Are New Zealand’s relationship property laws keeping up with modern life? A closer look suggests they may be falling behind, especially as relationships evolve beyond traditional marriage. Reported by By Emma Hildesley from 1News.
The question arises in everyday life. Sitting in a bar in Auckland, watching drag queens perform at a friend’s pre-wedding celebration, the idea of marriage might seem inevitable to some. But for many couples today, that’s not the path they choose.
Long-term partners may share a home, pets, and future plans—yet have no intention of getting married. For them, the assumption often is that being in a de facto relationship means being “basically married anyway.”
However, while relationships have changed, the law has not kept pace. According to the 2023 Census, 74.2% of couples are still married or in civil unions, but de facto relationships and arrangements like “living apart together” are steadily increasing. Despite this shift, the legal framework has remained largely the same—and in some cases, it leaves de facto couples less protected.
‘Out of Step’ with Modern Society
Nicola Peart, who has spent more than 40 years studying relationship property law, believes reform is overdue.
She explains that the Property (Relationships) Act (PRA), introduced in 1976, was once progressive. It recognised non-financial contributions—such as childcare, housework, and supporting a partner’s career—and ensured equal sharing of relationship property, even if one partner earned more.
But today, the law is struggling to reflect modern realities.
"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," says Peart. "In their view, it should be repealed and replaced."
One major issue is how the family home is treated. Regardless of who originally owned or paid for it, once a relationship crosses the three-year mark, the home is usually split equally.
"That no longer reflects what people think is appropriate,” says Peart. "People get together later in life with assets; many are in second or third relationships. Yet the only way to avoid the home becoming relationship property is to contract out or put it in a trust — and hope the trust isn’t later ‘busted’ by the courts".
Changing Family Structures
Decades ago, couples often entered relationships young, with few assets. Their wealth was built together, making equal sharing seem fair. But that “nuclear family” model has changed significantly.
Peart notes that while people still accept sharing what they build together, problems arise when one partner brings substantial assets into the relationship.
"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."
At the same time, the principle of recognising non-financial contributions remains relevant.
"The notion that your partner who is managing the domestic front is a contributor to the wealth you accumulate — I don’t think that’s an unacceptable principle for modern families."
However, public opinion appears to be shifting. A 2018 Borrin Foundation survey found discomfort with equal sharing when one partner contributes significantly more at the outset.
Cultural Complexity
The law also struggles to reflect cultural diversity. Māori perspectives, for instance, play an increasingly important role in legal decisions, but the PRA does not fully accommodate them.
Peart explains that Māori freehold land is treated differently.
"If a home is on Māori freehold land, the Māori Land Court will never vest ownership in a partner who is not part of the whānau the land belongs to. Land must remain within the bloodline."
This can create complex situations where a partner who contributed financially cannot claim ownership.
New Zealand’s growing Asian communities also bring different cultural expectations, yet the law remains largely uniform.
"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."
Gifts, Loans and Legal Grey Areas
Another common issue arises when families contribute financially to a couple’s home. Without proper documentation, disputes can occur.
"If you split up, under the PRA, the family home is relationship property and you each get an equal share. Unless you've contracted out, they're not entitled to get the family gift back."
Many families rely on informal agreements, assuming relationships will last. But without legal clarity, these arrangements can lead to unexpected outcomes.
When Did the Relationship Begin?
Unlike marriage, which has a clear start date, de facto relationships are harder to define.
"People are often in what could legally be defined as a de facto relationship without knowing they are,” says Peart.
This ambiguity can have major financial consequences, especially when determining what counts as shared property.
Marriage vs De Facto: Key Differences
Legal differences become even more apparent in matters like wills and inheritance.
"A will is automatically revoked when the testator marries. But it’s not revoked if they stay in a de facto relationship."
Similarly, divorce cancels provisions for a former spouse—but no such rule applies to de facto partners.
"If they were de facto, that remedy isn’t available," Peart adds, referring to legal protections tied to trusts that only apply to married or civil union couples.
‘Ignorance is Scary’
Peart highlights a broader issue—lack of awareness.
"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."
As relationship dynamics continue to evolve, the gap between law and reality becomes more evident. Whether couples choose marriage or not, understanding the legal implications of their decisions has never been more important.
ISSUE
Leave a Comment