Source: Free Speech Union
Full Submission: Read Full Submission
Published: April 2026
The Free Speech Union has raised serious concerns over the proposed Policing Amendment Bill, warning it would grant police sweeping new powers to film individuals, detain them, and compel identification at public gatherings.
Scenario Raises Alarm
Turn up to a peaceful protest. An officer films you. A closure notice is issued because a constable judges that “public disorder is imminent.” You are directed to leave. You don’t. An officer demands your name, address, date of birth, and email. You refuse. You face up to three months in prison.
That scenario is not fiction – every element of it is authorised by the Policing Amendment Bill as drafted, says the Free Speech Union, which yesterday lodged a detailed submission with the Justice Committee. (fsu.nz)
“Sweeping Powers” Without Oversight
“This Bill hands police sweeping new powers to record, detain, and compel identification, with no warrant, no independent oversight, and no clear limits,” said Jillaine Heather, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.
“The triggers are vague, the thresholds are subjective, and the penalties are grossly disproportionate to the conduct involved.”
The Bill authorises police to film and audio-record anyone in a public place, and to record what they see and hear on private property whenever they are “lawfully present,” for purposes that include the undefined category of “intelligence” and a catch-all covering “any other lawful purpose tied to Police activities.”
Concerns Over Chilling Effect
“This is about the chilling effect on free expression and democratic participation,” said Heather.
“The Supreme Court warned in Tamiefuna v R that police surveillance of protests can suppress political expression – and that recording and intelligence gathering by police must be tied to a specific, lawful policing purpose, not simply conducted at large.”
“By lowering the bar to a mere ‘intelligence’ purpose, this Bill treats every New Zealander exercising their right to speak as a person of interest. When people know the state is recording them, they stop showing up. That is how a free society goes quiet.”
Power Imbalance Highlighted
Heather further noted that the power to record for the “integrity of policing” creates a dangerous imbalance.
“It creates a circular dynamic where an officer can film a citizen specifically because that citizen is criticising or filming the police.”
“Instead of the public holding the police to account, the police are empowered to use surveillance to discourage public oversight.”
Expanded Authority to Close Public Spaces
The Bill also allows police to close off any public space accessible by vehicle, not just roads. This includes car parks, parks, town squares, areas around marae, schools, churches, Parliament grounds, and protest venues.
Closures can be enacted based on the subjective judgement that disorder is “imminent” or that noise is “excessive.”
Once an area is closed, officers can direct people to leave, detain them using “reasonably necessary” force, and demand names, addresses, dates of birth, and email addresses.
Refusing to provide this information carries penalties of up to three months’ imprisonment or a $2,000 fine.
Protest Rights Under Scrutiny
“Protest is often noisy. Chanting, megaphones, collective voices – these are core features of political expression, not public disorder,” said Heather.
“A law that treats noise as grounds for dispersing a crowd and jailing people who will not identify themselves is not a public safety law. It is a chilling effect dressed up in statutory language.”
Government Justification Challenged
“The government claims this Bill is needed because the current law is ‘uncertain’. The Free Speech Union rejects that framing entirely,” said Heather.
“What the government calls ‘uncertainty’ is actually the existence of clear, constitutional limits that the police find inconvenient.”
“This Bill isn’t a clarification; it’s an end-run around the Bill of Rights to give the state powers they’ve already been told they shouldn’t have. This Bill does not restore the status quo. It changes it.”
Call for Withdrawal
The Free Speech Union is calling on the Justice Committee to withdraw the Bill and start again.
Any replacement legislation, the Union says, must take into account the Joint Inquiry findings, the Supreme Court’s decision in Tamiefuna v R, and the IPCA’s Thematic Review of Police conduct.
These, they argue, establish constitutional limits necessary to protect rights under the Bill of Rights Act 1990.
Broader Legislative Pattern
The submission also highlights that this is the third piece of legislation in quick succession, alongside the Summary Offences and Telecommunications bills, to expand state power over expression.
“We cannot look at this Bill in isolation. It is part of a sustained legislative expansion of state power that erodes our civil liberties piece by piece,” said Heather.
“The right to gather in public and participate in political life without handing your name to the state is not a technicality – it is a core feature of a free society.”
“We are asking Parliament not to let this Bill pass in its current form.”