Submissions open on Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill

Submissions are now open for the Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill.

Submissions are open until July 2^nd, 2026. Please note all submissions will be publicly released and published to the Parliament website.

You can make a submission here.

‍

What the bill seeks to do

The Member’s Bill, introduced by NZ First MP Jenny Marcroft, would amend the Legislation Act 2019 by adding a definition of “woman” as “an adult human biological female” and of “man” as “an adult human biological male”, with corresponding definitions for “male” and “female”.

The bill’s policy statement says “the purpose of this amendment is to uphold legal certainty, protect the integrity of sex-based rights, and ensure that language in law reflects biological reality. This definition will apply in all contexts where the terms “woman” and “man” are used, unless explicitly stated otherwise in specific legislation”.

‍

Key resources for making a submission

Comprehensive submission guide for the bill by Qtopia: Submission Guide: Legislation (Definition of Woman & Man) Amendment Bill

Sexual Wellbeing Aotearoa’s editorial overview of the bill: What the “man” and “woman” bill really means

RNZ’s overview of the bill and submission guide: New Zealand's Definitions of Woman and Man Bill and how the public can give submissions, RNZ, 02.06.2026

General guidance on writing select committee submissions: Parliamentary Select Committee Submissions 101, People Against Prisons Aotearoa

‍

Criticisms of the bill

Sexual Wellbeing Aotearoa and Qtopia have comprehensively discussed weaknesses of the proposed bill. They raise the following issues:

• It raises significant Bill of Rights concerns
• It falls short of the Government’s human rights obligations
• It discriminates against trans, non-binary, and intersex people
• It may restrict access to abortion – and potentially other services
• The definitions of ‘woman’ and ‘man’ are problematic
• The bill may have further unforeseen consequences as it applies to every piece of secondary legislation
• There’s no legal need
• The bill does not protect women, or women-only spaces
• The Bill violates Te Tiriti o Waitangi

The Report of the Attorney-General under the Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Legislation (Definition of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill found that the Bill appears to limit the right to be free from discrimination on the grounds of age, and that limit cannot be justified under section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act. This relates to the use of the word ‘adult’, which would create some gaps in legislation for women between the ages of 16 and 19.

The Attorney-General, Chris Bishop, found that there was too much ambiguity around legal definitions of sex and gender in the Bill of Rights Act and the Human Rights Act, combined with “the limited and uncertain legal effect of the [Legislation Amendment] Bill” to conclude whether the Bill would limit the right to be free from discrimination on the grounds of sex.

‍

Community responses

Qtopia notes that the bill uses “dog-whistle” language of “protecting sex-based rights of women and girls”:

“By hiding their anti-trans agenda behind the language of women’s rights, far-right groups claim the moral high ground while normalising hate.”

Sexual Wellbeing Aotearoa Chief Executive Jackie Edmond said:

“The proposed legislation is a direct take from the American Conservative playbook. We’re seeing globally, this incremental creep of tampering with laws to reduce rights. Despite the stated intentions of this bill, it seems it could have a negative impact on rights for women, trans and intersex people. And we’re really worried about the consequences this legislation could have, such as limiting access to abortion.”

For a discussion on the science the bill claims to honour, see Professor Mohan Dutta’s opinion piece through Massey University. Dutta states the language used in the bill is:

“… The same script, almost word for word, that the transnational far right has been circulating for the better part of a decade. It is worth pausing on what is actually being claimed, what the science actually says, where this script comes from, and what it does to the people in its path.”

Te Kāhui Tika Tangata | Human Rights Commission Disability Rights Commissioner and Rainbow rights spokesperson, Prudence Walker said in a press release:

“This Bill does not advance human rights. I am concerned this legislation will trample on the mana of trans and intersex people, who already face well-documented discrimination in Aotearoa. It also attempts to completely erase non-binary people.”

See Te Kāhui Tika Tangata’s Trans rights are human rights guidance for further information.

Adhikaar Aotearoa’s statement on the bill says:

“The Bill reflects a broader illiberal culture war and is an exercise in poor law making. Illiberal culture wars, imported from overseas, often seek to frame minority rights as threats and to construct false binaries where complexity has long existed. Aotearoa New Zealand should resist this trajectory. Our legal traditions, though imperfect, have increasingly moved towards recognising diversity, respecting dignity, and expanding protections for those historically excluded.”

It notes that the Bill frequently evokes concerns of about sex-segregated spaces and protections, but New Zealand law already contains exceptions in the Human Rights Act 1993 for these issues.

Women’s Health Action general manager Isis McKay told Pharmacy Today that they reject the bill as a priority for supporting women:

“Our perspectives, feedback, and recommendations are grounded in what people identify as the barriers and enablers shaping their health and wellbeing. While the issues raised with us are diverse and wide-ranging, the need for legislation to define the terms ‘woman’ or ‘man’ is not among them. “It is not a priority, and it is not something our organisation – or the communities we work alongside – have called for.”

Tōpūtanga Tapuhi Kaitiaki o Aotearoa | the New Zealand Nurses Organisation called on the nursing workforce to stand firm in support of Aotearoa’s transgender communities:

“Our professional duty is to care with evidence, compassion and Te Tiriti-based equity and that means standing against laws that erase trans and intersex people.”

Youth health nurse practitioner Michael Brenndorfer said the Bill ignored the biological realities of many intersex people born with a range of sex characteristics — and the psychosocial realities of gender identity and expression, saying:

“The irony that the parties bringing this forward are claiming to be doing so to protect women’s rights while also being the parties voting against gender pay equity claims and abortion access should tell us everything we need to know about their motives here.”

The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG) opposes the Bill. In particular, it highlights in a press release:

“The Bill ignores te ao Māori concepts like takatāpui and violates Te Tiriti o Waitangi by failing to recognise that takatāpui and takatāpuitanga are taonga. It threatens the right of takatāpui whānau to equitable, safe healthcare access through exclusionary language.”

Dr Penni Wolfgramm, clinical psychologist and Pacific Rainbow advocate, told PMN:

“It feels really out of touch. Having talanoa with our communities, it feels out of step with our Pacific and Pacific ways of how we understand gender.”

“These long-recognised MVPFAFF+ [Mahū (Hawai‘i/Tahiti usage varies), Vakasalewalewa (Fiji), Palopa (Sāmoa), Fa’afafine (Sāmoa), Akata (Tokelau), Fakaleitī (Tonga), Fakafifine (Niue) and other Pacific gender-diverse identities] identities aren't woke ideologies. Gender fluidity and gender diversity are a natural part of what it means to be from the Moana and what it means to be Pasifika.”