{"id":74574,"date":"2025-11-07T09:08:28","date_gmt":"2025-11-06T20:08:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.greenpeace.org\/aotearoa\/?p=74574"},"modified":"2025-11-07T09:08:37","modified_gmt":"2025-11-06T20:08:37","slug":"oral-submission-greenpeace-aotearoa-on-the-summary-offences-demonstrations-near-residential-premises-amendment-bill","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.greenpeace.org\/aotearoa\/publication\/oral-submission-greenpeace-aotearoa-on-the-summary-offences-demonstrations-near-residential-premises-amendment-bill\/","title":{"rendered":"Oral Submission: Greenpeace Aotearoa on the Summary Offences (Demonstrations Near Residential Premises) Amendment Bill"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
Download full submission (PDF)<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n

T\u0113n\u0101 koutou katoa,<\/strong>
<\/strong>
<\/strong>My name is Niamh O\u2019Flynn, and I\u2019m speaking on behalf of Greenpeace Aotearoa<\/strong>. I\u2019m sure some of what I have to say, you\u2019ve heard from others today, but I represent the tens of thousands of Greenpeace supporters across Aotearoa.

We appreciate the opportunity  to appear before you to discuss this Bill that in our view represents a serious threat to the democratic freedoms New Zealanders hold dear.<\/p>\n\n

\n\n

1. Core Position<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n

Greenpeace opposes this Bill in its entirety.
<\/strong>At its heart, this Bill seeks to criminalise protest<\/strong>, a vital democratic right that has shaped Aotearoa\u2019s history and identity.<\/p>\n\n

How we treat protest matters. Public protest is not a nuisance to be managed; it is a cornerstone of democracy. From women\u2019s suffrage to our nuclear-free stance, progress in this country has depended on the ability of citizens to stand up, speak out, and sometimes make those in power uncomfortable.<\/p>\n\n

Protest as a Last Democratic Resort<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n

For many New Zealanders, protest is not the first step, it\u2019s the last resort.<\/strong>
<\/strong>People write submissions, they contact their MPs, they vote, they sign petitions. But when those formal channels fail to deliver meaningful change, peaceful protest is  the only remaining way to make their voices heard.<\/p>\n\n

To restrict protest is therefore to silence those who have already exhausted every other democratic avenue. It sends the message that speaking truth to power is permitted only when it is convenient, and that undermines the very essence of a participatory democracy.<\/p>\n\n

\n\n

This Bill risks silencing the public voice. It would punish people for what it terms \u201ctargeted and disruptive demonstrations\u201d near residential premises. These terms are so vague and broad that almost any peaceful protest could fall within them.<\/p>\n\n

\n\n

2. The Democratic Importance of Protest<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n

Protest is important for democracy.

The effectiveness of protest depends on being seen and heard by decision-makers<\/strong>, sometimes at their offices, sometimes outside Parliament, and occasionally near their homes, or the residences of diplomatic representatives.

EXAMPLE
The Supreme Court in Morse v Police<\/strong> made this clear: it is legitimate for protestors to choose the time, place, and manner of their protest to ensure their message is effective.<\/p>\n\n

This Bill would strip citizens of that right. It tells New Zealanders: You can protest, but only when and where it doesn\u2019t bother anyone in power.<\/em> That\u2019s not democracy, that\u2019s convenience for the powerful.<\/p>\n\n

\n\n

3. Existing Laws Already Cover Harmful Conduct<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n

If the purpose of this Bill is to manage protests that get out of hand, then it is unnecessary.

We already have extensive laws<\/strong> to deal with protest that crosses the line into intimidation, harassment, or public disorder.
The Summary Offences Act<\/strong> already prohibits disorderly behaviour, offensive language, obstruction, and intimidation. The Trespass Act<\/strong> protects private property. The Harassment Act<\/strong> protects individuals from sustained or targeted abuse.<\/p>\n\n

There is no gap in the law<\/strong> that this Bill needs to fill. What this Bill would do instead is create a new offence where none is needed<\/strong>, and give police sweeping discretion to decide what protest counts as \u201cdisruptive\u201d.<\/p>\n\n

\n\n

4. Dangerous Vagueness and Overreach<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n

The Bill\u2019s drafting is so vague and broad<\/strong> that it invites overreach.
It doesn\u2019t define what \u201cnear\u201d means. Could a protest on a main street be deemed \u201cnear\u201d a residence above a shop?
It doesn\u2019t require proof that a protest was actually<\/em> disruptive, only that a person ought to have known<\/em> it might be.
<\/p>\n\n

That kind of uncertainty creates a chilling effect<\/strong>. People will avoid protesting, for fear of arrest. And that\u2019s the point at which a democracy starts to erode.<\/p>\n\n

As drafted, even peaceful protests outside embassies could be criminalised, simply because many ambassadors live in the buildings where they work, and in central civic areas if an official happens to live nearby. Protest in these spaces has long been part of New Zealand\u2019s democratic tradition, including during protest over the Dawn Raids and the protests <\/a>over the Vietnam War.

The Bill\u2019s breadth goes far beyond its stated goal of protecting privacy.<\/p>\n\n

\n\n

5. Conflict with the Bill of Rights and International Law<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n

The Bill is also inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act<\/strong> and our international obligations under the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights).<\/p>\n\n

It undermines the rights to:<\/p>\n\n