Why Oppose the Summary Offences (Demonstrations Near Residential Premises) Amendment Bill
Framed as privacy — functionally suppression. The Bill claims to “balance privacy and protest rights”, but in reality it creates a new criminal offence for peaceful protest, using vague terms like “unreasonable disruption” that can be applied arbitrarily. It duplicates existing laws, adds imprisonment where none existed, and lacks public or Māori consultation. What looks like moderation is, in truth, the quiet narrowing of democratic space.
Here’s what the Bill does, why it matters, and how it risks turning discomfort into a criminal act.
Key Principles at Stake
- Freedom of expression: Protest is a form of speech protected under section 14 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act.
- Freedom of assembly: Section 16 protects the right to gather peacefully — even if disruptive or unpopular.
- Proportionality: Laws restricting rights must use the least intrusive means — this Bill fails that test.
- Transparency and accountability: Legislation must be grounded in evidence, not anecdote or emotion.
- Te Tiriti & Equity: Māori and community groups rely on protest as a tool for justice — this Bill limits that voice.
What This Bill Really Does
- Creates a new offence: Criminalises “targeted and disruptive demonstrations” near a residence, punishable by up to three months’ imprisonment or a $2,000 fine.
- Uses vague standards: Offence hinges on “unreasonable disruption” and whether a person “ought to know” it causes disturbance — both subjective and easily misapplied.
- Duplicates existing law: Disorderly, offensive, intimidation, harassment, and trespass offences already cover such conduct.
- Provides no data or consultation: The Regulatory Impact Statement admits “very limited data” and “short timeframes” — with no public input.
- Increases penalty thresholds: Raises the consequence while lowering the legal bar — a reversal of proportionality.
Why This Threatens Democracy and Rights
- Redefines protest as disturbance: Peaceful vigils or pickets could be deemed “unreasonable” depending on who complains.
- Empowers selective policing: Discretion over “unreasonableness” invites bias and inconsistent enforcement.
- Chills dissent: Fear of arrest or fines discourages participation in protests that challenge those in power.
- Ignores alternatives: The Ministry of Justice’s own advice suggested a “warning-first” approach — but this was dismissed.
- Targets visibility: Protests near homes are often symbolic — visibility is their strength; this Bill erases that space.
What Good Law Would Do Instead
- Use existing laws: Apply current powers for harassment, trespass, and intimidation — no need for duplication.
- Adopt a warning-first rule: Require police to issue a clear warning before any arrest, except in violent situations.
- Remove imprisonment: Retain only fines, capped at existing disorderly levels.
- Define “unreasonable disruption” objectively: Limit it to sustained harassment or intimidation, not inconvenience.
- Consult Māori and civil rights groups: Uphold Te Tiriti obligations and include those most affected by protest restrictions.
- Require review: Add a two-year sunset clause and independent evaluation of enforcement impacts.
If You Care About Free Speech, Fairness, and Accountability
This Bill is not about privacy — it is about control. It shifts the boundary between discomfort and criminality, between democracy and convenience.
If you believe protest is the citizen’s voice…
If you believe disagreement is essential to democracy…
If you believe rights must not depend on comfort or silence…
Then now is the time to oppose this Bill.
“When expression is filtered through comfort, democracy forgets its pulse.” — Ukes Baha
Read the full submission:
Formal Opposition to the Summary Offences (Demonstrations Near Residential Premises) Amendment Bill