The National Party wants to change the law on sexual consent, so that consent has to be actively given — a clear "yes" rather than just the absence of a "no."

Justice spokesperson Paul Goldsmith said this would be the first time New Zealand law actually defines what consent is. Right now, the Crimes Act — the main law covering criminal offences — only lists situations where consent does not exist, such as when someone is asleep, intoxicated, threatened, or deceived.

Goldsmith said the "yes" could be given through words or actions, and that silence is not consent. He said the change would bring the law into line with what young people have long been taught: "you need positive consent before sex, each and every time, rather than presuming it." RNZ

The announcement was reported by RNZ on 18 July 2026. It does not say exactly where or how Goldsmith made the remarks.

Goldsmith said the change would help judges and juries by explaining what consent is, not just what it isn't. He said it would "reset social expectations, so that sex is understood as something both people actively choose."

He was clear that the burden of proof in criminal trials would not change. In a criminal trial, the prosecution — the side bringing the case — has to prove the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That would still apply: the prosecution would need to prove that consent was not given and that the defendant did not honestly believe it was.

Goldsmith placed the consent policy alongside other National justice commitments. He said it built on the party's earlier promise to stop courts giving lighter sentences to sexual offenders based on good character, and on government work to let sexual-violence victims have a say in whether perpetrators get permanent name suppression.

The proposal addresses a long-standing gap in New Zealand law. Several reviews over the years have looked at moving to an "affirmative" consent model — one where the law says what consent looks like, rather than only listing when it is missing. Goldsmith's comments signal National is willing to legislate in that direction, though no draft law or timeline has been given.

The policy comes amid a busy period for justice reform. The previous Labour government overhauled family violence laws and expanded victims' rights, and the current coalition government has already named sexual violence offending as a priority. Goldsmith's approach — linking the consent definition to sentencing and name suppression changes — suggests National is putting together a package of measures rather than treating consent reform as a one-off.

The broader question for the justice system is how a positive consent definition would work alongside the existing rule that a defendant can argue they reasonably believed consent was given. Goldsmith's confirmation that the prosecution still carries the burden of proof matters here. Some advocates overseas have wanted to shift that burden onto the accused — to make them prove consent existed. In New Zealand, that would run up against the Bill of Rights Act 1990, which guarantees the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.