New Zealand’s relationship laws are facing scrutiny as societal norms evolve, with experts questioning whether current legislation adequately protects couples in modern arrangements. A University of Otago law professor says the existing laws are “out of step” with contemporary relationships and no longer reflect the expectations of 21st-century New Zealanders.
‘Out of step’ with modern society
University of Otago law professor Nicola Peart, who has studied relationship property for over four decades, believes it is “most definitely” time for New Zealand to rethink its laws. She says the Property Relationships Act (PRA) was progressive when enacted in 1976, recognizing non‑financial contributions to a relationship and promoting equal sharing of relationship property.
However, Peart argues the PRA is now outdated. “In 2019, the Law Commission concluded the PRA was not fit for purpose because it no longer meets the expectations and values of 21st‑century New Zealanders,” she said. “In their view, it should be repealed and replaced.”
The nuclear family is no longer the norm
A central issue is the family home, which is typically classified as relationship property even if one partner brought it into the relationship fully paid for. Once a relationship crosses the three‑year threshold, the home is normally shared equally, a practice Peart believes “no longer reflects what people think is appropriate.”
Peart notes that the traditional nuclear family is “long gone,” but New Zealanders generally still accept the idea of sharing what couples create together. “Most couples probably do accept that what they’ve created together, they should share. The problem comes when assets are brought in [to the relationship] and end up being shared equally.”
Diverse families, diverse expectations
Views on relationship property vary significantly across ethnic and cultural communities, a factor the PRA largely ignores. Peart highlights the increasing recognition of Māori perspectives and tikanga in legal proceedings, noting that the PRA does not apply to Māori freehold land.
She also points to differing approaches within Asian communities, which are also not accounted for in the current legislation. “Courts try to factor in cultural perspectives, but that’s extremely difficult because the Act is a code. You can’t easily move outside of it.”
When, exactly, did the relationship begin?
Determining the start date of a de facto relationship can be challenging, unlike marriage which has a clear date. Peart warns that people are often unaware they are legally considered to be in a de facto relationship, and stresses the importance of documenting the agreed-upon start date to avoid future disputes.
Where there’s a will there’s a… well, that depends
Peart also points out differences in protections between married couples and those in de facto relationships regarding wills. A will is automatically revoked upon marriage, but not upon entering a de facto relationship. Additionally, provisions for a former spouse are cancelled in a divorce, but remain in place for de facto partners unless the will is changed.
‘Ignorance is scary’
Peart emphasizes a lack of public understanding regarding the consequences of different relationship types. “There’s a lot of misperception about the rights and consequences of different relationships. I find that ignorance is really quite scary, because people are being caught unawares, and that’s a problem.”
Discover more from Archyworldys
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
