25 signatures reached
To: The Minister of Justice Hon Paul Goldsmith, Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence and Sexual Violence Karen Chhour, and Minister for Social Development Louise Upston
Open Letter: Urgent Consent Law Reform Needed in Aotearoa
We write on behalf of the Consent Law Reform campaign to urge immediate action on modernizing New Zealand’s sexual consent laws. New Zealand's consent laws are outdated, and in desperate need of review. New Zealand deserves clear consent laws that reflect the type of healthy relationships we want to see in our country.
On 27 September 2022, Supported by HELP Auckland, Dear Em, RespectEd, Wellington Rape Crisis and other advocacy groups, Zubair formally delivered a 12,177-signature petition to Parliament calling for consent law reform. This petition reflected “an outcry from young people about the need for an affirmative definition of consent,” as HELP Auckland noted at the handover.
In August 2023, the Justice Select Committee released its report on Layba Zubair’s petition, with unanimous cross-party support calling for Parliament to “consider re-examining the law on consent.”
The Committee emphasized that “having a consistent definition of consent in the legislation may help to protect victims of sexual crimes,” and it specifically recommended examining all sexual conduct offences to include a clear, statutory definition of consent. We welcome the Committee’s finding that our consent laws are “due for re-examination”, and we remind all political parties that this is exactly the issue Layba raised in her petition. As the Committee urged, any review should listen to survivors and experts to ensure the law truly protects victims.
Key Issues with Current Law
Throughout the consent law reform campaign, we have consistently highlighted three key legislative issues which require addressing:
- No statutory definition of consent. Currently the Crimes Act defines consent by what it is not (e.g. no deception, no force) but never what it is. This gap leaves juries and judges free to apply myths about consent. For example, victims are still subject to defence arguments that silence or hesitation is automatically consent. As one submission noted, “the absence of a positive definition of consent contributes to negative experiences” for sexual assault complainants.
- Age-related inconsistencies. Our laws protect very young children from being asked about consent, but leave older minors exposed. The recent Victims of Sexual Violence bill (passed June 2025) finally ensures that children under 12 cannot be questioned about whether they consented, rightly affirming that children cannot consent to abuse. However, this change means that 12–16-year-olds now become the sole remaining cohort of minors who can be subjected to consent-defence arguments in court. In other words, once the under-12 protections take effect, all survivors aged 12–16 can still have their credibility unfairly attacked by outdated notions of consent under section 128B. The campaign has long warned that this loophole causes amplified harm for young survivors and must be closed by clarifying the law’s stance on age and consent.
- Problematic “reasonable belief” standard. Even where the Act requires proof of non-consent, the defendant can argue they had a “reasonable belief” that consent was given. In practice, this has allowed juries to entertain rape myths.
New Zealand has no affirmative consent law, which means that a rape myths, such as assumed consent within relationships etcetera may bolster the defendant’s claim of reasonable belief.
In short, without a clear definition of consent to guide the “reasonable belief” test, courts may tacitly allow victims’ silence or submission to be read as consent, contrary to the spirit of affirmative consent taught today. The campaign has repeatedly raised this issue in submissions – noting that case law (e.g. Christian v R) still permits a passive acquiescence plus “some factor” (like being in a relationship) to count as consent – demonstrating the urgent need to rethink the standard.
Why is this important?
Shifting Public Expectations vs Outdated Law
There is a growing gap between modern views of consent (especially among youth) and what our laws say. Schools and public discourse now emphasize that consent must be active and affirmative – that a “hesitant or reluctant” response is not true consent. Yet legal practice still often treats such behavior as consenting. Juries have been told that reluctant consent “is still consent”, directly contradicting how consent is taught in schools. HELP Auckland captured this sentiment at the petition launch: our youth are demanding a law that reflects the principle of “free and voluntary agreement”. Unless the law is updated to match contemporary understanding, we send a confusing message: that societal norms around respectful intimacy count for nothing once a case goes to trial.
There is a growing gap between modern views of consent (especially among youth) and what our laws say. Schools and public discourse now emphasize that consent must be active and affirmative – that a “hesitant or reluctant” response is not true consent. Yet legal practice still often treats such behavior as consenting. Juries have been told that reluctant consent “is still consent”, directly contradicting how consent is taught in schools. HELP Auckland captured this sentiment at the petition launch: our youth are demanding a law that reflects the principle of “free and voluntary agreement”. Unless the law is updated to match contemporary understanding, we send a confusing message: that societal norms around respectful intimacy count for nothing once a case goes to trial.
Current Political Context
Since the 2023 election, progress on consent law reform has stalled. The new Coalition government has so far taken only a narrow step by amending the law to protect children under 12. Unfortunately, no similar initiative has been announced for older teens or for defining consent itself.
Since the 2023 election, progress on consent law reform has stalled. The new Coalition government has so far taken only a narrow step by amending the law to protect children under 12. Unfortunately, no similar initiative has been announced for older teens or for defining consent itself.
Call to Action
This reform has been called for repeatedly, supported by the public, and even acknowledged across political parties, but no government has yet made it a priority. Without prioritisation, change will never happen. Survivors will continue to be failed, and a broken system will remain in place.
This reform has been called for repeatedly, supported by the public, and even acknowledged across political parties, but no government has yet made it a priority. Without prioritisation, change will never happen. Survivors will continue to be failed, and a broken system will remain in place.
Parliament must enact an affirmative definition of consent — one based on free and voluntary agreement — and address age-based loopholes that allow predators to exploit teenagers. The Justice Select Committee has already given us a roadmap for change, and it is imperative that lawmakers follow through.
A reformed consent law, shaped by survivors’ experiences, will better protect young people and demonstrate that Aotearoa’s legal standards match the values of its people. We call on the government to put this issue back on the agenda now, rather than delaying it further.
To read our full letter, click on this link. If you would like to sign on behalf of your organisation, and add your logo as an organisational signatory, please contact Imogen Stone at [email protected].