We shouldn't say don't have sex in New Zealand. Instead, if you're going to have sex in New Zealand, do it now. Do not wait.
The NZ Labor Party has introduced a bill that would radically change the way rape prosecutions are handled, using the time dishonored burden of proof known as Guilty Until Proven Innocent. The innovation's sponsor, Andrew Little, says not to worry because the state (down under the call it the "Crown") still bears a significant burden of proof:
The Crown has to prove more than just sex; the issue of consent has to be raised by the Crown, they have to prove the identity of the offender. They would have to bear that burden of proof before a switch to the defence to prove consent. [NZ Herald]
See, no need to worry. The Crown still bears the burden of proving that sex happens (she says so) and the identity of the offender (she says him). Your ball, Mr. Defendant.
And why shift the burden? Well because rape cases are really hard to prosecute. Do you know how hard it is to prove lack of consent? Just about as hard as it is to prove consent. And since consent is so hard to prove either way, the NZ standard would basically be Guilty If Accused.
Guilty If Accused?! Surely we're exaggerating. After all, plenty of people do get convicted of rape. In fact, in New Zealand 46% of defendants brought to trial for rape are convicted. If the Crown is able to so often prove a lack of consent then surely the defendant will have a fair shake.
Oh, except that the defendant isn't allowed to question the accuser.
The accuser will only be questioned by the judge, a judge working under a Ministry of Justice with an official policy of increasing rape conviction rates.