There are a few days left for submissions on the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill. Few New Zealanders would have heard about the Bill so I have shared my submission in the hopes others will recognise the risk this Bill presents and enter their own submission.
Please note: I use the phrase “males who identify as women” throughout this submission. I do this for the sake of clarity as biological sex is what is at the centre of this discussion. I also use the pronouns that align with a person’s sex. I do this without malice, but it is a political decision and I would expect that my rights as protected under the Human Rights Act 1993 Section 21(j) would be observed and that this would not result in my submission being discounted.
The stated purposes and objectives of the Bill ‘to prevent threats to the integrity of sport, such as competition manipulation, the use of prohibited substances, bullying and harassment, discrimination, corruption, and fraud,‘ and to promote and protect the safety and wellbeing of participants, are important and I support them.
My submission does not argue against the necessity of creating the Integrity Sport and Recreation Commission. Although I do question whether it can be a truly independent commission when the board is appointed by the Minister of Sport and Recreation (via the Governor General). Rather, my submission is concerned with how this Bill relates to and impacts women and girls in New Zealand.
I will discuss these impacts in two parts. First, by examining the unusual decision to erase women from this legislation despite all foundational documentation emphasising the vulnerability of women in this space. And secondly, through expressing concern about the potential ‘Trojan Horse’ effect this Bill could have in undermining the integrity of women’s sport further.
The absence of women
The Bill itself does not mention women at all. It is true that many Bills on any number of issues exist that do not mention women or men or sex. However, there are obvious and important reasons why this Bill should be explicitly inclusive of women.
The first of which is that in ignoring women, this Bill also ignores possibly the hottest topic regarding the integrity of sport in the world today: males who identify as women participating in women’s sport. It isn’t just the media and commentariat talking about it. Just last month, a major policy announcement came from World Athletics which declared ’transgender athletes who have gone through male puberty will no longer be eligible to compete in female athletics competitions’.1 World Aquatics (formerly FINA) issued a similar policy just a few months earlier.2 World Rugby released theirs in 2021.3
The global trend is solidly moving toward protecting the integrity, fairness, and safety of women’s sport by ensuring sex-segregation. Meanwhile, late last year Sport New Zealand opted to ignore the science and buck the global trend by doubling down on anti-women stances that preference the entitlement of males to identify into the category of women over all of the women actually in that category.4 At the time, the minister responsible for this Bill, Minister Grant Robertson, called those who spoke out against Sport New Zealand’s guidelines “petty and small-minded”.5
Given Sport New Zealand’s recent display of disregard for the integrity of women’s sport and Minister Robertson’s hostility towards women raising our concerns, the absence of women in this Bill appears less like an oversight and more by design.
The second key reason that the absence of women in the Bill is concerning and strange is that a perusal of all the supporting documentation and references used to write the Bill unearths just how foundational women were to this process right up until the drafting of the legislation.
The Regulatory Impact Statements, and all of the research and reports that are listed as informing this Bill, have plenty to say about the impact of integrity (or lack thereof) in sport on women and girls.
Here are just some examples:
On the ‘Key Findings’ page of the Sport Integrity Review – Findings and Recommendations – Sept 2019, the report describes that:
“Harassment, bullying and abuse are a problem and sports are struggling to manage these issues with their current resources…Women are more likely to find these problems than men”.6
It also found that women are less trusting of the existing power structures in sports organisations and their ability to “handle” incidents of harassment, bullying, and intimidation.7
Despite receiving very little from submitters on “gender” specifically (and none on race) the review states:
“Sport NZ does not consider the low amount of reports of issues relating to women to be conclusive evidence that women do not face challenges within sport.”8
In the Sport Integrity Review – Summary of Submissions, the reviewers highlight that a main theme in response to the question, ‘What changes, if any, would you make to organisational culture in the sport organisations you are involved with to improve sport integrity?’ was “the need to eliminate sexism”.9
Law firm Simpson Grierson were engaged by Sport New Zealand to conduct a ‘feasibility study’ into a dispute resolution service for New Zealand sport. In September 2020, they published the ‘Complaints Management and/or Dispute Resolution Service For NZ Sport: Feasibility Study’ in which they recommended that Sport New Zealand proceed with creating such a service in the form of either a mediation service or a sports ombudsman.10 This document was used to validate the necessity of the Bill we are discussing and it is relevant because it uses women’s experiences and the measures being taken internationally to reduce “gender inequality” as key foundational issues in this.
In reviewing the activities of International Intergovernmental Organisations in the area of human rights and sport, Simpson Grierson highlighted focuses on “gender equality” and even in how gender equality in sport had been impacted by the pandemic.11
The Regulatory Impact Statement12 for this Bill, dated 23 May 2022, explicitly uses a strategy document called ‘Women and Girls in Sport and Active Recreation – Government Strategy Oct 2018’ to evidence how women are “under represented at the management and governance levels.”13
It is extraordinary that the legislation that this document supports would then not just under represent women but remove them entirely. Furthermore, it is extraordinary that despite the participation of women and girls in sport requiring its own Government Strategy, a Bill about integrity in sport has neglected to mention them at all.
The RIS (May 2022) emphatically states:
“We consider that a system that does not deal with integrity issues effectively is likely to have disproportionate impacts on vulnerable and disadvantaged groups, such as tamariki and rangatahi, women, disabled people, LGBTQ+, Māori and Pacific peoples and those from minority ethnic backgrounds.”14
It is worth noting that the other population groups mentioned here are included in section 16 of the Bill as stakeholders.15 Women are not.
The RIS also discusses a “major example” where Gymnastics New Zealand “found integrity issues relating to athlete wellbeing and child safeguarding at many levels of the sport. 93 complaints arose from the gymnastics community during the review process that were referred to Sport New Zealand’s Interim Complaints Mechanism (all from women, most of whom were minors when the complaint arose).”16
One hundred percent of the complaints came from women, most of them minors. This was no coincidence. The issues dealt with by Gymnastics New Zealand in this case, and common to arise in sporting organisations all over the world, disproportionately affect women and girls. I will not go into the statistics of the sex breakdown of victims and perpetrators of harassment, sexual harassment, sex-based discrimination, and violence. They are well-known and self-evident. It is simply difficult to fathom how even after using such a stark example which affected only females, this Bill has wilfully excluded women from the solution.
The second Regulatory Impact Statement, published 21 September 2022, lists one of the objectives being sought as “increased participation, including by vulnerable and disadvantaged groups, such as tamariki and rangatahi, women, disabled people, LGBTQ+, Māori and Pacific peoples and those from minority ethnic backgrounds.”17
It is difficult to see how a Bill that does not mention women will achieve its objective to increase participation in women’s sport. As mentioned previously, other groups identified as vulnerable and listed here were not excluded.
Under ‘Population Implications’ the RIS (September 2022) mentions that women are likely to suffer “disproportionate impacts” under the current system and that:
“Women may utilise the new entity in higher numbers than men as they are more likely to find harassment, bullying, and abuse a problem in sports organisations, and have less confidence in sports organisation to adequately handle related incidents.”18
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I will reiterate that it is astounding that with all of this foundational focus on the vulnerabilities and unique experiences of women, we are looking at a Bill that pretends we don’t exist.
A Regulatory Impact Statement is:
“a high-level summary of the problem being addressed, the options and their associated costs and benefits, the consultation undertaken, and the proposed arrangements for implementation and review.”19
How is it that women are central to the problem, referred to explicitly in research and consultation, named in objectives and as key stakeholders, labelled vulnerable and as likely to be high-users, and yet they are not mentioned in the Bill?
Trojan Horse Legislation
Women’s rights activists all around the western world have become accustomed to treating new legislation that might effect our rights with a great deal of suspicion. Too often we have found that legislation has been packaged up and sold to the people as one, usually reasonable, thing but buried in the pages few bother to read lurk the less popular things politicians want to get passed.
In New Zealand, the Government’s handling of the Births, Deaths Marriages, Relationships Registration Bill (now Act) has left many women deeply distrustful that proper processes will be followed and that women’s voices even matter. A group I was involved with running at the time, Speak Up For Women, is the only reason the antidemocratic behaviour of some in the select committee was caught out and the Bill was paused allowing us to get a protective clause added in to reduce the negative impact on women.
The Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill similarly sets off alarm bells. We can agree on the necessity of establishing a commission and the importance of protecting against doping, corruption, and integrity risks, but this Bill has the potential to also make it impossible for women to protect our sport from males who seek to identify as women and participate.
As I have established, the Bill has ignored the vulnerabilities of women and so eliminated the risk of a contest of rights between the group they have called “rainbow communities” and women. It also gives power to the Commission to create an “integrity code” and instructs that this must be done with the consultation of key stakeholders which includes “rainbow communities” and excludes women.
Section 19 of the Bill lays out that any integrity code created by the Commission may “specify rights of participants in relation to integrity in sport and physical recreation” and “contain any other matters necessary or desirable to promote integrity in sport or organised physical recreation.”20
There is no denying that the matter of males who identify as women participating in women’s sport is a fraught issue that every sporting organisation is having to grapple with, as I laid out previously. It is framed by some (including, it would seem, Minister Robertson) as an issue of inclusion where the males are the victims of exclusion and women are the nasty excluders. However, to permit this self-identification is a critical risk to the integrity of women’s sport as well as a threat to fairness and safety.
If the Bill were to pass and the Commission were to consult only with advocates for the males who identify as women and wish to participate in women’s sport, and then imposed a code that prevented sporting organisations from segregating sport by sex, the consequences for women would be immense. Here are some key concerns:
Undermining of the Human Rights Act 1993
The very first thing listed under ‘Prohibited grounds for discrimination’ in the Human Rights Act is “sex, which includes pregnancy and childbirth”.21 Gender and gender identity are not included in the Human Rights Act. Some may think this shouldn’t be the case and they would be within their rights to petition Parliament to have the Act amended. However, the law has to be applied as it is and not as certain people wish it was. Legislation or policy that preferences gender identity over sex in a conflict of rights is in breach of the Human Rights Act.
In relation to sport, this matter is even more explicitly clear. Section 49 of the Human Rights Act states:
“Subject to subsection (2), nothing in section 44 shall prevent the exclusion of persons of one sex from participation in any competitive sporting activity in which the strength, stamina, or physique of competitors is relevant.”22
Back in 1993, those writing and passing the Human Rights Act seemed to understand that sport was a unique area of our lives that required its own section to make clear that women could exclude men from participating in our competitions.
Human rights laws should be a concern of this select committee – as they are in law, not how certain people wish they would be. The General Policy Statement for this Bill seems to agree describing it as a focus:
“The Integrity Working Group’s report emphasised that the new entity should be participant-centred, human rights focused, accessible, and responsive to the needs of athletes and participants.”23
History of women’s sport and lingering disregard
It is easy to forget that women only recently gained the right to have our own competitions and teams. We have been included in the Olympics in some form since 1900, but the twentieth century saw the slow incremental inclusion of women often one event at a time.24 It wasn’t until the 2004 Olympics in Athens that women were permited to compete in Wrestling, for example.25 Women’s boxing didn’t make an appearance until the London Olympics in 2012.26
Weightlifting has been part of the Commonwealth Games since 1950 in Auckland, but women were only included from 2002.27 Women had less than two decades of inclusion in this prestigous event before New Zealander Laurel Hubbard, a male who identifies as a woman, took up a spot in the women’s weightlifting at the 2018 Commonwealth Games.28 Hubbard was 40 years old when he competed, until becoming injured, against young women half his age. Hubbard never reached close to similar results when competing in the men’s competitions earlier in his life.
Women’s sport cannot become the retirement playground of males who have aged out of the men’s competition. Elite women’s sport is for women who are the best at what they do, not for mediocre male athletes who are out of form and in their twilight years. This is a crucial integrity issue.
It is also worth remembering that women’s sport exists because women fought tooth and nail for scraps from sporting organisations that only served males. The very first sports clubs and competitions of any code were usually completely self-organised and reliant on secondhand equipment from the men. Still to this day women play on football fields that have been torn up by the men’s team’s boots the day before.
Many women’s teams don’t even have access to changing rooms in New Zealand and have to change in their cars.29 Just recently, in an article celebrating the opening of women’s changing rooms at a Linwood rugby club, one of the women said:
“It is a big thing to have our space as women.
“It means being able to be comfortable, being together as a team and not having guys walking through in the middle of us changing.
“We were often rushing out because we were not wanting to stay in the changing rooms in case of overstaying our welcome.”30
Women built women’s sport ourselves from the ground up. Our sport is not the Government’s to give away. These sporting organisations that shut women out for most of their history and still pay women less and provide fewer resources, are not entitled to open our competitions up to males who identify as women.
This Bill leaves women’s teams and competitions, which we created for ourselves, at risk of being rendered meaningless and unfair. I believe this is by design. The rights of, and benefits to, women are seen as less important than the demands of males who identify as women. It is a simple hierarchy. These sporting organisations and the New Zealand Government have half-heartedly resourced and supported women’s sport to varying degrees for a few decades at best. This is just the most recent way they are demonstrating that men come first and they do not take women’s competitions seriously.
Education opportunities and lost income
Every single scholarship or competition prize that goes to a male competing in women’s sport is a complete travesty and destroys the integrity of the competition. It is well-known that women’s opportunities are limited and monetary prizes are tiny when compared to their male counterparts. The fight for equal resourcing and fair renumeration is a battle that is being waged by women in most sporting codes. So for a single dollar from the crumbs tossed to women’s sport to go to males is not acceptable. It is so unfair and disadvantageous to be considered misogyny.
Over the years many young people from underprivileged backgrounds have been able to access elite higher education simply through sporting scholarships. These scholarships change lives. They bring opportunities for entire families to be lifted out of poverty and for talented young people to reach their potential that would have remained unrealised if they hadn’t had the means to further their education. Again, if just one scholarship intended for young women/girls goes to a male who identifies as a woman it is a tragedy. It isn’t okay that the life of the young woman who missed out becomes collateral damage to male entitlement.
It is vital to the integrity of sport and basic ethics that women’s sporting opportunities and monetary prizes are protected. This is missing from the Bill.
Section 5 of the Bill sets out the meaning of ‘threat to integrity’.31 While this definition appears proportionate and appropriate, it is at odds with how threats to the integrity of women’s sport are likely to be treated under this legislation. ‘The use of prohibited substances’ is rightly considered a threat to integrity, for example, however there is no concern expressed about how the presence of elevated levels of synthetic or naturally occuring testosterone in athletes undermines the integrity of women’s sport.
I would also be interested to know if female athletes would be protected from “bullying, violence, abuse, sexual misconduct, intimidation, harassment” if they were to speak up about the need for sex-segregated sport or against male participation in women’s sport. It is a concern that, given the rhetoric we have seen from Minister Robertson and others in the Government, any woman who spoke up about such matters would be treated as if she were the abuser or bully.
It is my personal opinion (though I am sure it is shared by others) that males who declare themselves women and then participate in women’s sport are being deceptive, breaching trust, and (where prize money is involved) potentially committing fraud. This is a substantial integrity issue which has not been addressed at all. Even accounting for the Government’s anti-women stance on this, the issue should have been raised if only so that it could be discussed.
There is a real possibility that a few years down the track the Government will be commissioning more reports and studies; this time into the silencing of female athletes as male athletes were allowed to identify into their sport.
Self-exclusion: privacy, dignity, religion
This consequence is more difficult to measure and tends to take place at a grassroots level which in turn ends the pathway to elite levels of women’s sport.
Sport New Zealand’s own research shows that “by the age of 17, young women are spending 28% less time being physically active than their male counterparts.”32
The academics point to several factors that contribute to the drop-off in participation, the very first being that their bodies are changing. They point to menstruation, breast development, and various other biological effects of female puberty. Despite doing nothing to protect the integrity of women’s sport from the consequences of allowing males to participate in it, Sport New Zealand’s research says:
“While adolescent males’ strength and control increases post puberty, adolescent female strength lags behind and motor control reduces for a period of time. This results in a vulnerability to injury in this population.”33
The same research describes how “self-consciousness” about their changing bodies can reduce participation by girls. They refer to the issue of uniforms as key to this but it follows that if these young girls were being made to also get changed in front of males who identify as women this self-consciousness would be heightened.34
Participation and integrity are both matters of concern to this Bill and yet there is nothing to address the disproportionate drop-off of young women in sport. There is nothing to ensure that the factors outlined in Sport New Zealand’s own research are addressed so that women and girls can enjoy the benefits of sport as much as their male counterparts.
On a community or recreational level, women’s needs can still be a lot more complex than men’s, particularly when religion comes into it. Newsroom reported on the importance of access to sport and exercise for Muslim women in New Zealand, pointing out that:
“The research found a lot of Muslim women enjoy swimming as a form of exercise. But finding an appropriate facility which respects their wishes can be a challenge.
For some, ‘safe’ means a swimming pool with only women around the pool, the windows covered and CCTV cameras covered over.”35
By not addressing issues of integrity and participation barriers that are unique to women, this Bill is ensuring the continued self-exclusion of women who need single-sex spaces. There will be no fanfare for sporting organisations to notice, these women will just silently not show up.
I strongly recommend the committee read this submission by Fair Play For Women’s Sport in the United Kingdom as it addresses these matters and more.36
Injury and safety
Safety and the prevention of avoidable injury are paramount to the organisation and integrity of sport. Fear of injury is another potential reason for self-exclusion as mentioned in the section above.
By ignoring women and the issue of males who identify as women participating in sport, this Bill also ignores very real threats to the safety of women participating in sport. There is a very good reason World Rugby were one of the first international bodies to prevent males who had gone through puberty from participating in women’s competitions and that is that the injury risk for such a high-impact sport was simply too high.37 The lawyers, the insurers, and the sport scientists raised the red flags and significant resource was poured into developing their policy.
I urge the committee to look into World Rugby’s research, especially that around head injuries. They comprehensibly outline the risks of allowing mixed participation in rugby and the analysis of strength, speed, and power differences between the sexes is thorough.38
I then urge the committee to quietly reflect on what we all knew to be true up until a handful of years ago – that women and men have different bodies and that means in areas like sport men are significantly advantaged. This should not need saying, but here we are.
It is negligent at best and malicious at worst to sacrifice the safety and wellbeing of women out of fear of acknowledging facts that have become ideologically unpopular with a certain sector of society. The integrity of women’s sport is destroyed and the injury risk factor amplified considerably when a male is permitted to participate. This is true at an elite level, but it is equally as true at a grassroots level where younger or amateur players don’t have the skill to avoid injuries like the elite might.
Responding to common arguments from those advocating for males who identify as women
- Professional women’s organisations and the Ministry of Women aren’t objecting:
The Departmental Disclosure Statement for this Bill confirms that the Ministry of Women were consulted and appear to have raised no objections.39 It is my opinion, and the opinion of the women I organise with, that these organisations have become elitist and ignorant to the needs and opinions of the average woman. I certainly do not feel they represent me as a woman and I reject that they can consent to the erasure of women’s spaces on my behalf.
- It would be unethical and unusually cruel for males who identify as women to have to prove their sex:
Often the argument is made that inhumane ‘genital checks’ would have to be made in order to ascertain someone’s sex prior to competition. It is true that this is one way that sex could be quickly determined, however our sex is embedded in every piece of our DNA and simple blood tests would do the trick. The idea that any of this testing is unusually intrusive is false in any case. Elite athletes have been subjected to incredibly intrusive drug testing regimes for decades now. They are required to urinate in front of officials in some circumstances which is no different from a so-called ‘genital check’.
The General Policy Statement for this Bill makes it clear that “The Commission will have the power to require information to be provided if that information cannot be obtained by consent.”40 Given the Commission’s proposed role in drug testing and prevention of doping, there is little doubt that it would have the powers to compel athletes to provide blood or urine samples.
- Males who identify as women are uniquely vulnerable to discrimination and exclusion:
In examining all of the research and studies used to justify the problem and provide this Bill as the solution, I was unable to find a single piece of research that evidenced that males who identify as women are uniquely discriminated against and excluded from sport. The data being used to demonstrate discrimination against trans people is not about them at all. The studies were done on LGB people and are all in relation to sexual orientation not gender identity.
The May 2022 Regulatory Impact Statement says:
“Although data in the New Zealand context is lacking, one study from 2015 surveyed participants from several nations including 631 New Zealand participants, the majority of whom identified as lesbian, gay or bisexual. 87% of all the New Zealand participants reported witnessing homophobia in a sporting environment and 48% of LGB particpants reported experiencing it in a sporting environment.”41
The September 2022 Regulatory Impact Statement says:
“LGBTQ+ youth are less likely to participate in sport compared to other young people due to discrimination, bullying, and bigotry. For example, almost 50% of gay and bisexual young males in New Zealand reported they had been the victim of homophobic bullying in team sports.”42
This Bill has essentially been written using data and research on apples to discuss carrots.
Rainbow Communities: consensus and refutation
On a different note, I also want to note my opposition to the phrase “rainbow communities” being used in this Bill. The legislation says that rainbow communities “means people with diverse sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or sex characteristics”.43
As a lesbian, I find this lumping in of people with minority sexual orientations and people with various gender identities unhelpful. My experiences and needs as a lesbian are not remotely like those of a male who identifies as a woman. The use of data and research that is centred on homosexual and bisexual people to prop up demands and arguments of males who identify as women is not only unethical but it is also upsetting.
I question who decided that legislation and policy in New Zealand should be able to lump us in and call us “rainbow communities”. I missed the moment we came to this consensus.
This submission supports the creation of the Commission and the objective to ensure the integrity of sport in New Zealand. It raises concerns that the absence of women from the legislation leaves a large gap that opens up women’s sport to threats to integrity. The scope of the Bill presents a threat to women’s rights and sport as it leaves far too much room for politicised and ideological actors to make it impossible for women to have single-sex sport and spaces.
Public opinion does not support the position taken by Sport New Zealand and Minister Grant Robertson on the inclusion of males who identify as women in women’s sport. A Curia Research Poll released in March found:
“A recent independent poll has shown a collapse in support for male athletes who self-identify as women competing in women’s sport with only 16% of those surveyed supportive in February 2023, down from 27% in February 2022. Conversely, opposition has continued to strengthen with 67% of New Zealanders polled in February 2023 opposed, compared to 55% in February 2022.”44
To fail to protect women’s sport, as this legislation is bound to do, would be an example of how much this Government disregards the will of New Zealanders. It would be deliberately ignoring the overwhelming opinion that sport should be sex-segregated.
- Add a section for Integrity in Women’s Sport
An entire section needs to be added to the Bill that addresses the unique vulnerabilities and risk factors women face. It will need to emphasise that women’s sport is protected by the Human Rights Act and that nothing in this Bill should undermine the right for women to have single-sex sport. This section should also give the Commission power to address resourcing and fair numeration of women’s sport.
- Insert definition of ‘sex’ into section 4
Sex should be defined correctly as either of the two categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their biological and reproductive functions. It should be described as being observed at birth (or in utero) not “assigned” as that is false.
- Add in section 14(3)
This should specify that nothing in section 14(2) can override or contest the Human Rights Act and the status of ‘sex’ as a “prohibited grounds for discrimination”.
- Make women stakeholders
Amend all parts of the Bill which list stakeholders and groups to consult with to include women.
- Separate sexual orientation from gender identity
Make it clear that these groups are distinct so that any research or data used to justify action or consultation is attributed solely to the group of people it is actually about. The phrase “rainbow communities” should be removed as it is unhelpfully grouping people with differing experiences and needs.
Please note that I request to speak to this submission in front of the select committee.
- Eligibility regulations for transgender athletes, (Version 2.0, approved by Council on 23 March 2023, and coming into effect on 31 March 2023), World Athletics.
- Policy On Eligibility For The Men’s And Women’s Competition Categories, FINA Inclusion Policy And Appendices, World Aquatics.
- World Rugby Guidelines: Transgender Women.
- Guiding Principles: Transgender Inclusion, Sport New Zealand.
- NZ Herald, 7 December 2022.
- P24, Sport Integrity Review: Findings and Recommendations, Sport New Zealand, September 2019.
- P26, ibid.
- P27, ibid.
- P6-7, Sport Integrity Review: Summary of Submissions, Sport New Zealand, September 2019.
- Complaints Management and/or Dispute Resolution Service For NZ Sport: Feasibility Study, Phillipa Muir & John Rooney, Simpson Grierson
- P.41-42, ibid.
- Regulatory Impact Statment, 23 May 2022.
- P.10, Women and Girls in Sport and Active Recreation – Government Strategy, Sport New Zealand, October 2018
- P.10, Regulatory Impact Statement, 23 May 2022.
- Section 16, Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill.
- P.5, ibid.
- P.14, Regulatory Impact Statement, 21 September 2022.
- P.39, ibid.
- What is a Regulatory Impact Statement? Treasury.
- Section 19, Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill.
- Section 21, Human Rights Act 1993
- Section 49, Human Rights Act 1993.
- General Policy Statement, Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill.
- When did women first compete in the Olympic Games? International Olympic Committee.
- List of World and Olympic Champions in women’s freestyle wrestling.
- ‘Women’s boxing comes of age at London 2012 Olympics’, The Guardian, August 2012.
- New Zealand Olympic Committee.
- Laurel Hubbard Wikipedia.
- ‘Women rugby players getting changed in their cars due to lack of facilities’, Shea Turner, Stuff, May 2022.
- ‘Rugby wāhine celebrate their own space, showers and privacy after years of sharing men’s changing room’, Olivia Caldwell, Stuff, April 2023.
- Section 5, Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill.
- ‘Young Women, Sport, Physical Activity, and the Teenage Years’, Professor Holly Thorpe, Dr Megan Ogilve, Jacinta Horan, Dane Baker, Dr Lynne Coleman, Dr Stacy Sims and Dr Sarah Beable.
- ‘Making safe spaces for Muslim women to play’, Sarah Cowley Ross, Newsroom, August 2020.
- Written evidence submitted by Fair Play For Women’s Sport to United Kingdom Parliament.
- Transgender Participation Guidelines, World Rugby.
- Departmental Disclosure Statement, Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill.
- General Policy Statement, Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill.
- Regulatory Impact Statement, May 2022.
- Regulatory Impact Statement, September 2022.
- Section 4 Interpretation, Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill.
- ‘On International Women’s Day an increasing number of New Zealanders support the protection of women’s categories in sport’, Save Women’s Sport Australasia, March 2023.