Helen Houghten
Conservative Party leader
When governments adopt policies that are inconsistent with the values and convictions of the majority of society, they risk creating deep divisions and civil unrest. Lawmaking must not be driven by ideology or the demands of small activist groups at the expense of the wider population. Governments have a duty to safeguard social cohesion by grounding laws in shared realities and common values. Ignoring the majority view not only undermines public trust in institutions but also fuels polarisation, resentment and conflict, precisely what responsible governance should seek to avoid.
The Conservative Party urges the government to ensure a commonsense approach that recognises that sex is a biological reality, not a social preference. Legal frameworks should be anchored in clarity and objectivity, not in subjective or shifting identities. Around the world, countries that have rushed into similar reforms are now grappling with serious consequences in education, sport, prisons, healthcare and women’s rights issues that New Zealand should learn from rather than repeat.
The Law Commission’s recommendations to amend the Human Rights Act in order to introduce new grounds of ‘gender identity’ and ‘innate variations of sex characteristics’ represent a departure from common sense, biological reality and the founding principles of fairness in law. By prioritising subjective self-identification over the objective reality of biological sex, these proposals risk undermining the very protections the Human Rights Act was designed to safeguard.
Key Issues if Adopted
- Erosion of Women’s Rights and Safety
- Allowing access to single-sex spaces and facilities (toilets, changing rooms, refuges, prisons) based on gender identity rather than biological sex jeopardises privacy and safety, particularly for women and girls.
- This creates direct conflicts between the rights of women as a sex class and the demands of individuals identifying differently.
- Unfairness in Competitive Sport
- Biological males identifying as female will have access to women’s competitions, undermining fair play, safety and equal opportunity for female athletes. International sporting bodies have already faced backlash and reversed course on similar policies.
- Confusion and Burden on Schools and Education
- Schools would be forced to admit biological males into girls’ schools and facilities if their gender identity “aligns” with female. This undermines parental rights, causes confusion among children, and exposes institutions to legal conflict.
- Legal Uncertainty and Litigation
- The vague and expansive definitions of “gender identity” and “gender expression” will open the door to extensive litigation. Employers, schools, landlords, sporting bodies and service providers will be left uncertain about their obligations and vulnerable to costly legal challenges.
- Cultural and Social Backlash
- Across Europe, North America and Australia, the rapid imposition of gender identity laws has led to public backlash, legal disputes, and a re-evaluation of these policies. New Zealand risks repeating the same mistakes rather than learning from them.
- Undermining Language and Clarity in Law
- Replacing sex-based pronouns with gender-neutral terms erases the recognition of biological realities and complicates the interpretation of existing legal protections, particularly for women.
The proposed changes to the Human Rights Act are not progressive, they are regressive. They undermine biological reality, jeopardise fairness and risk creating new injustices in the name of solving old ones. A Conservative Party, commonsense approach calls for maintaining sex-based protections, ensuring clarity in law and avoiding the costly and harmful social consequences already seen overseas.
