Today, Adhikaar Aotearoa is making our submission to the Social Services and Community Committee on the Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill public.
Our conclusion is straightforward: the Bill should not proceed.
This is not simply because we disagree with its policy objectives. It is because, in our view, the Bill represents poor lawmaking. It is legally flawed, constitutionally unsound, inconsistent with New Zealand's human rights obligations, and fails to grapple with the diversity of human experience.
Our submission is primarily a legal one. This is because advice published by the Select Committee indicated that it would prioritise submissions that engage with the legal mechanics of the Bill.
Our key concerns
Our submission advances several principal arguments.
First, the Bill relies on legal authorities that do not support what it seeks to achieve. Much has been made of the United Kingdom Supreme Court's decision in For Women Scotland. We explain why that case was a narrow exercise in interpreting one piece of UK legislation, not a judicial endorsement of imposing biological definitions across an entire statute book. It simply does not provide the precedent that proponents of the Bill claim.
Secondly, the Bill does not demonstrate that there is a legal problem requiring such sweeping legislative intervention. It assumes that existing law is uncertain but provides little evidence of widespread confusion, conflicting court decisions, or failures in the current legal framework. Good legislation begins by identifying a problem. We are not persuaded that this Bill does so.
Thirdly, the Bill creates new legal uncertainty rather than resolving it. It repeatedly refers to “biological” males and females without ever defining what “biological” means. It also creates tension with existing legislation, including the Legislation Act 2019 and the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 2021. Rather than simplifying the law, the Bill risks making it more complicated.
Fourthly, we consider that the Bill is inconsistent with New Zealand's constitutional and human rights framework. Our submission analyses the Bill against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, international human rights law, and the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee Guidelines. We conclude that the Bill has not been justified using the proportionality analysis expected whenever Parliament limits fundamental rights.
Finally, we explain why the Bill overlooks an important reality: human diversity. As an organisation working alongside queer, transgender and intersex people from ethnic communities, we know that many cultures have recognised diverse understandings of sex and gender for centuries. The binary framework assumed by the Bill is neither historically universal nor culturally neutral.
Why this matters
The Legislation Act is not an ordinary Act of Parliament. It provides the default rules that govern how legislation across New Zealand is interpreted. Changes to legislation of that significance should only occur where there is a compelling evidential basis, careful constitutional justification, and confidence that the amendments will improve the law.
We do not believe those standards have been met.
Throughout our submission, we return to a simple proposition: one of the law's most important functions is to uphold human dignity. The law does more than regulate conduct. It signals who is recognised, respected, and afforded equal dignity before the law.
Whatever one's views on these issues, legislation of this significance deserves careful scrutiny. We hope our submission contributes constructively to that discussion.
Read our submission
Our full submission sets out our legal analysis in detail, including our assessment of the Bill's interaction with existing legislation, constitutional principles, international human rights law, and the lived experiences of diverse ethnic communities.
We have also requested the opportunity to appear before the Select Committee to speak to our submission, and we look forward to engaging with the Committee during that process.
