Amend section 128 of the Crimes Act 1961 to make rape gender-neutral

Open 171 official signatures 📡 RSS feed

Petition request

That the House of Representatives amend section 128 of the Crimes Act 1961 to define rape in sex-, gender-, and anatomy-neutral terms, recognising non-consensual sexual penetration as rape regardless of the persons involved or means used, and explicitly covering compelled sexual penetration.

Why this petition

Section 128(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 restricts the definition of rape to penile penetration, defining other non-consensual sexual violations separately. I believe this excludes many survivors—including men, boys, and non-binary people—from equal recognition under the law. I suggest that defining rape in gender- and anatomy-neutral terms, and including compelled penetration, would ensure the law focuses on the severe nature of non-consensual sexual conduct rather than the anatomy involved.

📖 Background

Click to see details

What is the topic?

This petition asks the New Zealand Parliament to change the law defining rape. Currently, the Crimes Act 1961 defines rape specifically as penile penetration. The petitioners want this definition to be "gender-neutral," meaning the law would define rape as any non-consensual sexual penetration, regardless of the gender of the people involved or the body parts used. This would include acts currently classified under different sections, such as "sexual violation by penetration."

Current situation in New Zealand

Under the current Crimes Act 1961, Section 128 defines rape narrowly. Other serious sexual offences, such as non-consensual penetration by objects or by non-penile body parts, are covered under Section 128A (sexual violation by penetration) and Section 128B (sexual violation by other means). While these offences carry similar maximum penalties to rape, they are legally distinct. This petition exists because some advocates argue that the current terminology creates a hierarchy of offences that does not reflect the trauma experienced by all survivors.

Arguments in favour

Equality and Inclusion: Critics of the current law argue that excluding men, boys, and non-binary people from the specific label of "rape" is stigmatizing and unequal.
Focus on Consent: Proponents argue the law should focus on the lack of consent and the severity of the act, rather than the anatomy of the perpetrator or victim.
Clarity: A single, broad definition may make the law easier to understand for the public and legal professionals.

Arguments against

Legal Precision: Some legal experts argue that distinct definitions help in sentencing and statistical tracking. Merging offences could complicate how courts distinguish between different types of sexual violence.
Existing Protections: Opponents may note that the current law already criminalizes all non-consensual sexual penetration with severe penalties, so the change is largely semantic rather than substantive in terms of criminal liability.
Legislative Process: Changes to the Crimes Act are complex and usually require extensive consultation with the Ministry of Justice and legal experts to ensure no gaps in coverage are created.

Relevant Context

New Zealand has previously reviewed its sexual offences laws. The Crimes (Sexual Offences) Amendment Act 2001 introduced the current structure of separate offences for different types of penetration. According to the Ministry of Justice, the current framework is designed to cover all forms of non-consensual sexual contact. This petition is part of a broader global conversation about updating sexual offence laws to be more inclusive of diverse gender identities and experiences. The outcome of this petition would not change the criminal penalties for the acts involved, but would change the legal label applied to them.

⚡ Cached from a previous visit

Sign on parliament.nz →

Community arguments

👍 For Ethan Taylor 5 Oct 2026

The law says rape is penetration of a woman by a man. That means a man raped by a woman has no legal recourse, and a transgender person's assault isn't recognised at all. The law should describe the harm, not the gender of the people involved.

👎 Against James W. 5 Oct 2026

Changing the legal definition of rape doesn't change the reality — the vast majority of rapes are still men against women. A gender-neutral law sounds inclusive but it dilutes resources and makes it harder to target prevention where it's actually needed.

👍 For Sam L. 5 Oct 2026

We didn't ask whether the law should recognise marital rape — we just did it, because the old definition was based on the idea that a woman's body belonged to her husband. This is the same logic. The law should protect people, not preserve 19th-century ideas about gender.