Opinion: National Wants Women to Forget

The National Party appears to have developed a new campaign strategy just in time for the election. It is called amnesia.

National is suddenly presenting themselves as the party prepared to fix the justice system for survivors of sexual violence. The rebrand only works, however, if we forget what the National-led Government has already done with the power they have.

In May 2025, the Government rewrote the pay-equity system and forced the legislation through every stage under urgency. The changes discontinued all 33 active pay-equity claims and imposed tougher requirements on any future claims.

Now, with another election approaching, National has seemingly discovered women’s rights.

On 19 July, National announced that a re-elected National Government would introduce an affirmative definition of sexual consent. Under the proposal, consent would have to be actively communicated through words or actions. Silence would not amount to consent, and consent during a previous relationship or sexual encounter would not imply consent on another occasion.

This is a necessary reform. A positive definition would bring the criminal law closer to what people are already taught about consent: sex requires an active and voluntary agreement, not merely the absence of physical resistance or a clearly expressed “no.”

But, National is not changing the law. They are promising that they will change the law—later, after the election, provided voters give them another term.

But National has already had nearly three years to act.

In August 2023, Parliament’s Justice Committee reported on Layba Zubair’s petition calling for affirmative-consent laws. The petition gathered more than 12,000 signatures and was supported by organisations including Wellington Rape Crisis.

The report identified the exact problem National is now campaigning on: the Crimes Act explains circumstances in which consent cannot be given, but never clearly defines what consent actually is.

The issue is therefore neither new nor hidden. Its basic justification had already been placed before Parliament before National entered government.

Yet National waited until July 2026, months before an election, to promise action—and even then, only if they are re-elected.

Compare that hesitation with the Government’s treatment of the Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill. The policy was announced in February and introduced to Parliament in May. It would allow Police to order people aged 14 or older to leave an area for up to 24 hours for conduct including begging, rough sleeping or displaying an intention to inhabit a public place. Refusing to comply could result in prosecution.

Housing and social-development officials warned that the proposal could effectively criminalise homelessness. They said it could burden people with unmanageable fines, move them away from support services, and make it even harder for them to secure housing.

Officials specifically recommended removing begging and rough sleeping (behaviour people may rely on to survive) from the legislation.

The Government proceeded anyway.

Although the Bill was not passed under urgency, the Government imposed an accelerated three-and-a-half-month select-committee process. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said the shorter timeframe was chosen because the Government wanted the legislation operating quickly.

That contrast makes National’s priorities difficult to ignore.

When the Government wanted to dismantle existing pay-equity claims, they passed legislation under urgency in a single day. When they wanted Police to move homeless people out of public spaces, they accelerated the legislative process despite warnings from their own officials. But when asked to define affirmative consent—a reform placed before Parliament three years ago—National apparently needed another term to think about it.

National’s proposed changes are welcome. But women should not be expected to treat a good campaign announcement as proof of a good record.

A promise to strengthen consent law does not erase the cancellation of 33 pay-equity claims. Nor does it explain why the Government could move quickly to police rough sleeping, but not to clarify the law governing sexual consent.

National does not want women to judge them by what they did when they had power. They want us to forget—and vote for what they say they might do next.