NZ's Human Rights Commission is going to undergo some changes "in terms of the personnel".

It was not hard to concur wholeheartedly with MP Todd Stephenson, when he said about our Human Rights Commission “The Commission’s ‘must-do’ list could easily be mistaken for that of any left-wing action group. We’ve got no shortage of lefty lobby groups in New Zealand and ACT doesn’t see why taxpayers should fund an extra one”. Todd Stephenson is a New Zealand Member of Parliament in the ACT party, which is one of the three political parties which now form our new coalition government.

The above statement is part of his unreticent comments in response to the news that Human Rights Commissioner, Paul Hunt, is not going to be reappointed when his five-year warrant for the role expires in January 2024. Justice Minister, Paul Goldsmith, confirmed that a new Human Rights Commissioner will be sought, and that changes will be made to the Human Rights Commission “in terms of the personnel”.

Although I’m not in step with ACT’s desire to completely abolish the Human Rights Commission, I am in step with Todd’s further statement “The Justice Minister’s decision not to reappoint Paul Hunt is a good start, but doesn’t go far enough to acknowledge the Human Rights Commission’s rot”. There are many who would consider the word ‘rot’ to be no exaggeration, amongst which I number.

This spirited show of disapproval for a publicly funded institution perceived to have severely tilted off-balance into woke activism, is very welcome. I know that celebrations may be premature - because who knows what the future holds – but hallelujah, anyway, in anticipation of a desperately needed rebalancing “in terms of the personnel”.

Paul Hunt was appointed as NZ’s Chief Human Rights Commissioner in 2019. By June 2020, a report from the HRC was released titled “Prism: Human Rights issues relating to Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression, and Sex Characteristics (SOGIESC) in Aotearoa New Zealand - A report with recommendations.” In its 66 pages, it mentions the word ‘transgender’ 97 times; in contrast, the word ‘lesbian’ is mentioned 25 times. The direction the HRC was favouring was clearly laid out.

It got increasingly worse. When Kellie-Jay Keen (aka: Posie Parker) came to New Zealand in March this year to front the Let Women Speak rally in Auckland, Paul Hunt attended the protest of the rally to show support for his “trans friends”. Afterwards, he couldn’t bring himself to outright condemn the violence which erupted against Kellie-Jay Keen and the rally attendees, who were mostly women. In response to that fiasco, long time journalist, Karl du Fresne, called Paul Hunt “New Zealand’s most useless public servant”.

Under Paul Hunt’s watch, the Human Rights Commission published advice about gender identity in their FAQ section under Sport and Community, which is worded in such a way it appears to imply that sporting bodies and service providers have to allow entry to men who identify as women into women’s sports and spaces. The same deference applies for women who identify as men, too, but strangely enough, there’s not nearly so many women demanding entry into male spaces. Whatever could the difference be? It’s correct that discrimination cannot be made against someone because of their adopted gender identity, but NZ law allows for sex-based discrimination in the right circumstances. However, the advice given in the FAQ section appears to be worded in such a way as to steer the reader into believing that a man’s gender identity trumps a woman’s sex-based rights. Sometime in July 2023, the HRC covered its rear-end and put a disclaimer on its FAQ section to the effect that what was written there was only guidance, and not legal advice. In my opinion the HRC should be offering guidance that’s clear and unambiguous, and which doesn’t require legal advice to decipher.

Weirdly, the HRC also recently established a shared leader/chief executive “innovative leadership model”, between former lawyer and spokeswoman for JustSpeak Julia Amua Whaipooti, and shared leader/chief executive Meg de Ronde. The HRC spins this as its “dedication to honouring the partnership inherent in te Tiriti o Waitangi [the Treaty of Waitangi] between tino rangatiratanga (self-determination of Māori) and kāwanatanga (government)”. Is this new appointment a form of ‘Treaty police’? I’m sure the currently woke HRC would be aghast at such an uncouth suggestion, with lashings of “racist” thrown in as well, but it’s difficult for me to see this appointment as anything else. I respect the Treaty of Waitangi/te Tiriti o Waitangi as a founding document of New Zealand, but see appointments of what may well be nothing more than Treaty police as being a very under-thought innovation. I’m sure the HRC spin about it sounded good in the heads of certain HRC personnel in their HRC bubble (knowing a little of who some of them are), however, indications are that, if it can do so, the new government may soon make this latest HRC absurdity a doomed venture.

So, good-bye, Paul Hunt. I wish you, and all who go with you, well in your next endeavour, but also wish that it’s well outside of New Zealand.