Labour says the government is prioritising making English an official language, rather than progressing consent law reform.
But the justice minister says it is “absolutely inappropriate to say that”, and a law change on the English language would not have been his priority “at all”, but it was part of a coalition agreement.
National is promising to modernise laws on sexual consent, saying there must be consent before sex every time, rather than assuming it has been given.
The party says if it is re-elected, it will ensure that consent is actively given, meaning there must be a “yes” rather than the absence of a “no”.
Labour’s Camilla Belich had a members bill that would define consent as something “communicated through words or actions”, not silence or inaction.
Labour leader Chris Hipkins told Morning Report on Tuesday that National declined to back the bill.
“They could progress the issue right now and a bill could be entered into Parliament right now and progress could be made on it.”
On Tuesday morning Paul Goldsmith blamed a “packed” legislative agenda for not progressing it. He said “we’d struggle to get onto it before the house rises in eight weeks”.
“We’ve got a lot of justice legislation already. We literally have a very packed agenda.”
The second reading of English language bill could come up on Tuesday night.
Asked on Tuesday afternoon if it was fair to say the government was prioritising the English Language bill, that would recognise the official status of the English language in New Zealand in legislation, over consent law reform, Hipkins said: “That’s a very fair conclusion, absolutely.”
Currently, the English Language Bill was due for its second reading after being considered by the Justice committee and reported back in June.
“The government have set their priorities,” said Hipkins.
“They think that debating making English an official language, even though it’s the language that all of us use all day, every day, is more important than consent law reform.”
But Goldsmith rejected that: “It is absolutely not fair to say that.”
He explained the government had focused this political term on reducing the number of victims of sexual violence, listing a range of changes such as sentencing reforms, ditching cultural reports and passing stalking legislation.
“We’ve signalled that if given another term, the next thing we’ll be looking at is consent law.
“It is absolutely inappropriate to say that,” he pushed back.
It was pointed out that the Justice committee’s time was taken up by the English Language Bill, when it could have been considering consent reform.
“It was not something that would have been my priority at all. But was a coalition commitment that we agreed to,” Goldsmith added.
Goldsmith said it was not a question of “order of rank” between the English Language Bill and consent law reform.
He said he was “sick and tired of another stunt” from Labour trying to push its Members Bill.
“The simple reality is they were in government for six years, did nothing about this, we are indicating that we are going to get onto this.”
He dismissed the suggestion it was a cross party bill.
Act leader David Seymour echoed the sentiment of not having enough time, and said his party was cautious about what happens when “sensitive areas of law” such as this were changed.
“It has to be done very carefully to ensure that justice can go ahead,” he said, and wanted to see the detail of any proposed legislation.
Seymour said it did not matter if it was a members’ bill or a government bill. “I don’t think this government has runway to get a bill drafted and put in in the next sort of eight weeks that Parliament’s sitting.
“We’re open to the idea. We just need to see the detail because overseas, it’s not clear that it’s increased conviction rates, but it has led to a lot of legal uncertainty.
“It’s such a sensitive area, and it’s so easy to get it wrong,” Seymour said, adding it was not the “slam dunk” other countries had hoped it would be.
He said his party had not seen the proposed members bill.
The Greens co-leader Marama Davidson said survivors of sexual assault “need us to make this law change now”.
“There is nothing in the way. There is no reason or excuse that we can’t make this change because what is happening is victim-survivors feel like they are on trial in court processes because we do not have a clear definition of consent.
“That needs to change right now.”
She said National “definitely walked away” and that the party would prefer to do its own bill.
Davidson called on National to “put all of that aside” and do this for victim-survivors “right now”.