Formal Opposition to
Summary Offences (Demonstrations Near Residential Premises) Amendment Bill

(Government Bill 238–1, Minister of Justice Paul Goldsmith)

From: Ukes Baha | 06 October 2025

Submitted in response to the call for the Summary Offences (Demonstrations Near Residential Premises) Amendment Bill

Summary of Position

I ask the Committee to reject the Bill.

I oppose the Bill in its current form. Although presented as a modest balance between privacy and protest rights, this Bill in fact creates a new criminal offence that unjustifiably limits freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. It is built on a weak evidence base, no public consultation, and a predetermined political instruction rather than sound policy analysis. It duplicates existing law, relies on vague tests (“unreasonable disruption”, “ought to know”), and risks criminalising legitimate dissent.

Core stance

Recommendation: Reject the Bill. If Parliament proceeds, insert strict safeguards, warnings, proportionality limits, and a statutory review clause.

Constitutional & Democratic Framework

Clause-by-Clause Concerns (targeted examples)

1) New section 13A — Offence test

Problem: Offence hinges on “knows or ought to know” and “unreasonable disruption”. Both are subjective and highly contestable in real time.

Position: Replace with an objective standard requiring proof of intent to cause serious harassment or intimidation, not mere disturbance.

2) s13A(2)(b) — “Directed at a person… who regularly occupies”

Problem: Over-broad; could capture vigils or symbolic protest at mixed‑use or diplomatic residences, and chill lawful routes for marches.

Position: Limit to clearly private dwellings unrelated to the public function being protested, and exclude passing marches.

3) s13A(3) — “Unreasonable disruption” factors

Problem: Time/noise/duration/distance still leave wide discretion and invite inconsistent, selective enforcement.

Position: Make a police warning mandatory; the offence should arise only after a recorded warning specifying the behaviour to cease (except where violence or threats are present).

4) Penalty — 3 months’ imprisonment / $2,000 fine

Problem: Disproportionate escalation: lower conduct threshold with higher penalty. The RIS cites research that higher penalties do not deter.

Position: Remove imprisonment and cap any fine at the disorderly level ($1,000) to preserve proportionality.

5) Overlap with existing statutes

Problem: Behaviour described is already captured by disorderly/offensive behaviour, intimidation, harassment, trespass, and noise powers.

Position: Issue national enforcement guidance under existing law instead of creating a new offence.

Rights & Equity Implications

Evidence & Accountability

Recommendations

Reject the Bill.

To preserve democratic integrity if the Bill proceeds, I recommend:

  1. Insert a mandatory warning‑first requirement before any offence can arise (recorded warning specifying behaviour to cease).
  2. Define “unreasonable disruption” narrowly and objectively; require proof of intent to intimidate or cause fear.
  3. Remove imprisonment; cap fines at $1,000 (disorderly benchmark).
  4. Exclude embassies, parliamentary residences, and mixed‑use premises where protest serves public interest; protect passing marches.
  5. Require an annual public report by the Minister of Justice on warnings, arrests, and outcomes.
  6. Add a two‑year sunset and independent review clause.
  7. Mandate consultation with Māori and civil‑rights organisations before any renewal or amendment.
  8. Publish national policing guidelines that protect peaceful protest and clarify thresholds.

References

Respectfully submitted,
Ukes Baha
Public Health Advocate | Counsellor | Policy Analyst
ukesbaha.com