Ban on protests outside homes ‘unduly chilling on free speech’, Opposition says

2026-02-25 - 16:08

Noisy protests outside the Prime Minister’s official residence could lead to criminal charges, after MPs opted against carving out such high-profile properties from a ban on demonstrations outside private homes. A new safeguard has been added to preserve protests when connected to major events like a state visit – but opposition MPs have called for the law to be scrapped altogether, arguing it is poorly designed and could have a chilling effect on free speech. In August last year, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith announced the Government would introduce a new offence for engaging in disruptive demonstrations outside private homes, citing increased reports of demonstrations targeting the houses of MPs, judges, and other public officials. The new law, which would be “tightly targeted” to consider factors like the time of day, noise levels, and the actions of demonstrators, would have a maximum penalty of three months in jail or a fine of up to $2000. In its report on the bill released this week, Parliament’s justice committee said the law had stemmed from recent protests targeting individuals in their homes, and the need to provide greater clarity around the right to protest in a way that did not compromise someone’s reasonable expectation of privacy. “We consider that an unreasonably disruptive demonstration near a person’s home could cause those targeted and their families and neighbours to feel unsafe.” The committee had discussed whether to exclude certain properties from the law, such as Premier House (the Prime Minister’s official residence), Government House (the Governor-General’s official residence), and other official residences. Any demonstrations outside such places would only qualify as an offence if they were targeted at a regular occupant and caused “an unreasonable disruption to the use or enjoyment of residential premises”. However, MPs believed an additional safeguard should be added to protect legitimate demonstrations outside such places when connected to official duties there, by adding “the nature of the use being made of those premises during the disruption” to the list of circumstances to be considered. “Premises should be expected to accept higher levels of disruption when they are used for official purposes – for example, when Premier House is used for a state visit.” The committee also considered adding a clause requiring police to speak to residents to get the views of the regular occupant affected by a demonstration, but was told it would be unusual to include such operational requirements as part of an offence. “We are pleased to learn that the police intend to implement training on intervening in demonstrations outside residential premises, if the bill becomes law. We urge the police to be consistent in their response to protests across the country.” The committee’s report noted the risk that the new offence could apply to someone who was behaving appropriately but was part of a group that was not – although only “if they engaged in a demonstration that they knew or ought to have known was unreasonably disruptive”. “Ultimately, how protests are responded to by police is a matter for the discretion of the attending officer at the time of a demonstration. We note that this gives rise to potential inconsistencies of approach.” The MPs urged the justice committee in the next Parliament to review how the bill had been applied in practice if passed into law, and to talk to police about their consistency in responding to unreasonable protests. ‘Curtailments of important human rights should be limited in extent and expressed clearly. Neither is the case here.’ Labour Party Labour and the Greens both issued differing views setting out their opposition to the law, with the former arguing it would have “an unduly chilling effect on free speech rights”. “The right to protest is an important protection in our democracy. While we understand the need to balance the right to personal privacy with the right to protest, we do not consider this bill is necessary.” Labour said the bill was poorly designed, and could result in someone being held criminally liable for being part of a disruptive protest even if they were not themselves being disruptive. “Language such as ‘unreasonably disruptive’ is unclear and therefore leaves far too much discretion in the hands of police. “Curtailments of important human rights should be limited in extent and expressed clearly. Neither is the case here.” The Greens said the bill was unnecessary and redundant given existing offences related to disorderly behaviour and disorderly assembly, and any gaps in current law could have been tackled through amendments rather than creating new offences. “It seems that the time spent introducing this bill could have been better spent on ensuring that the police have the resources required to update and enforce existing legislation.” The law also risked capturing legitimate protests that should not be criminalised, and “follows the troubling footsteps of limitations to legitimate protests as seen in the United Kingdom and the United States, which have no part in Aotearoa New Zealand”, the Greens said.