{"id":74202,"date":"2025-10-06T11:35:59","date_gmt":"2025-10-05T22:35:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.greenpeace.org\/aotearoa\/?p=74202"},"modified":"2025-10-06T14:48:28","modified_gmt":"2025-10-06T01:48:28","slug":"greenpeace-submission-on-the-electoral-amendment-bill","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.greenpeace.org\/aotearoa\/publication\/greenpeace-submission-on-the-electoral-amendment-bill\/","title":{"rendered":"Greenpeace submission on the Summary Offences Amendment Bill"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

<\/p>\n\n

\n
Download Full Submission (PDF)<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\"\"\/<\/figure>\n\n

Introduction<\/h2>\n\n

We thank the Select Committee for the opportunity to submit on the Summary Offences (Demonstrations Near Residential Premises) Amendment Bill (the Bill). <\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Public protest is a vital part of a healthy democracy and a core way that citizens can directly express their views to decision-makers. Throughout New Zealand\u2019s history, protest has driven the social and political changes we all benefit from today – from the campaign for women\u2019s suffrage, to the fight for labour rights, to our proud nuclear-free stance. <\/p>\n\n

This Bill proposes to create a new criminal offence for protest. It seeks to penalise citizens for \u201cengaging in targeted and disruptive demonstration near residential premises\u201d.<\/p>\n\n

Greenpeace Aotearoa opposes this Bill. <\/strong>A vibrant and healthy democracy relies on citizens having freedom to challenge and disagree with elected representatives, even when it makes those in power uncomfortable<\/strong>. <\/p>\n\n

The effectiveness of protest relies on the ability of citizens to choose the time and place of their demonstration, ensuring their message is seen and heard by those with the power to act. The Supreme Court underscored this principle in Morse v Police<\/em>, affirming that it is legitimate for protestors to make choices of time, place and circumstance in order to be effective. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n

As drafted, the Bill\u2019s scope is dangerously broad. It would restrict protest outside private homes but also outside embassies, which are often the official residences of ambassadors, and in central civic areas if decision-makers residences are nearby.<\/p>\n\n

Protest in these places has long been part of New Zealand\u2019s democratic culture. Citizens should not be criminalised for peacefully demonstrating outside embassies, in public spaces, or at the homes of those in power. Therefore, this bill must be rejected.<\/p>\n\n

New Zealand already has a comprehensive legal framework to address genuinely harmful or unlawful conduct in protest. The Summary Offences Act contains multiple provisions on disorderly behaviour and assembly, offensive language, intimidation, obstructing a public way, and resisting police. These laws already balance the right to protest with the rights of others to safety, privacy, and public order.<\/p>\n\n

The poor drafting of this Bill invites overreach and suppression of lawful protest, which would create a chilling effect on public participation in our democracy. It would allow Police to assert that peaceful protestors are being criminally disruptive and to shut down demonstrations, whether or not that assessment is justified. The Bill also contains no requirement for Police to issue a warning before making an arrest, granting an unacceptable degree of discretionary power and creating a serious risk that peaceful protestors will be detained or prosecuted for lawfully exercising their democratic rights.<\/p>\n\n

All governments, of all stripes, should strive to build a stronger, fairer democracy in Aotearoa – one where all people have a say on the decisions that affect them. This Bill does the opposite: it undermines our democracy and it is in conflict with the rights of New Zealanders to freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of association, and freedom of movement which are affirmed in the Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA<\/strong>). A participatory democracy must uphold these rights. <\/p>\n\n

New Zealanders should be encouraged to including the right to criticise and scrutinise decisions of elected officials through protest. <\/p>\n\n

This Bill is an undemocratic attempt to shield decision-makers from the discomfort of public dissent. <\/strong>If enacted it would criminalise lawful protest, chill participation in civic life, and undermine the freedoms that allow New Zealanders to hold those in power to account.<\/p>\n\n

For these reasons, Greenpeace Aotearoa urges the Committee to reject the Bill. The following submission outlines our arguments in more detail.<\/p>\n\n

\n\n

Threat to Fundamental Democratic Rights<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n
    \n
  1. The Summary Offences (Demonstrations Near Residential Premises) Amendment Bill (the Bill<\/strong>) proposes to amend the Summary Offences Act 1981 to create a new offence of \u201cengaging in targeted and disruptive demonstration near residential premises\u201d.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. The Bill is introduced under the guise of strengthening the right to privacy. However, at its core, the Bill represents a direct threat to several rights affirmed by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA<\/strong>) associated with political protest, including freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of association, and freedom of movement.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Public protest is a crucial aspect of New Zealand\u2019s participatory democracy. Protest provides means of political participation for citizens, for them to have their voices heard by the government of the day and the wider community. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. In 2007, the Supreme Court considered the issue of protest outside a private residence. Brooker v Police <\/em>concerned an appellant convicted of disorderly behaviour, having protested loudly on the street outside a police officer\u2019s residence. In quashing the conviction, the Supreme Court held that the protesters right to freedom of expression outweighed the police officer\u2019s privacy interest in the circumstances. The majority emphasised the fact that the appellant was engaging in a protest, an important manifestation in need of protection, and that \u201ca tendency of behaviour to annoy others, even seriously, is insufficient to constitute a disruption to public order which may make restrictions upon freedom of expression necessary\u201d.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. While the Bill is introduced under the guise of ensuring the law \u201cappropriately balances a person\u2019s right to privacy\u201d with \u201cthe rights and freedoms affirmed by [NZBORA]\u201d, it undermines the ability to protest in an effective way. The choice of location is often a crucial aspect to a protest or demonstration. An assembly which wants to convey a particular opinion or statement to the government is most effective at a time and place when and where the government is forced to take notice. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
  6. Freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly includes the freedom to choose the place at which opinion is expressed to ensure it has the greatest impact. The fundamental importance of \u201cthe right to protest in an effective way\u201d underscored the Supreme Court\u2019s finding in Morse v Police<\/em> that it is \u201clegitimate for those wishing to protest to make choices based on time, place and circumstance as to the most effective manner of doing so\u201d.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  7. As McGrath J emphasised in Brooker v Police<\/em>, \u201crespect for protest as a means of pressing for change in official policy or conduct is very much part of New Zealand\u2019s culture and societal values\u201d. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
  8. To prohibit all protest in residential areas would place undue emphasis upon place in the time, place and circumstances evaluation and would not be justifiable in light of the objective of strengthening privacy interests and maintaining the public order.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n