NZ First’s foray into transgender issues might be ethically dubious, but politically it could be a winner

By Chris Trotter*

One political advertisement stood out from the thousands that blitzed the US presidential campaign of 2024. It inflicted enormous damage on the Democratic Party’s flagbearer, Kamala Harris. The ad’s central tagline deployed just two sentences: “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.”

Former President Bill Clinton urged the Harris Campaign to come back strongly against the Republicans’ anti-trans message. He was ignored. Subsequent political analysis confirmed Clinton’s intuitive unease. The ad was shown to have nudged a critical number of undecided voters into the Republican column.

Refusing to acknowledge the power of transphobia is not a winning electoral strategy.

Andy Burnham, Labour’s candidate for the parliamentary seat of Makerfield, outside Manchester, in a by-election shaping-up to be one of the most consequential of the century, would appear to have learned from the Democrats’ mistake.

In sharp contrast to many of his party comrades, whose support for transgender politics is as unwavering as it is vociferous, Burnham has signalled his support for the UK Supreme Court’s unanimous decision that: “the terms ‘man’, ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ in the EA [Equality Act] 2010 refer to biological sex.”

By doing so Burnham has also, logically, aligned himself with the judgement’s consequential effect on policies pertaining to transwomen’s access to women’s sport and women-only spaces.

If, as a great many British Labour members and supporters are hoping, Burnham goes on to win the by-election, enter the House of Commons, and by defeating Sir Keir Starmer in a Labour leadership election become the UK’s next Prime Minister, his government’s position on transgender policy looks set to become instructive for Labour’s kindred parties in Australia and New Zealand.

Instructive, but not decisive. Persuading Labor and Labour to soften their respective policies on transgender rights will not be easy. In the case of their Green allies, it will be impossible.

Winston Peters and his NZ First colleagues require no instruction on the acute vulnerability of New Zealand’s left-wing parties to the many negative and potentially devastating electoral consequences of the transgender issue. Indeed, the Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill, a member’s bill in the name of NZ First’s Jenny Marcroft, which requires “man” and “woman” to be defined in strictly biological terms in all New Zealand’s laws, was given its first reading on Wednesday, 20th May 2026.

Six months ago Labour and Green MPs would have greeted such legislation with a mixture of derision and disdain, confident that MPs of like mind in the National Party caucus would have had the numbers to reduce NZ First’s move to a mere gesture. Certainly the derision and disdain was there in the speeches of left-wing MPs, but it was tempered last week by the knowledge that National had agreed to let Marcroft’s bill proceed to a select committee.

Has the balance of power shifted within National? Between them, have Trump’s attack ad and the UK Supreme Court’s judgement caused National to recalibrate?

Closer to home, has NZ First’s clear willingness to wrong-foot National on key wedge issues (te Tiriti, immigration, transgender) in the run-up to November’s election persuaded National MPs that upholding their party’s liberal traditions is only likely to provoke even more of their traditional supporters to abandon it for NZ First’s unabashed culture warriors?

National’s strategists have only to glance across the Tasman to see what the transgender issue can do to the relative electoral strength of the country’s right-wing parties. The decision of the Federal Court of Australia in the gloriously named case of Tickle v Giggle, by giving a very sharp set of teeth to Australia’s law protecting transgender citizens, has generated a powerful backlash against the transgender cause.

Calling bullshit on the court’s decision, One Nation’s indomitable Pauline Hanson has pledged to undo completely the legislative trans-positive achievements of Labor’s Juila Gillard.

Five years ago liberal and left-wing Australia would have said “So?”. Back then One Nation languished well below 10 percent in most federal opinion polls.

Half-a-decade later things have changed. Half-way through 2026 One Nation is vying for (and in some polls attaining) the title of Australia’s most popular political party. The Liberal-National Party, once the dominant electoral force in Australian politics, has been driven unceremoniously from the centre of the nation’s political stage. In the latest polls, support for the Liberal-National Party is in the low-20s.

Unsurprisingly, if somewhat belatedly, the Liberal-National Party swung in behind One Nation, offering a similar pledge to restore the biological binary. Like Burnham in Makerfield, closely pressed by his right-wing opponent the Reform Party, the Liberal-National strategists realised how nuts it would be to gift their enemies (or even their friends!) with an issue capable of arousing such violent passions.

On this side of the Tasman cynics are predicting that Marcroft’s bill will be left to languish in select committee until the November elections are over and done. If, thanks to an overloaded schedule, even public hearings on the legislation cannot be arranged before polling-day, then National’s strategists will be vindicated. The entire issue will slowly and quietly drift off the political radar.

But how likely is it that NZ First will allow such a polarising and potentially allegiance-shifting issue to disappear from the nation’s radar screen? How will National, let alone Labour and the Greens, prevent NZ First from adapting Trump’s infamously damaging tagline to local political conditions?

Certainly, the mainstream news media are unlikely to buy into a politically motivated transgender fight. All that means, however, is that the fight will take place on social media. Sadly, the Internet offers an environment much wilder than the tame mainstream into which the nation’s most unscrupulous media predators can be released.

NZ First’s strategists will also be aware that the decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal is pending (some would say long overdue) in relation to a dispute between LAVA (Lesbian Action for Visibility Aotearoa) and the organisers of the Wellington Pride Festival.

Much about this case is reminiscent of the Tickle v Giggle case. If, as many gender critical feminists anticipate, LAVA’s complaint is not upheld, then the ramifications for human rights protection in New Zealand will be significant. This highly-charged dispute is ripe for right-wing exploitation.

What are the parties of the Left to do? Proudly reasserting their support for transgender New Zealanders is most unlikely to bring them any new votes. Indeed, it may lead to the defection of supporters they can ill-afford to lose. But neither is it politically feasible to simply abandon the trans community. For one thing, such an about-turn would be unconscionable for many in Labour and just about everybody in the Greens. For another, the trans community is not to be trifled with lightly – they make implacable enemies.

Clearly, the most congenial turn of events would be for the whole issue to be rendered invisible. Unfortunately, if NZ First has any say in the matter that is most unlikely to happen. And if Peters and his crew succeed in putting transgender politics squarely on the electoral radar, then National and Act will be hard-pressed to gift him the exclusive rights to its use.

What’s more, if the entire Right unites to wind back transgender Kiwis’ rights, then the entire Left will be obliged to unite in their defence.

Such a principled exhibition of solidarity with “they/them” might carry the Left over the line. Looking around the world, however, one would have to say it’s unlikely. On this issue the Right is not about to put its faith in anyone other than “you”.

*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.