Labour has accused the coalition government of prioritising the English Language Bill over sexual consent law reform, as Parliament enters its final eight weeks of sitting before the 2026 election. RNZ

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith rejected the accusation as 'absolutely inappropriate' and said the English Language Bill was not his personal priority but a coalition commitment agreed to as part of the coalition agreement. The bill is due for its second reading after being considered by the Justice committee and reported back in June. RNZ

The dispute centres on a member's bill from Labour MP Camilla Belich that would define consent as something communicated through words or actions, not silence or inaction. Labour leader Chris Hipkins said National declined to back Belich's bill and that it could be progressed immediately. RNZ

Goldsmith blamed a 'packed' legislative agenda for the lack of progress on consent reform, telling reporters 'we'd struggle to get onto it before the house rises in eight weeks.' He signalled the issue would be addressed 'if given another term.' RNZ

He pointed to the government's record this term on sexual violence issues, citing sentencing reforms, the removal of cultural reports, and the passage of stalking legislation as evidence of focus on reducing victimisation. Goldsmith also noted that Labour 'were in government for six years, did nothing about this' regarding consent law reform. RNZ

Labour has claimed National walked away from a bipartisan effort to modernise sexual consent laws so the party could campaign on the issue in the 2026 election. The Labour Party stated that MPs from across Parliament had worked together to develop the sexual consent bill. NZ Herald; Labour Party

National Party policy on sexual consent, if re-elected, is to ensure consent is actively given, described as a 'yes' rather than the absence of a 'no.' RNZ

Act leader David Seymour said he did not think the government had runway to get consent legislation drafted and introduced in the remaining eight weeks of parliamentary sitting. Seymour said Act was cautious about changes to sensitive areas of law and wanted to see the detail of any proposed legislation before supporting it. RNZ

The broader context here is a legislative end-of-term squeeze that has become familiar in election years. With eight sitting weeks remaining, the government's programme is congested, and ministers are making explicit choices about what can and cannot be advanced before the House rises. Goldsmith's framing of the English Language Bill as a coalition commitment rather than a personal priority is a deliberate signal: he is placing responsibility for its progression on the coalition agreement, not on his own ministerial agenda. RNZ

For Labour, the political logic is straightforward. Framing the government as choosing language law over consent reform taps into a broader narrative about coalition priorities. The claim that National abandoned a cross-party process to develop a campaign platform is a specific and pointed allegation, and one that puts the onus on National to explain the sequencing. NZ Herald; Labour Party

Seymour's position adds another layer. Act's caution about changes to sensitive areas of law and its demand to see detail before committing effectively closes off the possibility of fast-tracking consent legislation through Parliament in the remaining sitting weeks, even if the political will existed. That gives Goldsmith cover: the constraint is not solely the government's legislative agenda but also the reality of coalition politics, where a minority partner can decline to support a bill sight unseen. RNZ

The result is that consent law reform appears parked until after the election. National has a policy position ready; Labour has a member's bill ready; and the government says it needs another term. The eight-week countdown has begun, and both sides are now positioning the issue as a test of priorities for voters to weigh.