The National Party wants to tighten the legal definition of sexual consent, requiring that consent be actively given — a clear "yes" rather than the absence of a "no."

Justice spokesperson Paul Goldsmith said the change would put a positive definition of consent into statute for the first time. At present, New Zealand law does not define what consent is; instead, the Crimes Act lists a range of situations where consent is deemed absent — for example, where a person is asleep, intoxicated, threatened, or deceived.

Goldsmith said the "yes" could be communicated by words or actions, and that silence was not consent. He framed the shift as aligning the law with what children have long been taught: "you need positive consent before sex, each and every time, rather than presuming it." RNZ

The announcement, reported by RNZ on 18 July 2026, does not specify the format or venue of Goldsmith's remarks — whether delivered as a press release, speech, media stand-up, or interview.

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

He was explicit that the burden of proof in criminal trials would stay where it is. "Burden of proof" refers to the obligation on the prosecution to prove the case — not the defence to disprove it. In court, the prosecution would still need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that consent was not given and that the defendant did not believe on reasonable grounds that it was.

Goldsmith positioned the consent policy within a wider set of National's crime and justice commitments. He said it built on the party's prior promise to ban good-character discounts at sentencing for sexual offending, and on its work in government to give sexual-violence victims power over permanent name suppression decisions for perpetrators.

The proposal touches on a long-running gap in New Zealand's sexual-violence law. Successive law reform reviews have canvassed moving to an affirmative model — one where the law describes what consent looks like, rather than only listing situations where it is absent. Goldsmith's comments signal National is prepared to legislate in that direction, though no draft legislation or timetable has been specified.

The policy sits in a crowded justice reform landscape. The previous Labour government overhauled the Victims of Family Violence Act and expanded victim notification rights, and the current coalition has already flagged sexual violence offending as a priority area. Goldsmith's framing — tying the consent definition to sentencing discounts and name suppression reform — suggests National is building a package approach rather than advancing consent reform on its own.

For practitioners in the criminal justice system, the key question will be how an affirmative consent definition interacts with the existing statutory framework around the defendant's reasonable belief in consent. Goldsmith's confirmation that the prosecution's burden remains unchanged is notable: it signals the party is not proposing to shift the burden of proof onto the accused. Some affirmative-consent advocates overseas have called for that step, but in New Zealand it would face significant constraints under the Bill of Rights Act 1990, which protects the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.