Sex Matters When It Comes To Human Rights
Responding to complaints about misinformation stating that 'gender identity and expression' are prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Human Rights Act when it is NOT, the HRC responded to complainants with the following:
'We understand that some members of the public were concerned that our original media statement suggested that gender identity and expression are explicitly listed in the Human Rights Act 1993 or the legal definition of the ground of sex.
'We have heard the view that the language used may have been unclear, and we acknowledge that some people have felt that the statement did not reflect or protect their understanding of sex-based rights.
'Considering the feedback we have received, we have updated our public statement to provide greater clarity and accuracy regarding the relevant legal framework. This amendment was made to more accurately reflect the language of the Act, while still setting out the Commission's application of how gender identity and gender expression are interpreted within the scope of the prohibited ground of sex. The amended statement can be accessed on our website here.'
The HRC reply continued, saying that as part of its mandate the Commission interprets the Human Rights Act in line with international human rights standards and New Zealand's obligations under those frameworks.
'It is our long-standing view that discrimination based on gender identity or gender expression falls within the prohibited ground of sex discrimination, and this has informed our guidance over several years.'
The Women's Rights Party has responded, asking the HRC to clarify just which international human rights standards and obligations New Zealand has signed up to. We have yet to receive a response. We suspect the HRC is relying on the Yogyakarta Principles, which have no standing in international law and have never been adopted by the United Nations. When he was the Human Rights Commissioner, Paul Hunt signed up to these Principles, which set out rights put forward by participants at a conference in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, in 2006 (and revisited 10 years later).
Why it is important to be clear about 'sex'
When it comes to women's rights, sex matters. That is because, in addition to 'sex' being a prohibited ground in terms of discrimination in the Human Rights Act 1993, there are a number of exceptions in the Act that allow positive discrimination to protect women on the basis of sex.
When the Human Rights Act was drawn up in 1993 to comply with the Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), it was understood that sex meant women and men. The fact that the prohibited ground of sex was qualified by reference to pregnancy and childbirth suggests that this was the understanding of sex.
In fact, unless sex is defined in terms of biological sex, the sex-based exceptions that currently protect women's single-sex spaces and women's sports are meaningless.
Sexual orientation, referring to same-sex attraction or opposite sex attraction, is also meaningless if it doesn't refer to biological sex.
In Australia, lesbians are not allowed to have lesbian-only events or get-togethers, including social media groups, because in 2013 the Australian Sex Discrimination Act removed the definition of sex in terms of men and women, and replaced it with 'gender'.
It was on this basis that Roxanne Tickle, a man who identifies as a woman, was able to win his case against Sall Grover's app for women and girls only. The Tickle v Grover case is currently being heard this week (4-9 August) in the Australian Federal Court.
Sex-based exceptions in the Human Rights Act include s27 of Exceptions in Relation to Employment Matters, which allows for different treatment based on sex or age where being of a particular sex or age is a genuine occupational qualification for the position or employment, for example, a counsellor specialising in highly personal matters such as sexual matters or the prevention of violence.
Here are some more…
Section 43 Exceptions in relation to access by the public to places, vehicles, and facilities
S43 allows for the maintenance of separate facilities for each sex on the ground of public decency or public safety.
Section 44 Provision of goods and services
Suppliers of goods, facilities, or services to the public can't refuse to provide any other person with those goods, facilities, or services; or to treat any other person less favourably in connection with the provision of those goods, facilities, or services by reason of any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination.
Section 46 Exception in relation to public decency or safety
Notwithstanding s44, in s46 suppliers of good and services can provide separate facilities or services for each sex, i.e. single-sex services or spaces, are allowed on the ground of public decency or public safety.
Section 47 Exception in relation to skill
Where the nature of a skill varies according to whether it is exercised in relation to men or women, a person does not commit a breach of section 44 by exercising the skill in relation to one sex only, in accordance with that person's normal practice. This is the only place in the Human Rights Act where sex is defined in terms of men and women. (Note this exception specifically refers to men and women).
Section 48 Exception in relation to insurance
Insurance companies can offer or provide life insurance policies, or other policies of insurance, on different terms or conditions for each sex or for persons with a disability or for persons of different ages if, for example, the different treatment is based on actuarial or statistical data, upon which it is reasonable to rely, relating to life-expectancy, accidents, or sickness. (Note if "sex" included "gender identity" it would have said "all genders" not "each sex".)
Section 49 Exception in relation to sport
In s49 it is lawful to exclude one sex from participation in any competitive sporting activity in which the strength, stamina, or physique of competitors is relevant. This doesn't apply to coaches, umpires or referees, sports administrators, or sporting activities for children under 12.
It is also lawful to exclude someone from a competitive sporting event or activity if that person's disability is such that there would be a risk of harm to that person or to others. It is lawful to conduct competitive sporting events or activities in which only persons with a particular disability or age qualification may take part, like Masters events or Special Olympics.
Section 55 Exception in relation to hostels, institutions, etc
Hostels, or establishments such as a hospitals, clubs, schools, universities, religious institutions, or retirement villages, can provide accommodation only for persons of the same sex, marital status, or religious or ethical belief, or for persons with a particular disability, or for persons in a particular age group. This can include part of an establishment.
Section 58 Exceptions in relation to establishments for particular groups
Educational establishments for students of one sex, race, or religious belief, or for students with a particular disability, or for students in a particular age group, can under s58 refuse to admit students of a different sex, race, or religious belief, or students.
There are other forms of discrimination covered by the Act, such as racial and sexual harassment, adverse treatment in employment of people affected by family violence (mostly women, of course), and superannuation schemes (mostly in relation to disability and age, though it is also lawful to provide different benefits for members of each sex).
Currently the Law Commission is preparing a report to advise Minister of Justice Paul Goldsmith, due out late next month, to provide advice as to whether 'gender identity and expression' and 'innate variations of sex characteristics' should be included as prohibited grounds of discrimination. Although many government agencies, local bodies and non-governmental organisations believe it to be the case, 'gender identity' is not included in the prohibited grounds of discrimination which are found in s21 of the Human Rights Act.
The current prohibited grounds are:
sex, which includes pregnancy and childbirth
marital status
religious belief
ethical belief
disability, which includes physical disability or impairment, physical illness, psychiatric illness, intellectual or psychological disability or impairment
age
political opinion
employment status, e.g. being unemployed; or a beneficiary
family status
sexual orientation, which means a heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
Govt forges ahead with foreshore and seabed change
By Craig McCulloch of RNZ The government is forging ahead with plans to change the law governing New Zealand's foreshore and seabed, despite a Supreme Court ruling last year that appeared to undercut the rationale for the change. The proposed legislation stems from a clause in National's coalition deal with NZ First, which promised to revisit the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. That commitment was driven by fears that a 2023 Court of Appeal decision could have made it significantly easier for Māori groups to win recognition of customary rights over parts of the coastline. The government introduced a bill to Parliament last year to prevent that, but it hit pause in December after the Supreme Court effectively overturned the earlier ruling. At the time, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith welcomed the development and said ministers would take time to reassess their plans. Today Goldsmith confirmed to RNZ that Cabinet had agreed to press ahead with the law change regardless, and to pass it before October. "Everybody in New Zealand has an interest in what goes on in the coastline, and we're trying our best to get that balance right." Goldsmith said he was not convinced that the Supreme Court ruling had set a high enough test for judging whether customary rights should be granted. "We've had a couple of cases that have been decided since then - which have shown almost 100 percent of the coastline and those areas being granted customary marine title - which confirmed to us that the Supreme Court test still didn't achieve the balance that we think the legislation set out to achieve." Asked whether he expected an upswell of protest, Goldsmith said that had been an earlier concern but: "time will tell". "There's been a wide variety of views, some in favour, some against, but we think this is the right thing to do." The legislation was one of the key objections raised by Ngāpuhi leaders last year when they walked out on a meeting with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon in protest. More than 200 applications for customary marine title are making their way through the courts. Under the amendment bill, any court decisions issued after 25 July 2024 will need to be reconsidered. That would appear to cover seven cases involving various iwi from around the country. "I understand their frustration over that," Goldsmith said. "But we believe it is very important to get this right, because it affects the whole of New Zealand." Goldsmith said the government had set aside about $15 million to cover the additional legal costs. The Marine and Coastal Area Act was originally passed by the National-led government in 2011, replacing the controversial Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, which had extinguished Māori customary rights in favour of Crown ownership. The 2004 law - introduced by Helen Clark's Labour government - provoked widespread protest and led to the creation of the Māori Party, now known as Te Pāti Māori. National's 2011 replacement declared that no one owned the foreshore and seabed but allowed Māori groups to seek to recognition of their rights - or "Customary Marine Title" - through the courts or in direct negotiations with the Crown. Customary title recognises exclusive Māori rights to parts of the foreshore and seabed, provided certain legal tests are met, including proving continuous and "exclusive" use of the area since 1840 without substantial interruption. The 2023 Court of Appeal ruling, however, declared that groups only needed to show they had enough control over the area that they could keep others from using it, and that situations where the law itself had prevented them from doing so could be ignored. The Supreme Court subsequently overturned that, saying the Court of Appeal had taken an unduly narrow approach in its interpretation.
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
Govt going ahead with foreshore and seabed change
By Craig McCulloch of RNZ The government is forging ahead with plans to change the law governing New Zealand's foreshore and seabed, despite a Supreme Court ruling last year that appeared to undercut the rationale for the change. The proposed legislation stems from a clause in National's coalition deal with NZ First, which promised to revisit the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. That commitment was driven by fears that a 2023 Court of Appeal decision could have made it significantly easier for Māori groups to win recognition of customary rights over parts of the coastline. The government introduced a bill to Parliament last year to prevent that, but it hit pause in December after the Supreme Court effectively overturned the earlier ruling. At the time, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith welcomed the development and said ministers would take time to reassess their plans. Today Goldsmith confirmed to RNZ that Cabinet had agreed to press ahead with the law change regardless, and to pass it before October. "Everybody in New Zealand has an interest in what goes on in the coastline, and we're trying our best to get that balance right." Goldsmith said he was not convinced that the Supreme Court ruling had set a high enough test for judging whether customary rights should be granted. "We've had a couple of cases that have been decided since then - which have shown almost 100 percent of the coastline and those areas being granted customary marine title - which confirmed to us that the Supreme Court test still didn't achieve the balance that we think the legislation set out to achieve." Asked whether he expected an upswell of protest, Goldsmith said that had been an earlier concern but: "time will tell". "There's been a wide variety of views, some in favour, some against, but we think this is the right thing to do." The legislation was one of the key objections raised by Ngāpuhi leaders last year when they walked out on a meeting with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon in protest. More than 200 applications for customary marine title are making their way through the courts. Under the amendment bill, any court decisions issued after 25 July 2024 will need to be reconsidered. That would appear to cover seven cases involving various iwi from around the country. "I understand their frustration over that," Goldsmith said. "But we believe it is very important to get this right, because it affects the whole of New Zealand." Goldsmith said the government had set aside about $15 million to cover the additional legal costs. The Marine and Coastal Area Act was originally passed by the National-led government in 2011, replacing the controversial Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, which had extinguished Māori customary rights in favour of Crown ownership. The 2004 law - introduced by Helen Clark's Labour government - provoked widespread protest and led to the creation of the Māori Party, now known as Te Pāti Māori. National's 2011 replacement declared that no one owned the foreshore and seabed but allowed Māori groups to seek to recognition of their rights - or "Customary Marine Title" - through the courts or in direct negotiations with the Crown. Customary title recognises exclusive Māori rights to parts of the foreshore and seabed, provided certain legal tests are met, including proving continuous and "exclusive" use of the area since 1840 without substantial interruption. The 2023 Court of Appeal ruling, however, declared that groups only needed to show they had enough control over the area that they could keep others from using it, and that situations where the law itself had prevented them from doing so could be ignored. The Supreme Court subsequently overturned that, saying the Court of Appeal had taken an unduly narrow approach in its interpretation.
NZ Herald
10 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Aaron Smale: Why politicians don't take the Māori vote seriously
Listening to articles is free for open-access content—explore other articles or learn more about text-to-speech. Christopher Luxon's indifference reflects the larger issue of the major parties ignoring Māori as a voting bloc. Photo / Getty Images Whoever the press secretary is for Christopher Luxon these days, they might want to have a weekend bootcamp teaching him how to keep his foot out of his mouth. Apart from when he uses corporate gibberish to masquarade as an answer, on the rare occasion Luxon says something pithy, it often turns out to be an absolute clanger. Luxon tossed off one such clanger when he questioned whether the September 6 by-election for the Māori electorate seat of Tāmaki Makaurau would be a real fight or 'a pillow fight'. (Kind of ironic given the real pillow fight is in the Epsom seat, which National hands to Act every three years.) A by-election will be held in Tāmaki Makaurau because the person who held the seat, Takutai Tarsh Kemp, recently died. And she held the seat because the voters of that electorate put her there, unlike some party list mediocrity like, well, take your pick. Luxon's comment was flippant at best and disrespectful to both the late MP and her constituents. So, no, it's not a pillow fight, it's a vote in the largest Polynesian city in the world. But Luxon's indifference to Māori voters in the coming by-election reflects the larger issue of the major parties mostly ignoring Māori as a voting bloc. One of the underlying reasons for this was first pointed out to me by my sixth form history teacher at Edgecumbe College, Gerry Rowlands, an American originally from Florida, a southern state with all the history that entails. Mr Rowlands posed a hypothetical idea that Māori would be better off all going on the general roll and getting rid of the Māori seats altogether. His rationale was that the electorate we were in was often held by National because of the high number of Pākehā farmers. But if Māori all went on the general roll, then National – and Labour, for that matter – would actually have to compete for the Māori vote to win. The then-named Eastern Māori seat went from the Bay of Plenty all the way around the East Coast and down to Wairarapa and Wellington. This area has one of the highest Māori populations in the country and the election campaigns in the general electorate seats would look completely different if all Māori went on the general roll. Mr Rowlands didn't say this but I don't think he'd disagree – the Māori seats are acting as a passive version of what Americans call gerrymandering. That is, Māori are being electorally contained – or at least split – and thereby robbed of their actual voting power by the Māori seats. The Māori vote has been ghettoised; every Māori who goes on the Māori roll is a Māori the candidates and the elected MPs in the general seats can ignore. And they do. Back to Auckland and the present day. One of Luxon's long catalogue of gaffes since taking up National's leadership was encouraging women to have babies to boost the flagging population. He quickly backtracked. Women have fought long and hard to have control over their fertility and some male politician telling them to start banging out babies for the national cause wasn't landing well. But what Luxon dimly recognised was that Pākehā numbers are in the early stages of decline, and this decline will only accelerate as the 34% of the Pākehā population that is over the age of 55 falls off the perch at an increasing rate. Luxon doesn't seem to recognise, even dimly, that Māori and Polynesian populations are rising steadily. Listen to Luxon's political messaging and it's as if Māori don't exist in his calculations. Labour's Chris Hipkins isn't any better, and in some respects he's worse. When Māori became a political target, he, like Helen Clark before him, dropped them like a hot hāngī rock so he could appear non-threatening to old, white people. The coalition government has had a free run in its attack on Māori because Hipkins does little to stand up for them, or articulate in any coherent way why what's good for Māori is good for everyone. He'd rather let Te Pāti Māori take the flak. Te Pāti Māori has become a convenient – and, it must be said, easy – political target. But those who bear the brunt of the political attack are actually their voters. Their interests get drowned out in all the posturing from across the political spectrum. The merits of the Tāmaki Makaurau candidates – Peeni Henare for Labour, Oriini Kaipara for Te Pāti Māori and Hannah Tamaki for Vision New Zealand – are open to serious question. But National, NZ First, Act, and even the Greens, have disqualified themselves from any part in the conversation, because they haven't bothered to put up candidates. Māori are at the pointy end of issues that concern everyone, particularly those of a younger generation: the cost of housing, the cost of living, the environment and the future of employment. The economic and social direction of South Auckland and other regions of the country with high Māori populations is the direction of the country as a whole. It's a bare-knuckle fight for the future of the nation. Mr Luxon is just too scared to even get in the ring.
