By Joseph Nathan, staff writer, The paper.co.nz
19 July, 2026
National wants to change New Zealand’s sexual consent laws. But what does the law say now, and what would actually be different if the proposed changes go ahead? The Paper breaks down the rules in plain English.
Picture a sexual encounter in which one person says nothing.
They do not say yes.
They do not say no.
They do not physically fight back.
What does the law make of that?
It is a question at the centre of a proposed overhaul of New Zealand’s sexual consent laws.
What is the law now?
The Crimes Act does not give a simple, positive definition of consent.
Instead, it sets out situations in which a person cannot legally consent or consent has not been given.
That includes being forced or threatened, being asleep or unconscious, or being so affected by alcohol or drugs that a person is incapable of consenting.
The law also makes clear that a person does not consent simply because they fail to protest or physically resist.
But there is no straightforward legal rule saying a person must actively establish that their partner is willing before sex takes place.
That matters when a case reaches court.
A defendant can say they believed the other person consented, and that their belief was reasonable.
The prosecution still has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
This is not the first time the law has changed
New Zealand has already rewritten its sexual violence laws several times.
In 1985, Parliament replaced the old rape provisions with the broader offence of sexual violation and made clear that a person does not consent simply because they fail to protest or physically resist.
The law was updated again in 2005, including making it explicit that a person could be convicted of sexually violating their spouse.
More recently, reforms passed in 2021 focused on what happens inside the courtroom, limiting the use of irrelevant evidence and requiring judges to address common misconceptions about sexual violence.
The latest argument is different.
This time, the question is whether the law should put a greater emphasis on how consent is actively established in the first place.
What does National want to change?
National’s proposed changes would put the focus more firmly on positive consent.
The idea is that silence or a lack of resistance would not be enough to infer agreement.
A person relying on a reasonable belief that their partner consented would need to point to the positive steps they took to establish that consent.
That does not necessarily mean the other person would have to say the word “yes”.
Consent could still be communicated through words or actions.
The proposed change is about making agreement something that is actively established, rather than inferred from the absence of a protest.
Does consent to one thing mean consent to everything?
No.
Taking off your clothes, for example, is not legal permission for every sexual act that follows.
Consent is specific and ongoing.
If the nature of the sexual activity changes, consent to the new act still matters.
And if someone suddenly freezes, goes passive or becomes silent, the question of consent does not simply disappear.
The other person would need to stop and establish consent before continuing.
What happens next?
National says it wants to change the law.
Opposition parties say Parliament could act now, pointing to legislation already drafted around consent.
For the moment, the current law remains in place.
But New Zealand has changed its approach to sexual violence before.
The question now is whether the next change should be about what happens before the law ever reaches a courtroom.