A comedian with a history of supporting expert-led relationships education is supporting calls from Auckland Women’s Centre and others for the government to stop attacking a key tool for the prevention of bullying and violence credited as life-saving.

Comedian Michèle A’Court has joined with experts in education, health and violence prevention in raising concerns the government wants to replace expert-led, inclusive relationships and sexuality education (RSE) in schools with a curriculum that removes all mentions of te Tiriti o Waitangi and LGBTQI+ identities, as well as almost all overt mentions of Mātauranga Māori.

“Experts tell us these attacks on RSE will likely lead to increase family violence and sexual violence,” said A’Court. “This government is breathtakingly contemptuous of the safety of women and LGBTQI+ people, in a world of increased online and offline hate and misogyny.”

The attacks on RSE come after the government last year halted ACC sexual-violence prevention programme Hikitia! For Our Future, stopped funding women’s self-defence organisation Kia Haumaru and dismantled a key Māori expert group in violence prevention. “And after dismantling pay equity agreements, this government yet again shows disrespect for women, among other targeted groups,” said A’Court.

Auckland Women’s Centre spokesperson Leonie Morris said: “Young people have a right to enjoy safe, supportive social connections free from violence. Culturally-relevant and inclusive RSE is the nation’s key tool for preventing stalking, bullying, and violence.”

One young person who has signed the Auckland Women’s Centre’s current petition to bring back Tiriti-based, inclusive RSE noted RSE had helped enormously in “real world situations”: “a friend recognized abusive behavior purely because we spoke about it in health under the RSE stuff and I feel like it saved her life.”

Sexual violence is widespread and increasing among New Zealand teenagers, with one fifth of girls, just over one fifth of young people attracted to the same sex, and nearly one third of transgender young people being victimised in most recent data available.

“We need to be strengthening and updating RSE to better protect our rangatahi from norms that make violence against women and other targeted groups acceptable,” said Morris. “Instead, the government are disrespecting Te Tiriti o Waitangi and also literally erasing acknowledgement of lesbian, bi, gay, trans and non-binary identities. It’s like 1986 homosexual law reform never happened.

“For ideological reasons of racism, transphobia and homophobia, the government wants to replace RSE with a narrow, regressive, exclusionary, monocultural curriculum which will reduce teaching respect for differences, placing our rangatahi at higher risk of experiencing abusive behaviour.”

A’Court hosted one of the first government-funded sexual education videos in 1990, “Choice Not Chance”, about contraception. “So I’ve been passionate about this subject for a long time,” she says. “School is the right place for rangatahi to get expert information on all the things to do with sex and sexuality.”

The government’s “relationships and sex education” proposal (with “sex” replacing “sexuality” in the title) for Years 1-10 is out for consultation until 24 April.  Auckland Women’s Centre is running a petition on Action Station calling for the government to bring back Tiriti-based, inclusive Relationships and Sexuality Education in Schools.

Others such as medical specialists, and the Mental Health Foundation, Rape Prevention Education and Post Primary Teachers’ Association have previously raised concerns with the government’s plans. Sexual Wellbeing Aotearoa has called the government’s proposal “regressive” and “fractured” and says it will “put young people’s safety at risk.”

Most recently, a consortium of 34 education organisations led by the primary teachers’ association, NZEI Te Riu Roa, have also criticised the government’s entire school curriculum overhaul in a joint statement.

The National-led government’s proposed replacement for Relationships & Sexuality Education (RSE) for Years 0-9 is currently out for consultation (as part of the proposed Health & PE Curriculum) until Fri 24 April 2026 – and quite frankly, it’s terrible.

The government’s proposal for Relationships & “Sex” (not Sexuality) Education is regressive, colonial, heteronormative, cis-normative, and monocultural. Their racist, transphobic and homophobic changes from the approach of the fit-for-purpose 2020 RSE guidelines will put everybody at higher risk of bullying, abuse and violence than they would be with good RSE. The proposal does not support children and rangatahi as much as it could or should, to be understanding of themselves and respectful of each other.

The good news: our young people and most of our communities are far more progressive than the current government is, and we have a chance of putting good RSE on the agenda in the medium term. We are keen for as many people as possible to let the politicians know that unnecessarily reducing RSE’s effectiveness as a tool for violence prevention is unacceptable and, that instead, we need to increase its strength as a tool for respect, health relationship norms, safe online behaviour, and self-esteem for all our young people. As with the government’s pay equity cancellations, halting of ACC sexual violence prevention intiatives and de-funding of women’s self-defence, the government’s dismantling of our key, world-leading violence prevention tool is harmful for women and their communities (ie, everyone).

(This guide will be updated as new details and resources come to hand. Last updated: 16 March 2026)

Key points:

Who is the audience?

• Send your submission directly to the Minister of Education, Erica Stanford and – importantly – cc in opposition spokespeople for education (and others who may be able to respond to the request in future), as well as your local MP (list here). You can also cc in spokespeople for prevention of family violence and sexual violence (FV/SV).
  The base list to copy and paste: erica.stanford@parliament.govt.nz, ginny.andersen@parliament.govt.nz, lawrence.xu-nan@parliament.govt.nz, debbie.ngarewa-packer@parliament.govt.nz, L.Upston@ministers.govt.nz, helen.white@parliament.govt.nz, marama.davidson@parliament.govt.nz
  • Labour Education spokesperson: Ginny Andersen
  • Greens Education spokesperson: Lawrence Xu-Nan
  • Te Pāti Māori Co-leader: Debbie Ngarewa-Packer
  • National party Prevention of FV/SV spokesperson: Louise Upston
  • Labour party Prevention of FV/SV spokesperson: Helen White
  • Greens Co-leader & Prevention of FV/SV spokesperson: Marama Davidson

• Also submit to the Ministry of Education using their online questionnaire by Fri 24 April 2026.

What do we/I say?

• You want the decision-makers to know that you care, and that education regarding relationship norms (including consent), sexual self-identity, and online behaviour affects you and/or your loved ones and/or your community as a whole.
• Say who you are
  • in relation to children and rangatahi: student, parent, teacher, aunty, community member etc.
  • if you feel comfortable and safe to do so, you might also state your ethnic, gender and sexuality identities, however you would express them. It may be useful for the reader to know of the lived experience insights and/or solidarity/ allyship that you bring with you – including if you are not part of any group usually targeted by family violence and sexual violence. (“eg, I am a straight Pākehā cis man and I am appalled that the RSE proposal will deny my sons and other people like me access to the tools to understand and respect diverse identities, while understanding and navigating our own privilege.”)
• Say RSE is important, and why you think so. For example, the Auckland Women’s Centre sees RSE as the country’s key opportunity for widespread violence prevention because it is taught to so many children and rangatahi, and it can create health and respectful relationship norms, and support personal and social wellbeing and confidence. Violence prevention is keenly important given a third of women (for example) have experienced sexual violence in Aotearoa NZ. We need a cultural shift.
• List the features RSE needs to include to meet the aims you see for it: For example, in order to be effective violence prevention, supporting healthy relationship norms, mutual respect and wellbeing online and face-to-face, RSE in Aotearoa NZ needs to:
  • Honour te Tiriti o Waitangi
  • Be inclusive of Mātauranga Māori
  • Be inclusive of all genders and sexualities
  • Be taught consistently across schools (while ensuring parents always have the right to remove their children if they wish)
  • Be evidence-based for violence prevention (eg ensure consent education is best practice, and it includes information on how to engage in healthy romantic relationships and identify those that are unhealthy or abusive)
  • Be updated regularly in a process led by experts, including Māori experts
• Write from the heart – from your experience: What can you tell the reader that they cannot see or hear from anybody else? Many of our submissions will say similar things – useful to reinforce shared messages – but it is the story or the phrase which is real experience that will help drive that message home. Eg have you seen positive behaviour which has been influenced by community norms? Have you seen negative or unsafe behaviour which you would want RSE to address and/or aim to prevent in future? What is your vision of the future – for your whānau, your friends – that RSE would help to support?

Further information

• Auckland Women’s Centre also supports the views of other aligned organisations whose information and expertise differ from ours. For example:
  • Sexual Wellbeing Aotearoa has concerns about huge gaps in the curriculum regarding puberty and the body. 16 March: their new comprehensive “Let’s talk about sex ed” page is now live. (Note the govt want to replace “sexuality education” with “sex education”)
  • Backbone Collective’s submission on an earlier draft of the government’s proposal looked at whether RSE would assist children who have already been the victim of sexual abuse or other family violence.
• Look out for our more detailed submission here in mid-April – but in the meantime, the information (including in the updates at the bottom of the page) in  our RSE petition might also be useful. But it’s best to write in your own words – and from your own insights and experience.

Thank you for your care and effort in joining us on advocating for what’s best for the next generation of women and everyone!  Kia kaha, kia māia, kia manawanui!

“The Coalition for Action on the Safety of Women and Children… believe [Phillips’] actions stem from the inadequacies of a system that was supposed to support the safety of women and children, and we are aware that the Family Court was part of that process.”

You can read the full letter here: Letter to Chief Justice Winkelmann Sept 25

2 July for immediate release

The following can be attributed to Leonie Morris, the Chair for the Coalition for the Safety of Women and Children

As a group of violence-prevention experts and practitioners, the Coalition for the Safety of Women and Children is appalled and shocked that the Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence and Sexual Violence has dis-established Te Pūkotahitanga, a critical Māori voice at the national decision-making table.

Te Pūkotahitanga is the Māori-led collective developed to ensure accountability, shared leadership, and cultural integrity under Te Aorerekura (the National Strategy to Eliminate Family Violene and Sexual Violence). The unilateral action to disestablish this partnership body by Minister Karen Chhour has greatly reduced community and sector confidence in her leadership and in the Crown’s commitment to Te Aorerekura. It is disrespectful to both Māori and non-Māori, and furthers the systematic erosion of Tiriti-based governance, entrenching distrust of the Crown across all communities.

As an umbrella of predominantly tauiwi-led violence-prevention organisations, the Coalition rejects the idea that removing Te Pūkotahitanga will benefit non-Māori. On the contrary, we agree with the outgoing members of Te Pūkotahitanga that it is by honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi and upholding Māori solutions that we ensure safety and equity for all communities across Aotearoa.

We also agree with Te Pūkotahitanga that the unilateral actions of the Crown directly contravene the principles of Te Aorerekura, including shared leadership, tikanga Māori, and Tiriti-based partnership in all governance and decision-making processes. We acknowledge the huge significance of Te Pūkotahitanga’s reclamation of the name “Te Puna Aonui” on the basis the Crown is no longer honouring its responsibilities.

In addition, the removal of Te Pūkotahitanga displays a lack of understanding on Minister Chhour’s part of the importance of the State working in partnership with Māori, if we are collectively to find effective ways to eliminate violence across all communities.

It is important that government agencies uphold their obligations and partner with Māori as tangata whenua, as well as supporting Māori-led initiatives. More Māori empowerment, not less, is required if Aotearoa New Zealand is to eliminate family violence and sexual violence, due to the Crown’s historic and ongoing exacerbation of such violence within Māori communities which creates disproportional victimisation of wāhine Māori. For example, wāhine Māori have genuine reason to fear their children will be uplifted if they attempt to seek safety from the State as victim-survivors of family violence. Such barriers to protection are part of ongoing colonisation, as is the disestablishment of Te Pūkotahitanga.

Tino rangatiratanga is vital to remove State-imposed obstacles to whānau Māori living free from violence.

The Crown’s disestablishment of Te Pūkotahitanga greatly reduces the visibility of generously-offered kaupapa Māori expertise essential to preventing and responding to violence in many communities. The related lack of community and sector confidence in the Crown will make violence reduction more difficult for both Māori and non-Māori communities, and we are greatly concerned about the implications for Aotearoa New Zealand’s future violence-response system.

The Coalition for the Safety of Women and Children stands in solidarity with tangata whenua to call for the Crown to uphold its Tiriti obligations including reinstating Māori-led mechanisms that ensure equity and safety for all.

– Ends –

Notes:

• Te Pūkotahitanga’s own statement can be found on LinkedIn
• The Coalition for the Safety of Women and Children is made up of multiple violence-prevention organisations including:
  • Auckland Women’s Centre
  • Eastern Women’s Refuge
  • Hestia Women’s Refuge
  • Kia Haumaru – Personal Safety Education
  • Mt Albert Psychological Services Ltd
  • National Council of Women, Auckland
  • North Shore Women’s Centre
  • NZ Human Rights Centre
  • Pacific Women’s Watch
  • Rape Prevention Education – Whakatu Mauri
  • Respect
  • Shakti Community Council
  • SHINE Safer Homes in NZ Everyday
  • The Backbone Collective
  • Women’s Centre Rodney
  • Women’s Health Action Trust
  • Women’s Refuge – Tāmaki Makaurau, YWCA, Auckland

Aotearoa New Zealand often touts a strong history of supporting women’s rights, taking great pride in being the first country to grant women the right to vote in 1893. However, we have regressed, and it might come as a revelation to some that universal suffrage, that cornerstone of democracy and representative government, is no longer upheld in our country.

The reintroduction of a complete voting ban for people in prison will only worsen the deprivation of this fundamental human right. In 2017, the Department of Corrections found that a shocking 75% of imprisoned women had experienced family violence (FV) and/or sexual violence (SV) and 66% of the women had experienced physical intimate partner violence (IPV). Stripping away their voting rights effectively silences the most structurally marginalised women in our country.

Wāhine Māori are consistently concerned about ongoing colonisation and its profoundly detrimental impacts on both people and the environment. Criminal justice continues to be a critical area of focus. Māori are subject to over-surveillance, over-policing, over-arresting, over-charging and over-convicting with harsher and lengthier sentences. Māori are disproportionately more likely than non-Māori to be incarcerated for low-level offences. In 2022, Māori men were over six times more likely to be in prison than non-Māori men, while Māori women are almost 11 times more likely to be in prison than non-Māori women. Significant increases in the number of wāhine Māori in prison can be traced to two key pieces of legislation: the Sentencing Act 2002 and the Bail Amendment Act 2013. The Sentencing Act 2002 removed suspended sentences, failing to thoroughly weigh-up the profound impacts this change would have. The inherent tendency of patriarchal systems to neglect the intersection of gender and ethnicity, failed to consider the unique factors that constitute women’s offender profiles. For example, women are less likely to commit violent‌ crimes. Women who are less likely to reoffend, and particularly those with children, would no longer benefit from a suspended sentence. Instead, the Sentencing Act 2002 increased the likelihood of women receiving prison sentences. Wāhine Māori, along with their children, shoulder the most significant burden arising from this legislative change, especially when we acknowledge that the rise in imprisonment was not preceded by an increase in offending. The graph below shows numbers of all prisoners, sentenced or on remand (before trial or before sentencing) from 2009 to 2024 (December numbers).

source: Dept of Corrections

From 2013 onwards there was a steep increase in the number of people remanded in custody following the introduction of the Bail Amendment Act which required defendants to prove their innocence and/or appropriateness to be bailed at large.  The Ministry of Justice projections pointed to an increase of 50 extra people being held on remand as a result of the Bail Amendment Act 2013. Three years after its introduction, by 2016, there were 1,500 additional people imprisoned on remand. suggesting that the focus of the Act extended beyond its original scope. In any case, it is clear that the projections for remand were grossly underestimated. The graph below shows numbers of prisoners in women’s prisons, sentenced or on remand (before trial or before sentencing) from 2009 to 2024 (December numbers).

source: Dept of Corrections

The number of wāhine Māori on remand increased eight-fold between 1998 and 2020. In 2013, at the time of the introduction of the Bail Amendment Act, wāhine Māori made up 59% of people remanded in prison, and by 2020 this was approximately 65%. What we can infer from these statistics is that wāhine Māori were significantly more likely to be held in custodial remand after 2013. Indeed, between 2013 and 2020 the number of wāhine Māori on remand had doubled.

As above, rates of gender violence experienced by women entering ‌prison are extremely high. For far too many women, exposure to abuse begins at a young age and persists as part of an enduring continuum of violence. Women experiencing poverty and lacking access to education and work opportunities are more likely to experience reduced decision-making power, limited economic opportunities, and increased vulnerability to exploitation and violence such as IPV. This creates a significant power imbalance where they have less agency in shaping their own lives and the lives of their families. Economic hardship can also make it harder to leave abusive relationships. Additionally, women who experience IPV also suffer more mental health challenges. Such high numbers of IPV, FV and SV amongst imprisoned women, the majority of whom we know to be Māori, is reprehensible. Prisons, far from ensuring the safety of women, often retraumatise them, heightening the risks to their mental well-being.

Rather than investing in more comprehensive resources and support within the community to address gendered violence, prisons have increasingly emerged as a de facto solution for women whose lives have been derailed. There are many topics of debate when considering voting rights. Stripping away the voting rights of these women effectively silences the most structurally marginalised women in our country, and wāhine Māori are the most disproportionately disadvantaged, given the overrepresentation of wāhine Māori in prison. The detrimental impacts of these discriminatory outcomes are not confined to the women themselves, but also their children, the rest of their whānau and their communities. This is colonisation in practice; it shifts political power further away from tangata whenua, ensuring they have less control over their own lives and futures.

The last time a complete ban on voting rights for people in prison was implemented was in 2010, whereas previously only a partial ban existed for those with a prison sentence exceeding three years. The outcomes of the complete ban were clear a year later. After its introduction, the number of non-Māori removed from the electoral role doubled. As if that wasn’t bad enough, the number of Māori removed from the electoral roll increased ten-fold. Ten times as many Māori were removed from the electoral roll as a result of the blanket ban on voting for people in prison – five times the increase for non-Māori, in proportional terms. If one or both parents are in prison, and a household doesn’t vote, children never see anyone vote, and they are unlikely to vote as adults. A voting ban for people in prison is effectively racist and unconstitutional, punching down on Māori. Re-enrolment rates for formerly incarcerated people are also very low. High rates of incarceration for Māori translates into whole communities not voting. Removing voting rights for people in prison clearly affects all Māori.

Removing voting rights for people in prison does not contribute to crime prevention or increase public safety. It is arbitrary because two people can appear before the court with the same crime, the same offending history and demographics, and one might be sentenced to prison while the other is not. One person loses their right to vote while the other does not for the same crime. Instead, our prisons could actively encourage voter registration and educate people about civics. Upon release, these people could lead their communities towards greater political participation and engagement with the electoral process. A complete voting ban or partial voting ban on people in prison diminishes citizenship, prevents citizens from challenging disenfranchisement, rendering them powerless to resist the removal of their fundamental right to vote. The political voices of women in prisons must not be silenced. To fully acknowledge their inherent dignity, is to recognise their fundamental right to vote on policies that address their profound challenges and the pervasive gendered violence they endure; their voting rights must be protected.

How many of you participated in the Toitū Te Tiriti Hikoi? In this moment of significantly increased Māori voter engagement, participation and enrolments; despite global consensus to protect voting rights under international human rights law; despite clear legal findings that removing voting rights for people in prisons breaches human rights and Te Tiriti; despite very clear legal findings from the High Court that removing voting rights for people in prisons is unconstitutional; it is indefensible, and yet unsurprising, that the current government chooses to pursue an unjustifiable position on prisoner voting. If we don’t win this battle to stop the removal of voting rights for people in prison, then let’s show our political leaders at the ballot next year, by exercising our voting rights in favour of a government that will uphold universal suffrage, voting rights for all, including people in prison. Ngā manaakitanga ki a tatou katoa.

Click here to urge the government to keep prisoner voting rights, via Amnesty International.

April 2025

The government is attempting to impose its extremist transphobic, racist, colonial and misogynistic views on the next generation via wholesale changes to education about relationships & sexuality. You can let them know what they’re doing is unacceptable.

The sensitive and vital curriculum area of relationships and sexuality can have enormous impact on how children & young people see themselves; keep themselves safe; and treat others around them with respect and care.  

In place of the rich, diverse and inclusive guidelines reflecting contemporary Aotearoa NZ which we have had up until now (Y0-8; Y9-13), the proposed changes create a sparse framework which presents the world solely as a monocultural gender binary, with little understanding of power, coercion and control.  

The proposed changes are counter to best practice and will put children and rangatahi of all gender identities at higher risk of harm. 

What you can do 

You don’t need to be an expert. You just need to tell decision-makers what you want(ed) to learn in school, what your friends, children or siblings need, and what your community deserves. 

1. Email the Minister of Education Erica Stanford e.stanford@ministers.govt.nz, and your local MP (firstname.lastname@parliament.govt.nz),  and let them know in your own words (strongly but politely) what you want to see in the relationship & sexuality education framework (some ideas below – for example, most simply reinstating the 2020 RSE guidelines and considering making them mandatory). 
2. Offer feedback on the changes either via the Ministry of Education feedback form or by emailing NationalCurriculum.Refresh@education.govt.nz by Friday 9 May. If you use the form, you can skip most questions if you wish – to focus on question 14 and/or question 15. For the compulsory agree/disagree questions, we suggest checking “strongly disagree”. Ministry of Education encourages use of the survey, saying “The collation of the feedback from this consultation is being managed by an external provider to ensure a robust and considered process.” But they do note “If for some reason, you are unable to access this link, or have concerns with doing so, we are able to pass on your written feedback on your behalf.” 
   
3. Tell your friends and help them to also offer feedback and emails to politicians.  

 Key ways the proposed changes would create harm 

To put in your own words: 

Trans & Non-Binary Erasure  

The draft RSE framework makes no mention at all of gender diversity, trans experiences, or non-binary identities. At its core, this is the erasure of trans and non-binary rangatahi, who, already face higher rates of harm. 

This exclusion is harmful, and we need to say so – clearly and loudly. See InsideOut’s fantastic submission guide for more detail on this and related points. For more on Auckland Women’s Centre’s support for trans rights and position on transphobia see our 2024 op-ed. 

Te Ao Māori has been scrubbed out 

The draft RSE framework strips away Te Ao Māori entirely — no references to tikanga, whakapapa, whanaungatanga, or Māori understandings of identity, relationships, and care. This isn’t just a gap — it’s an active erasure. 

For Māori rangatahi, this means being taught in a framework that doesn’t reflect a Māori worldview, whānau structures, or lived realities. For all students, it means losing the richness of mātauranga Māori and the chance to understand connection and wellbeing through a relational, collective lens. 

This is a breach of the relationship founded on Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It fails government obligations, and fails the next generation. Any and all Māori content, framework and translation should of course be guided by experts in te ao Māori. 

No other cultures in Aotearoa are mentioned by name either – in the spirit of manaaki from tangata whenua to tangata tiriti, we expect Pacific, Asian and other cultures to be mentioned and directly considered as they are in the 2020 guidelines. 

 Consent education that misses the point 

Consent isn’t just about getting a yes. It’s about understanding power, pressure, fear, silence, and safety. It’s about recognising that consent can change — that people might say yes when they’re scared, or freeze when they mean no.  

But the draft framework doesn’t reflect that. There’s only one mention of coercive control. No acknowledgement of how gender, age, or past trauma shape someone’s ability to consent. No tools for recognising red flags in real relationships. 

This kind of surface-level consent education won’t keep young people safe. Rather, it’ll keep them unprepared and unsupported — especially those already most at risk. 

No mention of stalking 

Stalking is about control. It creates fear, isolates people, and makes them feel like they have to say yes just to stay safe. No one learns how to name it, how to ask for help, or how to support someone going through it. Click here for more on our Aotearoa Free From Stalking campaign. 

Where’s the conversation about porn? 

Porn is shaping how young people understand sex, intimacy, and power — but this framework barely goes there. 

There’s no acknowledgment of how porn intersects with coercion, violence, unrealistic expectations, or body shame.  

No critical thinking tools. No unpacking of how mainstream porn often centres male pleasure and objectifies women and queer people. 

Ignoring the existence of porn doesn’t protect young people. Instead, it leaves them to figure it out alone, online, without the language or guidance to unpack what they’re seeing and what it means. Click here for a report on our 2019 forum on porn. 

 Little on gender stereotypes  

The draft framework gives gender stereotypes a quick nod, then keeps it moving. There’s no meaningful unpacking of how these norms shape young people’s lives, identities, or safety – or the unbalanced power dynamics between them. 

No understanding the system itself may be at fault  

Bullying is mentioned, but without an intersectional lens. There’s no real recognition that trans students, disabled students, Māori and Pasifika youth are at far greater risk. Not just from other students, but often more likely from teachers, systems, and curriculum content itself. 

We don’t need vague encouragements to “respect each other.”  We need relationship and sexuality education that names power, challenges injustice, and actively dismantles the harmful norms that keep getting our people hurt. 

* 

This is about rangatahi who are navigating their bodies, identities, and relationships. We’re all too often failed by silence, shame, and erasure. It’s time to speak up. 

Aotearoa deserves RSE that’s honest, inclusive, and actually useful – and we already have it in place. Schools need to be encouraged – and possibly mandated – to use the 2020 guidelines. Let the Minister and the Ministry know by Friday 9 May 2025! 

Kia kaha, kia maia, kia manawanui!

We want a law to help survivors and whānau, and prevent stalking – this submission guide advises on how you can help.

Submissions and Parliament’s informal anonymous survey are now open on the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill until Thursday 13 February.

Click here for more info on the options to have your say.

Your voice matters. The select committee process is a rare moment for politicians and their advisors to hear real-life experiences from whānau and people from all walks of life. You may be/have been stalked by an abusive partner. You may have experienced stalking related to your gender, your ethnicity, your disability, your sexuality, your immigration status and/or your role at work. It can be useful for the Select Committee to hear about relevant lived experience and effects, if you feel comfortable sharing.  Please note: Aotearoa Free From Stalking is not set up to provide individual advocacy or support.  Free 24/7 national helplines are at the bottom of this page.

Overall, the Auckland Women’s Centre and our Aotearoa Free From Stalking campaign support the bill – but some things need changing in the bill to ensure it really does help prevent stalking and supports victim-survivors to be safe and free.

Below are some suggestions for you to consider putting into your own words, and to help jog your own ideas. A HUGE thank you to all the lawyers and violence prevention experts, including the Backbone Collective, who informed this guide. (All potential errors remain our own.)

At a glance:

1. Let the select committee know you do not support the definition of criminal stalking as at least three (provable) acts within 12 months

Instead, stalking needs to be defined as a minimum of two frightening or distressing acts as is international standard, and is currently the case in New Zealand for harassment. Changing the definition of criminal harassment from two acts to three would be a backwards step.

• Victims should not have to wait until they have suffered three provable acts of stalking before the behaviour of the person responsible is officially unacceptable.
• Stalking does not have a timeframe, it can happen sporadically over years – the 12 month time limit should be removed. For example, a stalker imprisoned (for any offence) for longer than 12 months may re-start their stalking after their imprisonment has finished.

Relevant lived experience could include:

• someone who stopped stalking you for a year or more and then started again – how did you feel when the stalking started again?
• someone who carries out stalking acts usually once a year (for example, on an anniversary)
• stalking where it was difficult to prove exactly who was responsible, even if you knew who it was eg anonymous destruction of property (it is harder to prove three acts than two acts of stalking)

2. Let the select committee know the courts must consider rehabilitation pathways for all people convicted of stalking

The Bill does not currently mention rehabilitation pathways. Although the Sentencing Act 2002 already allows the court to consider “programmes” and supervision if the court decides to do so in certain cases, the law should go further and state that for all people convicted of stalking – indeed, perhaps for all people convicted of any offence –  the court must consider whether one or more rehabilitation pathways are appropriate – to increase the safety of all our communities. These could include (but are not necessarily limited to) evidence-based, culturally-safe, identity-appropriate and monitored stopping violence programmes and/or psychological, psychiatric, addiction and/or cultural interventions. The court does not need to use rehabilitation pathways in all cases but the law should state the court must consider such use.

3. Let the select committee know you do not support the definition of criminal stalking requiring the stalker knowing their acts will likely cause fear or distress

Instead, criminal stalking should be when the stalker “knows or ought to know” their acts will likely cause fear or distress, or would be likely to do so if the victim or target ever found out about them. This is to cover:

• • acts by delusional stalkers (such as fans/strangers who think their celebrity target actually welcomes their attention). As with other crimes, the law needs to make it clear that distressing and/and frightening stalking is unacceptable in all circumstances.
  • stalkers pretending not to know their acts are likely causing fear or distress.
  • covert tracking and surveillance that is not meant to be discovered by the victim.

Relevant lived experience could include any times when someone pretended that they did not know their stalking caused fear or distress for you, or for people connected to you – particularly when they were believed. It can also include the distress of any time you found out someone was tracking you covertly, digitally or in person.

4. Let the select committee know you are concerned about allowing “reasonable excuse” as a defense, as it could be used by stalkers to avoid accountability

On the other hand, sometimes attempts to stop someone else’s stalking can themselves be interpreted as stalking. For example, stalking victims may use counter-surveillance as a way of protecting themselves, and so “reasonable excuse” could be a way of defending their vital self-protection. We think the select committee should consider including a high level of evidence necessary to reach the threshold of “reasonable excuse” in the bill, or removing the defense altogether. There are two other defenses in the bill which we think should be kept: “lawful purpose” and “in the public interest”.

Relevant lived experience could include any times when someone pretended that their behaviour was for a purpose other than alarming or distressing you. (eg communicating with children they co-parent with you).

5. Let the select committee know you support convicted stalkers being prohibited from owning a gun for ten years but
   that the Bill should also require people who are charged with stalking (but not yet convicted) to be prohibited from owning a gun

Currently, police can decide whether or not to revoke a gun licence from a person charged with an offence that may involve a prison sentence. Revoking gun licences from people charged with stalking should be a mandatory requirement, rather than a police decision,

in order to better protect victims and the general public. The bill includes removing permission to own a firearm (for ten years) from people who are convicted – but conviction can take years. During those years, victims need to be made safer by making it more difficult for their stalker to have access to firearms.

Relevant lived experience could include any times when you felt less safe because someone who stalked you or used other violence owned a gun.

6. Let the select committee know you support stalking/ harassment being included in the Crimes Act 1961

Putting this offence in the same law as other violent offences will make it easiest for police and other criminal justice professionals to find and understand. The related offence of criminal harassment (Harassment Act 1997) has not been well used, and Aotearoa Free From Stalking understands that this is at least partially due to it not being in the Crimes Act.

7. Let the select committee know you support the proposed list of stalking types

• It is good that the bill’s list of stalking acts covers an appropriately broad range of behaviour, including surveillance, following, unwanted contact, life sabotage, damage or interference with taonga/property and pets
• Is future-proofed so that stalking by potential future technology is covered (“A specified act may be done by or through any means whatsoever.”

8. Let the select committee know you support the definition of stalking acts as those which would cause fear or distress to “reasonable person” rather than to any specific, actual victim

• Use of this phrase will limit the need for victims to prove fear or distress, and therefore protect their privacy.
• However, the bill also needs to include an instruction that the interpretation of reasonable person needs to take “context and circumstances” (or similar) into account, to ensure a “reasonable person” is not assumed to be a previously-unharmed blank slate with no history or background, and with the same social, financial, and/or physical power/resources as their stalker.

Relevant lived experience could include any times when your experience was influenced by your gender, ethnicity, disability income, sexuality, and/or parental status – eg the effects of already-existing PTSD on the experience of being stalked; or the potential social, safety and financial aspects of being ‘outed’ involuntarily as a Takatāpui or Rainbow person

9. Let the select committee know you support that the definition of stalking acts including stalking family members as a way of stalking a primary target, and includes using other people to stalk the primary target (whether or not those other people know they’re being used in this way). Also let them know that the definition should also include stalking friends, chosen family and professional/voluntary supporters (such as lawyers and social service workers) as a way of stalking a primary target.

Acknowledgement of family victims other than the primary target – such as children threatened to cause fear and distress in their mum – is important to increase protection and reduce harm for all affected.

This category should also include friends and associates as well as family members of the primary target – for example, the bill currently does not mention people who are stalked because they are friends, colleagues, employees or supporters of the primary target, or their “chosen family” (which has specific importance inside Takatāpui and Rainbow communities and for people who cannot rely on biological families in ways others might be able to).

Currently, any stalking they experience due to their association with the primary target would be considered separately, rather than being seen as part of the same pattern of behaviour. It should be seen and treated as part of the stalking of the primary target.

Relevant lived experience could include any times you have experienced someone stalking your loved ones or associates, or you have been stalked because of your connection to their primary target.

10. Let the select committee now you support police being able to warn a stalker after one act – but that:
11. 1. It must be clear that a warning is not the only way for someone to know their stalking acts are causing fear and/or distress
    2. The victim must be fully informed about what the warning involves and what it legally represents
    3. If the fully-informed victim strongly advises the police against warning the stalker for reasons of
    4. victim and/or community safety, then the police must not carry out the warning. (See option below)
       Before and after police give the warning, they must let the victim know.

• Warnings have helped prevent escalation in some cases overseas.
• It must be clear that police have the power to arrest a stalker who has not been given a warning if the criteria for illegal stalking have been met. Police must investigate whether stalking criteria are met even if no warning has been given, rather than assuming that without the warning, there is no evidence the stalker knows their behaviour is likely to cause fear or distress
• Police need to take victim views into account to ensure that warnings are highly likely to make victims safer, and not put them further at risk. There are a range of opinions as to whether or not a victim’s preference for the police not to give a warning should always be followed.
• Before police give the warning, they must let the victim know a warning is to be given and when it is likely to be delivered, and then as soon as possible after the warning has been given, the police must let the victim know that the warning has been delivered, to mitigate distress and anxiety.

Mauri ora! Thank you for informing Aotearoa’s new stalking law for the hauora and wellbeing of all our communities.

National Helplines

Please be aware that you may have to wait on hold before someone answers your call.

• Shine Domestic Abuse Helpline24/7 – webchat available 0508 744 633
• Women’s Refuge–  24/7 phone and webchat available 0800 733 843
• HELP sexual abuse helpline 24/7 phone and text available 0800 623 1700 text 8236
• Safe to Talk – 24/7 Sexual harm support – phone 0800 044 334

In addition to the national helplines above, Hohou Te Rongo Kahukura offer resources by and for Takatāpui and Rainbow communities, about family, partner and sexual violence, and free, confidential, mana-enhancing support and recovery services for Takatāpui and Rainbow survivors, partners and whānau. kahukura.co.nz

We are encouraging people to inform the Crimes Legislation (Harassment and Stalking) Amendment Bill, particularly if they feel able and safe to share real-life stories of stalking which are relevant to the parts of the Bill which need to change (click here for our submission content guide).

There is no pressure to do so! You simply have the opportunity to inform the Bill, if you would like to, and if you feel comfortable and safe doing so.

Here we explain several options:

• • Making your own formal named submission (or helping a trusted friend with their submission), online or via hardcopy post by Thurs 13 February
  • Participating in Parliament’s anonymous informal survey by Thurs 13 February
  • Our own Aotearoa Free From Stalking submission questionnaire (thanks to the Backbone Collective) is now closed but your options above are open until this coming Thursday. 

Formal submission in your own words

Individual submissions can be persuasive, particularly if you feel safe and comfortable sharing your own experiences of being stalked. Our submission content guide can help you decide which aspects of your lived experience may be relevant to emphasise when persuading the select committee to change particular sections of the Bill.

Formal submissions include your name, and they are made public*, so be aware anyone may see it, including any person who has stalked you. Any details of experiences you include will be publicly available.

1. If it is safe and comfortable for you to put your name to the submission and for your submission to be public, you can use the select committee portal. The portal asks for your email address also – this isn’t made public, but some parliamentary staff will have access to it. If you feel comfortable in doing so, you can request to make an oral submission to amplify your impact. Oral presentations can happen in person or via video link.
2. Or you could send a hardcopy submission by post for free to the Justice Committee, Parliament Buildings, Wellington 6160. You still need to put a sender’s name on it, and it will still be made public, but there is no need to include an email address.
3. Or if you wish your input to be more anonymous (all its content will still be made public), you could ask a trusted friend to make a submission (you could help them draft it) and in the submission your friend can acknowledge that the submission is influenced by the experiences of someone they know well who needs to remain anonymous (i.e., you).

* The only time evidence is not public is if you request to give “secret” evidence, and all members of the select committee agree. Parliamentary officials tell us “the bar for a committee receiving secret evidence is often quite high.” The Justice Select Committee secretariat ju@parliament.govt.nz may have more information.

Submissions close Thurs 13 February. (You can see a general submission structure below this list of options to have your say.)

Parliament’s anonymous informal survey

Unusually, Parliament is running an anonymous survey to inform the select committee. Parliament says: “Taking part in this survey does not count as making a formal written submission. This information will be collated and provided to the committee as a report.” It is unclear whether your computer’s IP address will be automatically retrieved but parliament’s privacy policy states “no effort is made to identify individual users.” Note that the public survey report may include details and quotes given in the survey – Parliament advises: “Please ensure you do not share personal details that would identify yourself or others in your responses.”  The survey is being run in Microsoft Forms and you can access it here.

Parliament’s survey closes Thurs 13 February.

Formal submission template example

1. Address it to: The Justice Committee

2. Overall position statement, eg:

Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission on the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill.

I support the Bill’s intent [OR I support the Bill overall], however I strongly recommend critical changes to address gaps in in the Bill regarding victim and community protection.

3. Who you are, eg:

I am writing this submission as a victim-survivor of stalking

4. Recommendations and explanations

If your submission is long, consider putting a list of your recommendations up front.

For all submissions, whether long or short, include topic-by-topic sections. For each topic, state:

• what you support or don’t support about the current content of the bill
• why you support or don’t support it
• what you think should be there instead (recommendations)
• why this is your preferred change.

See our submission guide for ideas.

Mauri ora! Thank you for having your say on Aotearoa’s proposed stalking law for the hauora and wellbeing of all our communities.

National Helplines

Please be aware that you may have to wait on hold before someone answers your call.

• Shine Domestic Abuse Helpline 24/7 – webchat available 0508 744 633
• Women’s Refuge  24/7 – phone and webchat available 0800 733 843
• HELP sexual abuse helpline 24/7 – phone and text available 0800 623 1700 text 8236
• Safe to Talk – 24/7 Sexual harm support – phone 0800 044 334

In addition to the national helplines above, Hohou Te Rongo Kahukura offer resources by and for Takatāpui and Rainbow communities, about family, partner and sexual violence, and free, confidential, mana-enhancing support and recovery services for Takatāpui and Rainbow survivors, partners and whānau. kahukura.co.nz

Leoni Morris, Ginny Andersen and Marama Davidson at the presentation of the Anti-Stalking petition to parliament.

The aim of the “Aotearoa Free From Stalking” campaign by the Coalition for the Safety of Women and Children is an Aotearoa where women, their whānau and all of us can happily and confidently go about our lives, caring for each other, free from the distress of stalking.

So we’re pleased a bill addressing stalking will be introduced – we look forward to finding out more detail and making this bill a tool to help bring about healthier relationships. The majority of stalking happens in intimate relationships and often continues or starts when a relationship breaks-up.

This bill is a message that stalking is unacceptable, that it’s not ok to digitally track your ex or go to your partner’s work if she doesn’t want you there or hang around outside her university lectures if she’s asked you not to.

The government has indicated the bill’s definition of stalking is three specified acts occurring within a 12-month period. “Three events is too many – once the stalker undertakes a second stalking act the victim is going to be frightened or distressed. Our current Harassment Act is triggered after the second incidence and this is widely accepted,” said campaign spokesperson Leonie Morris.

“The 12-month period is also concerning – some stalking can be severe but happen every 18 months, for example.”

The new act needs to focus on the behaviours of the stalker and on the likely impact on a ‘reasonable person’ rather than expecting the victim to detail all the harm they have experienced for conviction.

“We will be encouraging the public, especial victim/survivors of stalking to make submissions on the bill to ensure that it works well for victims, Morris says.

-ends-

Contact details: Leonie Morris akcentre@womenz.org.nz

Related media article: The New Stalking Law explained (The Spinoff)