Formal Complaint to Stuff re: The Hui episode on gender

Wednesday 23 July 2025

Keith Lynch
Editor-in-Chief
Stuff Digital

VIA EMAIL: keith.lynch@stuff.co.nz

FORMAL COMPLAINT: DEMAND FOR IMMEDIATE REMOVAL OF ARTICLE CONTAINING FUNDAMENTAL MISREPRESENTATION OF NEW ZEALAND LAW

Tēnā koe Keith,

Re: "Sex v gender: Global debate over definition of a woman" (Published on Stuff.co.nz) – Egregious Breach of Media Council Principles Through Material Misstatement of Law

PART ONE: IDENTIFICATION OF MATTER AND IMMEDIATE RELIEF SOUGHT

1.1 Jurisdictional Foundation and Identification of Publication

This formal complaint is lodged pursuant to the New Zealand Media Council's established complaints procedure. The matter concerns the article titled "Sex v gender: Global debate over definition of a woman" published on Stuff.co.nz (URL: https://www.stuff.co.nz/te-ao-maori/360764784/sex-v-gender-global-debate-over-definition-woman). This complaint is submitted within the required one calendar month timeframe following publication.

1.2 Statement of Principal Grievance

The article in question contains a fundamental and prejudicial misrepresentation of New Zealand law that strikes at the heart of human rights protections in this jurisdiction. Through selective presentation and material omission, the article creates the false impression that transgender people lack established legal protection against discrimination under New Zealand law. This constitutes a grave misstatement of the official government position, which has recognised since 2006 that the "sex" ground in section 21 of the Human Rights Act 1993 includes protection for gender identity. Through this misrepresentation, the article effectively nullifies in the public consciousness the primary legal protection against discrimination available to transgender, non-binary, and gender-diverse citizens.

1.3 Immediate Relief Required

Given the severity of this misrepresentation and its potential to cause irreparable harm to public understanding of fundamental human rights protections, we hereby demand the immediate and permanent removal of the subject article from all Stuff platforms, including but not limited to the main website, syndicated platforms, social media channels, and all associated digital archives. This remedy is necessitated by the gravity of the legal falsehood disseminated and the urgent need to prevent its continued propagation.

1.4 Procedural Notice and Timeline

This complaint is submitted as the first stage of the Media Council process. We expect a substantive response that acknowledges the factual errors, implements the demanded remedial action, and confirms article removal within 10 working days of receipt. Should Stuff fail to provide a satisfactory resolution, this matter will be immediately escalated to the New Zealand Media Council for independent determination.

PART TWO: THE LEGAL FALSEHOOD – ANALYSIS OF THE ARTICLE'S FUNDAMENTAL ERROR

The article's failure transcends mere editorial perspective or balanced debate. It constitutes a fundamental misstatement of operative law in New Zealand through the presentation of an incomplete and misleading account that ignores the official government position on transgender rights protection.

2.1 The Established Legal Reality

Since 2006, the New Zealand government has maintained an official position, based on Crown Law advice, that the "sex" ground in section 21(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1993 includes protection for transgender people against discrimination. This is not a matter of debate or uncertainty at the government level – it is the established interpretive position that has guided policy and practice for nearly two decades.

2.2 The Authoritative Legal Position: Official Government Interpretation

The protection of transgender individuals under New Zealand law through the sex discrimination provisions is consistently affirmed across all relevant government agencies:

Employment New Zealand's Definitive Statement

Employment New Zealand, the government agency responsible for providing authoritative guidance on workplace rights, states unambiguously: "Discrimination on the grounds of sex under the Human Rights Act 1993 includes the grounds of gender identity. Transgender people are protected under the Human Rights Act 1993 from unlawful discrimination on the grounds of gender identity in the workplace."

Te Kāhui Tika Tangata | The Human Rights Commission

The Human Rights Commission, vested with statutory authority to interpret and promote human rights law, maintains that "The Human Rights Act protects you from discrimination based on: Sex - your sex and gender identity." This interpretation represents the official position consistently articulated across numerous government publications and policy documents since 2006.

The Law Commission's Current Review

While the Law Commission is conducting a review to potentially strengthen and clarify these protections, it explicitly acknowledges that the current government position recognises protection under existing law. The review seeks to address the fact that this protection has not been tested in courts, not to establish protection where none exists.

For a news article purporting to inform the public about legal rights to omit or obscure this established government position constitutes an inexcusable breach of accuracy standards.

PART THREE: ANALYSIS OF MEDIA COUNCIL PRINCIPLES VIOLATIONS

The article's fundamental legal error precipitates clear and serious breaches of the New Zealand Media Council Principles, to which Stuff is bound.

3.1 Violation of Principle 1 – Accuracy, Fairness and Balance

Principle 1 requires that "Publications should be bound at all times by accuracy, fairness and balance, and should not deliberately mislead or misinform readers by commission or omission." The article comprehensively violated this principle:

• Material Inaccuracy by Omission: The scope of anti-discrimination protection under law constitutes a quintessential material fact. The article's failure to accurately present the established government position on transgender protection renders it factually incomplete and misleading.
• Deliberate Misleading Through Selective Presentation: By presenting the debate as if transgender people's legal protection is non-existent or entirely uncertain, while omitting the official government position maintained since 2006, the article deliberately misleads readers about the actual state of New Zealand law.
• Failure of Fairness: The article fails the fairness test by not providing readers with the essential context that every relevant government agency recognises transgender protection under existing law.

3.2 Violation of Principle 12 – Corrections

Principle 12 states that "A publication's willingness to correct errors enhances its credibility and, often, defuses complaint." The ongoing availability of this article without correction, despite the clear factual errors regarding New Zealand's legal position, demonstrates a failure to meet this principle. Immediate correction through removal is now the only adequate remedy.

3.3 Context of Precedent: Jan Rivers v Stuff

The Media Council's recent decision in Jan Rivers v Stuff (Case #3398) established that coverage of transgender issues requires particular care regarding accuracy and balance. The Council upheld that complaint, finding Stuff failed to provide adequate balance on contested scientific matters. The current article similarly fails by presenting legal matters as unsettled while omitting the established government position.

Table 1: Systematic Analysis of Media Council Principles Breaches

PART FOUR: CONTEXTUAL HARM AND BREACH OF PUBLIC TRUST

These Media Council violations must be assessed within their social context—a documented environment of escalating hostility toward transgender communities where accurate legal information becomes critical for both protecting rights and preventing discrimination.

4.1 Amplification of Harm Through Legal Misinformation

The article's legal misrepresentation causes concrete harm in multiple dimensions:

• Emboldening Discriminatory Conduct: By suggesting transgender people lack legal protection, the article signals to employers, landlords, and service providers that discriminatory treatment carries no legal consequence, directly encouraging unlawful discrimination.
• Undermining Rights Assertion: Transgender individuals who read this article may be discouraged from asserting their legal rights, believing incorrectly that no protection exists under New Zealand law.
• Poisoning Public Discourse: In an environment where 76% of New Zealanders support transgender anti-discrimination protections (per recent polling), misinformation about existing legal protections undermines informed public debate.

4.2 Betrayal of Journalistic Standards and Public Trust

This publication represents a fundamental betrayal of journalistic responsibility:

• Stuff's Public Position: Stuff has publicly committed to "editorial independence, integrity and high ethical standards." Publishing fundamental misrepresentations about human rights law violates these stated commitments.
• Media Council Precedent: Following the Jan Rivers decision, Stuff has particular notice that transgender coverage requires careful accuracy. This article demonstrates failure to implement lessons from that ruling.
• Public Trust: As New Zealand's largest news website, Stuff occupies a position of significant public trust. That position carries heightened responsibility to ensure accurate reporting on fundamental legal rights.

PART FIVE: CONCLUSION AND FORMAL DEMAND

5.1 Summary of Grievances

The Stuff article "Sex v gender: Global debate over definition of a woman" contains gross misrepresentation of material legal fact concerning protections for transgender people under New Zealand law. Through omission of the established government position recognising protection under section 21 of the Human Rights Act 1993, the article breaches Principles 1 and 12 of the Media Council Principles. Publication of this misinformation causes concrete harm by encouraging discrimination and undermining public understanding of fundamental human rights protections.

5.2 Reiteration of Required Remedy

Given the extreme gravity of these breaches and the ongoing harm perpetuated by this misinformation, we reiterate our demand for immediate and permanent removal of this article from all Stuff platforms. The fundamental nature of the legal misrepresentation precludes adequate remedy through correction or clarification; only complete removal can prevent continued harm to public understanding and vulnerable communities.

5.3 Final Notice

We trust Stuff's senior editorial leadership will accord this matter the gravity and urgency it demands. We await formal written confirmation within 10 working days that:

1. This complaint is upheld
2. The article has been permanently removed from all platforms
3. Steps have been implemented to prevent future publication of similar misrepresentations

Should Stuff fail to provide satisfactory resolution, this complaint will be immediately escalated to the New Zealand Media Council with a request for their most serious sanctions.

The law is clear. The harm is real. The time for action is now.

Ngā mihi nui,

Paul Thistoll
CEO
Rights Aotearoa