RWNZ faces questions over definitions bill submission

Emmy Maxwell says Rural Women New Zealand should have consulted members before lodging its submission on the Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill. Supplied.

Rural Women New Zealand says its opposition to the Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill was a board-led advocacy decision, but one rural woman says members should have been consulted before the organisation spoke publicly on their behalf.

Rural Women New Zealand (RWNZ) is facing questions over whether it adequately consulted members before lodging a submission opposing the Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill.

The dispute has highlighted a broader tension for membership organisations: when is an elected board entitled to speak on behalf of members, and when should members be directly asked?

Emmy Maxwell, a rural woman and North Canterbury farmer who says she is a member of Rural Women New Zealand, has written an open letter to the organisation’s national board, saying she was disappointed RWNZ took a public position on a contentious issue without first seeking wider member feedback.

The bill, a Member’s Bill in the name of New Zealand First MP Jenny Marcroft, seeks to amend the Legislation Act 2019 by defining “woman” as “an adult human biological female” and “man” as “an adult human biological male”, with corresponding definitions for “female” and “male”.

Supporters say the bill would provide legal clarity around sex-based rights. Opponents, including RWNZ, argue it is unnecessary, could worsen discrimination, and would not improve the rights, opportunities or wellbeing of women and girls.

RWNZ lodged a submission opposing the bill, saying it did not believe the legislation would improve the rights, opportunities or wellbeing of women and girls in New Zealand.

Maxwell argues RWNZ had no clear mandate to take a public position on such a significant and divisive issue without first asking members.

“This bill raises important questions about the legal meaning of those words, and the protection of women’s sex-based rights in New Zealand law,” Maxwell wrote in her open letter.

“Whether members support or oppose the bill, it is an issue of major significance to women. For that reason, I expected Rural Women New Zealand to consult its members before taking a public position.”

Maxwell said she first wrote to RWNZ on May 29, asking the organisation to support the bill, or at least engage with members before speaking on their behalf.

She said she saw no member survey, no online discussion, no invitation for feedback, and no open communication asking rural women for their views before RWNZ lodged its submission.

“A national organisation should not take such a strong public position on an issue of this significance, without first engaging with the women it claims to represent,” she said.

In an interview with Rural Guardian, Maxwell said she believed RWNZ should have made members aware submissions were open and given them an opportunity to have their say.

Maxwell said she believed RWNZ should have consulted its members first.

“They should have made the members aware of the submission coming up. I’ve been on plenty of committees where people vote. They should have had a poll or voted or something like that.

“If their members had voted to be against it, the majority, then they should have submitted on that.”

Maxwell said her support for the bill came from concern about women’s sex-based rights and spaces, including sport, healthcare, data collection, prisons, refuges and changing facilities.

“I think it would cement the rights of women and girls to have their single-sex based spaces,” she said.

Maxwell said she did not want to “put anyone else down”, but believed the law needed to be clear where biological sex was relevant.

In her open letter, she wrote that supporting the legal definition of woman and man was “not about excluding anyone”, but about ensuring laws written to protect women and girls could continue to have clear meaning and be consistently applied.

The letter generated significant discussion after being shared on social media, attracting more than 780 comments at the time of writing.

RWNZ has acknowledged its members hold a range of views on the issue.

In a written response to Maxwell, chief executive Sandra Kirby said RWNZ had submitted in opposition because it did not believe the bill would improve the rights, opportunities or wellbeing of women and girls.

“At a time when rural communities are dealing with real and pressing challenges, this Bill represents time and resource that could be far better spent on issues that genuinely improve women’s lives,” Kirby wrote.

“This position reflects our commitment to backing causes that genuinely improve life for women, and the Board’s judgement that this Bill doesn’t do that.”

Kirby said RWNZ supported members to self-identify, did not hold data on gender identity, and did not plan to start doing so.

“I realise that this is disappointing to you,” Kirby wrote.

“We know our members hold a range of views on this issue, and always encourage members to submit to legislation to ensure their voice is heard.”

RWNZ also sent an advisory to members following public discussion of its submission.

In that advisory, the RWNZ board said the submission focused on its belief that the bill failed to improve women’s rights or wellbeing, and argued that time and resources should instead address pressing rural issues.

The board said it believed the bill created legislative issues, worsened discrimination, and harmed the wellbeing of individuals in rural areas.

It said the submission was a “Board led process” and that all board members were involved in reviewing its contents.

“Our decision to submit was based firmly in RWNZ values, and followed the criteria agreed in our Advocacy Policy,” the board said.

The advisory listed those criteria as advancing the social and economic wellbeing of communities outside main urban areas, supporting the empowerment of women and families within rural communities, reflecting the cultural diversity of rural New Zealand, giving due regard to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and reflecting that all people are equal under the law.

The board described the bill as a “very short and blunt bill” and said its concerns centred on the intended application of the definitions into at least 13 other pieces of legislation, where it believed the “blunt application may disadvantage women”.

“As your elected members we make policy and advocacy calls on members’ behalf between AGMs and remits. This was one of those calls,” the board said.

It also said it was looking closely at its processes and reviewing the steps taken.

“We will learn from this process and make changes that need to be made.”

Rural Guardian requested an interview with RWNZ chief executive Sandra Kirby to discuss how the submission was developed, what governance process was followed, whether members or branches were consulted, and the reasoning behind the organisation’s opposition to the bill.

RWNZ declined the request.

“Thank you for the opportunity, which we will politely decline and won’t be facilitating interviews,” communications and advocacy manager Georgia Nelson said in response.

Maxwell said the refusal to be interviewed added to her concerns about accountability.

She described the timing and process as “underhanded” and said RWNZ’s refusal to answer questions from the media or its own members was disrespectful to those it claimed to represent.

Maxwell said she would like RWNZ to apologise and acknowledge that members should have been consulted before the submission was lodged.

“I just think, gosh, Rural Women, the name should be a clue.”

Maxwell said she hoped speaking out would encourage other women to take part in public debate, even where issues were difficult or divisive.

“We shouldn’t, in this day and age, be unable to have free and open debate without being persecuted for it,” she said.

For Maxwell, the central issue is whether RWNZ’s submission could fairly be said to represent rural women when members had not been directly asked.

“Rural women are not a single voice,” she wrote.

“We are mothers, grandmothers, daughters, farmers, workers, volunteers, business owners, community leaders, and advocates.”

The bill was referred to the Social Services and Community Committee after its first reading. Public submissions closed on July 2.