether others have followed her, although I am sure they have. She is a role model. This shows that women want to take their place in the higher echelons of the military, and she is certainly an example of that happening. I am not sure where she is now. Unfortunately, of course, this Government mothballed the Skyhawks. I do not know why it did so, but the Skyhawks have been sitting in mothballs ever since. Also, my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp tells me that a Louisa Parkinson has been newly appointed as a colonel in the Army, which is very good.
National supports this bill, and it supports the right of women to be available right throughout the military. I do not know whether any females have ever been in the SAS—possibly not—but I am sure the time is coming pretty soon when we will see them there, as well. Given the difficulties in recruitment that the military has experienced over the last few years, the military bosses should put in more effort and find a better strategy to get more women into the military.
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnātātou te Whare. One would think that the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill is a fairly straightforward procedure. Indeed, in today’s times one would want to think that most New Zealanders would not even blink twice at a proposal to amend the Human Rights Act to remove an exemption that discriminates against women. But I would like to say: think again. We have been surprised at the energy this bill has generated amongst some sectors about its proposal to ensure that there are no impediments preventing women from serving in active combat positions. This is despite the fact that women have served in the armed forces since 1914. However, the resistance to women serving in active combat roles has been such that it was not until the year 2000 that the restrictions that prevented such a possibility were lifted.
This House will be aware that we in the Māori Party take very seriously our responsibility to look deeply at our own tikanga and histories in order to understand the context of any legislation that passes through this Parliament. And so it was that I looked into the experiences of Hēni Te Kiri Karamu of NgātiUenuku-kōpako and NgātiHinepare iwi of Te Arawa to gain some insight into women serving at the front line of combat. Hēni was descended from Ngātoro-i-rangi of Te Arawa waka and was probably born around 14 November 1840. She was literally born into the foundation of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. She was fluent in Māori, English, and French. Hēni—later known as HēniPore—became an assistant teacher and governess at the Three Kings Native Institution, a boarding school for Māori children.
Hēni Te Kiri Karamu and her family supported the King movement of Waikato when the settler Government declared war in July 1863. They fought with NgātiKoheriki, a section of NgātiPāoa, led by WīKōkā. The following year, Hēni Te Kiri Karamu and NgātiKoheriki joined the King’s forces at Te Tiki o Te Ihinga-rangipā at Maungatautari. But her contribution is probably most renowned for her involvement in the battle at Pukehinahina, or Gate Pā, on 29 April 1864. Hēni was recognised as a woman warrior—a wahinetoa—who had refused to leave her brother Neri.
Records of the time make for interesting reading, including accounts that report that when the wounded British troops were left abandoned in the pā they were treated with compassion by the defenders. Indeed, Hēni Te Kiri Karamu gave water to Colonel Booth and other wounded men. So impressed were the Brits with the chivalrous conduct of Māori at Gate Pā that to this day there is a stained glass window in the chapel at Lichfield Palace in England that commemorates the heroic actions of tangata whenua.
These are our stories, our histories, our background of revered ancestors who fought with strength and valour on behalf of their people. The legendary adventures of the daring Hēni Te Kiri Karamu demonstrate that our women have been leaders in combat, leaders in peace, leaders at the front line, and leaders who tended to the wounded.
As of July 2006—143 years after the Battle of Gate Pā—2,555 women were employed in the New Zealand Defence Force. The majority—1,469—were in the regular force and 1,086 were civilians. Of course, it is not just the 2,555 in the current forces but also the women of our future whom we are thinking of with our votes today.
We note with great interest that five of the six submitters to the select committee supported the bill—namely the Human Rights Foundation, the New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women, the Human Rights Commission, the National Advisory Council on the Employment of Women, and the National Council of Women. It was the view of these submitters that the proposals being debated today will enable women to legitimately enjoy the same employment opportunities as men. They also pointed out that the removal of the legal exemption will enable New Zealand to fully ratify its obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which is also known as “CEDAW”.
This House will know that our record at the United Nations is at an all-time low. Just last month the Human Rights Commission released its report to the international Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The report, Tui, pointed out the significant challenges this nation faces due to persisting social and economic inequality between different ethnic groups. In March last year the report of the United Nations special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples was tabled at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, alerting the United Nations to the significant disparities between Māori and non-Māori in employment, health, housing, education, the criminal justice system, and their portrayal in the media. In the midst of such dismal reports the opportunity for this bill to enable compliance with international law, creating a chance for New Zealand to fully ratify its obligations under the United Nations convention, has to be supported.
Finally, I draw the attention of the House to the submission from the Human Rights Foundation of Aotearoa, which states: “The Foundation emphasises that conflict situations are routinely associated with severe human rights violations, as both cause and effect, particularly against women and children, and are inherently undesirable.” We in the Māori Party cannot ignore the irony that in the midst of passionate debate about the role that physical violence plays in exerting control, we are debating to allow women to willingly go into war, and we are expressing tacit support for women to be involved in active and armed combat.
And we remind the House of the value that we would measure the role of armed forces within the context of a genuine progress index. We remind the House that for the price of 19 days of global military expenditure the world could benefit from access to adequate food, clean water, safe sewers, basic health-care, reproductive health-care for women, and basic education. Every dollar that is spent by the military could be a dollar used to promote life, not death.
We know that there are other debates that should be had about the association of women with the armed forces: the fact that women are disproportionately harmed by militarism and war; the fact that violence against families increases dramatically in war zones; and the fact that war and military power emphasise a belief that violence can solve problems, and that might is right.
The Māori Party will support this bill. It allows legislation to be updated to fit with changes in practice, it allows compliance with international law, and, indeed, supporting the notion of women in active combat is consistent with the tikanga and the histories of some hapū and iwi. But we leave one thought with this House about this issue of military power. It is a thought that takes its origins from an African proverb: “Until lions have their historians, tales of the hunt shall always glorify the hunter.” We wonder who tells the stories of power and control. Who judges the victors and the victims? Who are the unnamed casualties of war and how consistently do we remind ourselves of the need for peace? When will we be able to learn from the example of Te Whiti o Rongomai and TohuKākahi, pacifists of Parihaka? I think of the words of Te Whiti in 1880 to his people: “Though some, in darkness of heart, seeing their land ravished, might wish to take arms and kill the aggressors, I say it must not be so.” These are words that provide us with a message of hope to guide our future activities. Let us not forget them.
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) Link to this
By crikey, I am quick off the block today! I say to my colleague that I will not be speaking for the full 10 minutes. I am deputising for my New Zealand First colleague Ron Mark, who has very sound and sensible views on the issue.
New Zealand First will support the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. If this is what the fairer sex wants, then who are we to deny them that?
As an ex - merchant navy officer, I can say that my time at sea was spent in an all-male domain. When I became manager of a stevedoring company I saw the transition as young women came in as cadets and then became officers. It was not trouble-free; it was not an easy transition. But I understand that it is working quite well now, and I suggest the armed forces will be much the same.
Last night I asked my colleague Ron Mark why he thought women want to become part of the combat troops and fight on the front line, as this bill will give them the right to do. He said women in the armed forces will learn quite a lot. I asked him whether he could be a bit more specific. He said they will learn how to handle and throw a grenade in order to blow people to pieces. They will learn that in detail. They will learn all about landmines, which also blow people to pieces but more frequently just blow limbs from people and leave them incapacitated for the rest of their lives. Further still, he said, they will learn how to work with comrades, and the effect of comrades being killed in action, or partially blown apart, is a lesson that will come home to them.
Women in the armed forces will also learn how to be part of a bayonet unit operation and charge down a hill. My colleague Ron Mark actually singled out Jill Pettis as a good example. He said he could imagine Jill Pettis armed with a rifle with a bayonet on the end, charging down the hill, confronting the enemy, and ramming the bayonet between the ribs of the enemy. I do not know why he singled out Jill. I think he must see that she has a natural skill. But he pointed out another lesson that will have to be learnt: that sometimes the bayonet gets stuck in the ribs.
Jill PettisWell, Jill Pettis might be a chef, but Ron Mark has singled her out as an ideal candidate for bayonet training.
Ron Mark wants me to point out in the House that sometimes the bayonet gets stuck in the ribs. I asked what a person with a bayonet does then, with the next guy coming at one. Ron said the lesson one has to learn is to fire two quick shots, twist the bayonet—he described it in detail—and pull it out. Then one is ready for the next guy. This is what the women will learn in detail and they will practise it until they are exceedingly competent.
Being in the military is a tough job. It is certainly a tough job for soldiers when they are in a conflict. Ron said that is probably the hardest lesson of all. I asked him what he would say to ladies who want to get involved in the armed services and become part of the combat troops. He simply said he would say: “Congratulations, ladies, you have now got what you wanted.”
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) Link to this
I rise to speak on behalf of ACT New Zealand on the second reading of the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. As the only actively serving Territorial Force soldier in this Parliament, I find myself in the unique position of being the only member who may be directly affected by this bill. I say to the member who spoke before me, Peter Brown, that he presented a somewhat skewed view of modern involvement in the military. It may have entertained the House but I can say categorically that things are somewhat different in reality.
This bill is well overdue, and in many respects it is just a formality. It is an amendment to the Human Rights Act to correct an anomaly. For some time now New Zealand women in the Defence Force have been serving in active combat roles. This bill is long overdue in correcting that anomaly.
Some members have spoken about the number of women who are currently serving. At the moment, the percentage of females in the Navy is 22 percent, in the Army it is 14 percent, and in the Air Force it is 17 percent. The total percentage of women in the New Zealand Defence Force is 23 percent, but that number is bolstered somewhat by the heavy predominance of women employed in a civilian capacity, which is 48 percent. The numbers, however, are somewhat immaterial. It is the principle of the matter that we are debating here today, which is to correct, as I say, the anomaly that exists.
There are also, however, very good practical reasons for putting this legislation forward, and I congratulate and thank Lynne Pillay, who brought this bill to the House originally as a member’s bill. It has more latterly been transferred to the Minister Lianne Dalziel as Minister of Women’s Affairs.
There are good practical reasons for this legislation, also. The first is that of competency. Women are all judged, as in fact are men, on their competency in the defence forces, in each of the three services—the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force. In fact, before someone can join any of the services, that person has to pass a fitness test and a number of competency tests. Until those tests are passed, that person will not be allowed to join. As someone moves further and further down the track—and some people move up the chain; some become officers—and before anybody is deployed, that person needs to pass further competency tests. Those females who have gone on to serve in combat positions have passed those competency tests in exactly the same way that their male counterparts have.
I have to say that I personally have enjoyed seeing the Territorial Force presence in the Solomon Islands. It had a very positive spin-off for the Territorial Force itself. Everyone is now expected to train at the level of those wishing to be deployed. Therefore, the training levels for many soldiers have been increased and that, as I say, has been a very positive experience for those in the forces.
Competency is the first thing. Nobody, whether male or female, goes off to the front line—although the words “at the front line.” have, very sensibly, now been deleted from clause 4 of the amendment bill and changed to “in an active combat role.”—unless he or she passes those fitness tests, which are of a very high standard, and other competency tests that happen periodically.
The second practical reason for this bill is that it brings us into line with international laws of war that our counterparts overseas, the Australians, the Canadians, the Brits, and in fact the United States soldiers, sailors, and airmen, are also subject to, so that is a very positive move.
The other area that has been of concern is the eligibility for war disablement pensions. There have been cases, and some not long ago, where some service people who have been injured, but not killed, in combat, or some partners whose other half has been killed in combat, have found themselves ineligible for a war disablement pension because those service people were women. The definition of combatant—until this bill is passed—technically, in a legal sense, is male, so those people have found themselves ineligible. This obviously is an area of great unfairness and one that should have been addressed a long time before now. It is only right and proper that this bill comes before the House so that we will not see this situation arise again; we will fix this. Given, too, that the number of women in the armed forces is increasing, had this amendment bill not come before the House to rectify the situation, this scenario would have become more of a problem as time went on.
ACT supports this bill, and I thank those members who have stood up in the House and given illustrations of women who have served, and particularly of those women who have served in combat positions with distinction. I thank those members on behalf of the women involved in the Defence Force. We will be supporting this bill, but I can reassure members who may have had some concerns initially about women who serve in combat positions that competency is alive and well in the Defence Force and it is tested rigorously. The time is long overdue for us to meet the standards of international laws of war, and to address the difficulties that some, sadly, have experienced with war disablement pensions and eligibility, because of gender. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this
As someone who has, as it were, fought on the front lines for women’s equality, I do find it slightly ironic and, indeed, slightly disturbing that we are here talking about this bill as if conferring on women the right to kill and be killed in combat on the front line is somehow a great step forward for women. I recall the words of Germaine Greer in her book The Female Eunuch. She said: “We must beware that in our quest for equality we do not become just counterfeit men trying to mimic men and gain free entry into the world of the ulcer and the coronary.” These words are ringing in my ears as I listen to this debate.
However, having said that, I say that if there are women who want to go to the front line and into combat positions—and we have one of them in this House, Heather Roy, and I salute her—far be it from me or the Green Party to try to stop them from doing so. We will, therefore, with some reservations and disquiet, be supporting the rather oddly named Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill.
I want to make one point, though, and that is that if we are going to encourage our women to go off and fight in combat zones and on the front line, we need to have much greater protection for them and assurances of their safety than we have had for armed forces in the past. I am thinking, of course, of Agent Orange and things like depleted uranium. We know that just one tiny particle of depleted uranium, if ingested, can cause a range of horrendous health effects, including birth deformities. We know that we exposed our troops in Viet Nam to Agent Orange, which was contaminated with dioxins. This has resulted in deformities in second and third generations, to the point that, as someone observed, when people go to war today it is not just their generation that is affected but future generations as well. So if we are to send our women off into these combat zones, we had better make sure that we are protecting them, and future generations who may be born to them, from things like depleted uranium and other pesticides and contaminants.
Regrettably, depleted uranium has been dropped in Iraq, in Afghanistan, during the Gulf War, and even in the former Yugoslavia. We already have huge, huge increases in malignancies and deformities as a result of these hideous weapons of mass destruction. I think there has been a 242 percent increase in malignancies in Basra. In areas in Afghanistan where depleted uranium has been used, children have been born with no eyes, no limbs, and so on—I will not go into all the gory details.
I hasten to add that we should not be exposing men to things like depleted uranium, either, but we need to remember that women may become pregnant or may be even more vulnerable to these contaminants and weapons. In Viet Nam, women were much more affected by Agent Orange than were men. Therefore, if we are going to encourage women to go on to the front line, and to enjoy this wondrous new freedom to kill and be killed, then we need to be very careful to protect them from the horrendous weapons that are used in war today.
With those few words, I say that the Green Party will be supporting this bill.
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) Link to this
The National Party supports the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. I do not want to take all of my time but will speak just briefly on this matter.
Mrs Pettis wants me to speak for the full 10 minutes, but time is valuable and I shall stick absolutely to the points. At this time it does not hurt us to recall the fact that right now, I understand, a British naval servicewomen is being held in Iran. That is, in fact, what happens on the front line. She is there with her male colleagues as well, and I do not want to fail to mention them. This is a serious business. This is not playtime, PlayStation, Xbox, or whatever else; this is serious business. People get killed. It is extremely important that people remember that this bill is about the fact that women have been demanding, and will be given, the right to go into the front line and to kill and be killed. That is what we are talking about.
So in view of that, it is absolutely essential that we should mention our greatest living war hero, Nancy Wake. I know people will groan, but, frankly, I say we should honour Nancy Wake. While I am speaking on this bill, I will use an email that I received just over a week ago from several students of Freyberg High School in Palmerston North: Adham Hussein, Sophie Swan, Laura Balman, and Anna Baldwin. They wrote the following: “Dear Ms Collins, We are writing to you regarding honouring World War II heroine Nancy Wake. This year our school, Freyberg High School, Palmerston North, is doing her life story as our stage challenge performance. We have emailed Maggie McNaughton from the New Zealand Herald and have been able to get the current address for the rest home in England.”—so they want to do some work on her. The email goes on to state: “We have done research into her life, and are amazed with the achievements she has accomplished, and also saddened by the fact that she has not been recognised by the New Zealand Government. Following the research we have undergone, we have found that you have supported Nancy Wake and want to make it clear she deserves a medal before it is too late.” They want my support, again.
I know—and the Government keeps pointing this out—that for some reason the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee felt itself bound to take the advice of the bureaucrats and to not recommend that Nancy Wake get an honour. But it is about time the people in this Parliament showed a bit of leadership, did something the bureaucrats did not like, and gave that woman a medal. Here we are today talking about the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill, and when we are talking about that we talk about the fact that we are sending women into battle. Well, actually, we already have done that. People like Nancy Wake have been into battle. More than that, they have actually done the—unfortunately—dirty business of having to deal with the enemy. They have done that.
This Government, for some reason utterly beyond my comprehension, wants to say that Nancy Wake should not be honoured. She is a New Zealander, she has a New Zealand passport, she is Māori, and she is someone whom we should be honouring. She is our greatest living war hero, male or female. She was born in New Zealand, has lived in New Zealand, and her parents were New Zealanders. In fact, there is a photo in Peter FitzSimons’ biography of Nancy Wake that shows her father’s family shop in Rotorua. Yet where do we hear the current MP for Rotorua on this issue? Nowhere. I do not care whether the select committee was hoodwinked by the bureaucrats and bullied by its chairperson, Diane Yates. I do not care whether that occurred, because I think it is time for this Parliament to do some good on this issue and to stop being a bunch of people who just get led by the nose and do whatever they are told to do by people who do not want to deal with the issues. This woman is still alive. She is in her 90s. Who knows how much longer she will be with us? It is time we did the right thing.
In our support for the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill, we say this. Let us do the right thing. I hope the Government will join with me and will, in fact, recommend that Nancy Wake be given an honour in the next honours opportunity—and I hope it is an Order of New Zealand. I hope that this Parliament will put some pressure on various parties to do the right thing.
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) Link to this
When I first spoke in this House, in my inaugural speech, an important part of that speech covered women’s issues. I spoke of our proud past as the first country to give women the vote, and of our present, with the Labour-led Government delivering paid parental leave, the Action Plan for New Zealand Women, action on pay equity, childcare provisions, action to advance the New Zealand Family Violence Prevention Strategy, and action on women’s health and employment issues. I also spoke about our future—a future that is being led very well by our Minister of Women’s Affairs, Lianne Dalziel. I said that although there had been major advances for women and that Labour had delivered most of them, the picture was not yet one of equality. Here today is another step towards equality for New Zealand women.
I have risen to speak on the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. This bill is another example of a Labour-led Government that prides itself in its belief in a society where discrimination on the basis of gender is a thing of the past, as is racial discrimination and age discrimination. Good on my colleague Lynne Pillay, the member for Waitakere, for bringing this matter before the House as a member’s bill, and good on this Government for adopting it as a Government bill. We have a Labour women’s caucus and a Minister of Women’s Affairs who noticed these forms of discrimination. We are prepared to do something about them, unlike the do-nothing attitude of the National caucus towards women’s issues, with the ink hardly dry on its plans to disestablish the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. But, oh, sorry, that is right: in another Key flip-flop National has decided to appoint a women’s affairs spokesperson, after all.
I will comment on the last National speaker’s little tirade on Nancy Wake. National MPs voted against awarding a special honour to Nancy Wake. Judith Collins may need to speak to her MPs, who are flip-flopping again all over the place.
As I was saying, this bill removes discrimination on the basis of gender. It will repeal section 33 of the Human Rights Act, the section that allows discrimination against women in relation to combat roles. When the Human Rights Act was enacted the New Zealand Defence Force had a policy of preventing women from serving in combat roles. To do the New Zealand Defence Force justice, and to pay it a compliment, I should say that it withdrew that policy in practice in the year 2000. The passing of this bill confirms its sensible, modern practice, as well as validating career options for women, who have progressed significantly since the integration of women into the New Zealand armed forces 30 years ago.
I have a niece in the armed forces who has recently been deployed overseas. She and others have endured, and enjoyed, deployment to some of the hardest operational environments our forces operate in, rising to every challenge and doing themselves much credit. There is no doubt that our women take a full part in the operations of our armed forces. That does not mean just killing; just as important, it means peacekeeping and rebuilding, as well.
David Lange got it right when he said nearly 20 years ago when opening the offices of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs that discrimination against women in the armed forces was offensive. He was right. The armed forces have recognised it, and it is time we updated the Act and removed the section 33 exemption from the statute book. As the Human Rights Commission said to the select committee, it is difficult to see what the purpose would be of retaining an exemption that perpetuates stereotypical assumptions about the roles of men and women in the military.
The other thing to be proud of in passing this bill is that New Zealand will now be able to ratify its obligations under the UN Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, commonly known as “CEDAW”. Section 33 was New Zealand’s only remaining reservation to that convention. New Zealand has a proud record on women’s rights and on allowing women to enjoy all their human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women has long urged us to withdraw that reservation. It is a proud day when we can say that we have reached that point in New Zealand. It is a great day when human rights and our commitment to international obligations both win. I commend this bill to the House, and I am proud to speak on its passage. Thank you.